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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice in support of moving Bill C-3 to the next stage of review.

I wanted to start by recognizing the work of my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in conducting the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-3 in an expeditious and efficient manner so this important bill can continue to move forward. The version we have before the House today reflects a number of amendments that were adopted by the justice committee, and I will speak to those amendments in due course.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the important work that was done on a previous iteration of this bill during the 42nd Parliament by Ms. Rona Ambrose, the then interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. She presented this bill as a private member's bill, which gathered support of all members of Parliament and proceeded expeditiously through the House of Commons at that time.

It is unfortunate that it was not able to be passed in the 42nd Parliament and, as a result, has ended up before this current Parliament. In light of our belief in and support of this bill, we committed to tabling this legislation as government legislation, which is what we have done. We have seen it through now to this third reading debate.

The end goal of Bill C-3 is to bolster public confidence, particularly among survivors of sexual assault, that our criminal justice system will treat all individuals fairly. This fundamental objective was unanimously agreed to at second reading by the members, with a number of them speaking about painful personal experiences or their work with survivors of sexual assault.

These important statements bear witness to the fact that the sexual assault of women remains a scourge that is an affront to our society's reputation. It is a thorny and pervasive problem that every member of society must take seriously and that requires us to commit to making changes.

The bill, importantly, is not a panacea to this complex problem. However, Bill C-3 represents a small but important step toward transforming our justice system into one in which survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect at all stages of the justice system process.

I strongly believe that as parliamentarians it behooves us to take whatever steps we can to move toward a fairer, more just and more accessible criminal justice system. If passed, the bill will enhance public confidence. It will demonstrate to survivors of sexual assault and to all Canadians Parliament's commitment to ensure they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect, and that the proceeding will be decided in accordance with the legal framework provided by Parliament, not influenced by misguided or outdated myths or stereotypes.

To this end, Bill C-3 proposes three key measures relating to judicial education and one relating to the Criminal Code of Canada. Let me outline these provisions.

First, the Judges Act would be amended to require that to be eligible to be appointed to a provincial superior court, candidates must commit to participate, following their appointment, in education on matters relating to sexual assault law and social context. It is important, and I want to open a parenthesis here, that we are dealing as a federal Parliament with judges that are within federal jurisdiction. The bill does not purport to direct, indicate or outline aspects of judges who are nominated by provincial attorneys general and provincial governments in provincial courts.

This remains an important point. The notion of sexual assault law and awareness of social context is important for all judges. However, we are committed to leading by example on this important legislation and also continuing to work at federal, provincial and territorial tables to ensure the concept of the importance of this kind of sensitization is imparted upon judges at all levels within Canada and by all provinces.

The second point is that Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to provide that sexual assault and social context training established by the Canadian Judicial Council be developed after consultation with survivors, the groups that support them or with other groups and individuals who the council considers appropriate.

The third key element in Bill C-3, touching on judicial education, is the provision that would seek to have the Canadian Judicial Council provide an annual report to the Minister of Justice, for tabling in Parliament, containing details relating to the judicial education offered. This is intended to enhance accountability in the education of sitting judges on these matters and act as an incentive to encourage their participation.

The final element in Bill C-3 is an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada that would require judges to provide reasons in writing or on the record of proceedings for their decision in sexual assault matters. This provision would help to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law. It would also help to improve the transparency of sexual assault decisions, because recorded and written decisions can be reviewed. We heard about this extensively during the course of the two iterations of the bill and in the various committee studies. Not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done, and a record of the proceedings and reasons provided help ensure this critical objective is obtained.

Taken together, these amendments would increase the confidence of the public and survivors in our criminal justice system's ability to handle sexual assault matters in a fair and respectful manner, by treating the victims with dignity and, above all, by respecting the law that has been carefully designed to that end.

Just as importantly, the bill will send Canadians, especially survivors of sexual assault, the message that Parliament is committed and ready to take action so that all Canadians, especially the most vulnerable, can have confidence in our justice system.

With this outline in mind, I would like to now turn to the amendments adopted at committee, which I am very happy to say our government is pleased to support.

The first key amendment made by the committee was to include the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination” within the idea of social context. Colleagues will recall that in 2017, in its consideration of Bill C-337, the private member's bill by Ms. Rona Ambrose which I mentioned at the outset, our government proposed an amendment in the House of Commons to include social context education within the scope of that bill in the 42nd Parliament. That amendment ended up being passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

Adding social context to the judicial education provisions of the old Bill C-337 was considered essential to ensuring that important institutions like the judiciary be able to respond to the realities, needs and concerns of all Canadians. This was intended as explicit recognition that knowledge of substantive law was insufficient on its own. Individuals aspiring to appointment to Canada's superior courts must also be willing to undergo continued education following their appointment to ensure they are sensitive to and informed about the evolving nature of Canadian society, particularly marginalized and vulnerable groups. The language that was chosen was very deliberately drafted to be as encompassing as possible without going down a path of enumerating certain concepts, classes, groups or demographics, which could open up parliamentarians to the possibility of having unwittingly or, indeed, inadvertently excluded some persons or groups.

This is not an idle concern. As I noted earlier, it is imperative that all Canadians see themselves in the institutions that are created to serve them and support our democracy. It is our role as parliamentarians to ensure this when considering legislation. I also fully expect that this issue will receive careful consideration in the Senate. I look forward to hearing the views of all Canadians and stakeholders to ensure we meet the expectations of Canadians and get this accurate.

It is important to outline for the members of the House that Canada's superior court judiciary was one of the first in the world to insist on the importance of integrating awareness of social context into all its substantive programming. Going back to 2018, the Canadian Judicial Council explicitly mandated that the professional development of judges include awareness of the social context in which they performed their functions.

I will quote from the Canadian Judicial Council's professional development policies and guidelines, which can be found on the council's website. The document states:

Judges must ensure that personal or societal biases, myths and stereotypes do not influence judicial decision-making. This requires awareness and knowledge of the realities of individuals who appear in court, including an understanding of circumstances related to gender, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, differing mental or physical abilities, age, socio-economic background, children and family violence.

This being said, the bill is a nuanced bill and an important one. We need to be careful in our approach. I say this because judicial independence is constitutionally protected. If I am allowed to digress a moment, this is an area in which I spent a large amount of my practice litigating in the 15 years I spent as a constitutional lawyer prior to entering Parliament.

Judicial independence is sacrosanct in any westernized democracy. It contains tenets that are obvious but often go unstated. We cannot influence the financial security of members of the bench. We cannot influence their tenure or seek to remove them of their tenure as a way of exercising influence. We also cannot, as a third hallmark of judicial independence, affect their administrative independence. A tangible example would be the government inserting itself in electing which judges hear what types of cases. That would clearly be offside our notion of democracy, but also offside the charter and the Constitution Act, 1867.

The administrative component of judicial independence requires judicial control over the training and education of judges. This ensures that judges in our country are not, and are not perceived to be, subject to arbitrary interference or influence in their decision-making. This is a critical concept, and that is why it is entrenched in the Constitution.

Bill C-3 and its predecessor, Bill C-5, were carefully drafted to ensure ultimate judicial control over judicial education.

I will turn to the amendment that was proposed, expressing Parliament's view that systemic racism and systemic discrimination are included within the idea of social context does not upset this very careful balance. The judiciary would still retain the direction and delivery of judicial education in a manner that fully respects judicial independence. At the same time, Parliament is able to fulfill Canadians' expectations that it has a role in addressing issues of pressing public importance. The issues of systemic racism and systemic discrimination are long standing, particularly with respect to our justice system. However, it goes without saying that public awareness of these concepts has clearly come to the fore during this pandemic.

I want to outline two specific instances and thank two specific members who participated in those committee proceedings: the member for Hull—Aylmer and the member for Sydney—Victoria. They talked eloquently about the pernicious aspects of systemic racism and systemic discrimination vis-à-vis Black people and indigenous people in Canada. I salute them for their work in with respect to the Black caucus and the indigenous caucus, but also for their contributions at the committee by suggesting amendments that are very targeted but very necessary in expanding out the idea of what social context includes.

I will now turn to the next set of amendments that were proposed by members of the third party, the Bloc Québécois. Members will note that some of the provisions have been slightly altered. For example, the word “shall” has been changed to “should” in certain contexts. Minor changes have also been made in relation to other provisions. These amendments were intended to address the possible perception that Parliament, in potentially enacting Bill C-3, could be purporting to direct the judiciary in respect of judicial education. While this perception, in my view, is improbable, our government is prepared to support these amendments out of an abundance of caution.

At this point, I want to briefly bring the attention of members to the government motion to amend Bill C-3 at the report stage to correct an unintended inconsistency between the English and the French versions of the amendments proposed by the Bloc members. These amendments are clearly necessary and uncontroversial, and I would expect all hon. members to vote to support them to ensure the amendments intended by the committee are reflected in both our official languages.

Again, the principle of judicial independence cannot be overstated. As I have emphasized, Parliament's efforts to bolster public confidence in our justice system cannot at the same time undermine this constitutionally protected principle. I fully expect that our esteemed colleagues in the Senate will likewise give this issue their careful attention, and I look forward to that for two reasons: first, because a vigorous public debate is essential to a healthy democracy; and, second, because in this instance such a debate will, in and of itself, serve to reassure the public of the strength of judicial independence in the country and the regard that our Parliament has for this important constitutional principle.

We are very fortunate in Canada to have one of the most, if not the most, robustly independent and highly regarded judiciaries in the world. This is in no small part due to the availability of the excellent publicly funded but judicially controlled continuing education to which the superior court judiciary has access.

Members heard me refer to some of the contours of what that education looked like as of 2018. This is a step in the same vein and direction to ensuring that education continues to be robust and indeed among the best standards, literally on the planet, for the judiciary in a westernized democracy.

I also applaud those parliamentarians before us who had the foresight to embed the availability of funding for judicial education in the Judges Act, and the Canadian Judicial Council for its leadership in recognizing that professional development and lifelong learning are critical to ensuring a judiciary that is well-educated, professional and, indeed critically, independent.

The commitment of the Canadian Judicial Council to excellent continuing education is manifested in its professional development policies and guidelines, which I know explicitly recognize that the public rightfully expects judges to be competent and knowledgeable in the law. Bill C-3 seeks only to support and build on this notion and thereby move toward a better, more humane and more inclusive justice system.

I am going to conclude my remarks where I started: by acknowledging the challenges faced by survivors of sexual assault. Those challenges go well beyond the scope of the bill. We must recognize that in order to effect meaningful and substantial changes to the manner in which survivors of sexual assault are treated in our criminal justice system, every actor in the justice system, and every level of government, must take responsibility. That is what I referred to regarding the passage of the bill in the context of working with federal, provincial and territorial partners, and ensuring that the actions we may take through the bill, with respect to judges appointed to Superior Courts, are replicated in actions we may see, and hope to see, in provincial appointments to the bench.

It also goes without saying that the bill would not have had its genesis without the leadership of Ms. Rona Ambrose. It is important to note that when a member of the official opposition presents a bill that the government gets behind, it truly demonstrates the non-partisan nature of what we are speaking about when we speak about sexual assault law, the importance of ensuring public confidence in our judiciary, social context, and confronting systemic racism and systemic discrimination. These concepts should never be partisan. I am thankful that in the context of the bill in its current iteration, partisanship has not entered into the discussion. This is representative of how important these concepts are for all of us as parliamentarians. I would urge all members to take the small but important next step to vote to move the bill into the next phase so that it can be addressed by the Senate. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comprehensive presentation on the bill before the House. We in the Bloc Québécois have already taken a position on this, but I would still like to ask my colleague a question.

Yes, it is a good bill, and I think it sends a clear message that we need to make the justice system less intimidating for victims. In Canada, 5% of female sexual assault victims will file a report, and only three out of every 1,000 reported cases will result in charges being laid. Clearly, the justice system is intimidating.

I want to ask my hon. colleague about what comes after this bill. For now, this is a first step, and it sends the right message, but what is the next step for ensuring that women feel supported by the justice system?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raised a very important point. Looking at training for judges is just the first step towards the broader objective of making the justice system more responsive to women who are victims of sexual assault.

Efforts must be made on an ongoing basis and at various stages. For instance, women's associations must be supported, including financially. We need to set aside funding for education and better training for other justice system stakeholders, such as police officers and Crown attorneys.

I would like to point out that in his mandate letters to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety, the Prime Minister included education and better training for police officers. The justice minister added that Crown attorneys working for the Justice Department would also get more training.

The member asked a good question. It shows that a lot more effort is needed beyond what is in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, as the member noted in his speech, Conservatives are supportive of this legislation. I want to ask him a specific question about some of the egregious cases of really terrible comments that have been made to women in a court setting.

Do we know if those judges and others who made comments like this to women went through any kind of training? It would be interesting to know whether those people had no training, or received training but did not respond to it in some way.

Does the member have any thoughts on the additional steps that could be taken in cases where individuals may have received training yet still make problematic comments in spite of having been through a training course?

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

Madam Speaker, that question really does drive at the heart of the accountability piece that informs people's confidence in the administration of justice, and whether it is in repute or disrepute.

What I can say very specifically is that it is a sensitive matter but not one we are not aware of, in terms of being able to determine who has received training.

The bill purports to indicate, in the annual report that would be provided to the minister and then tabled in Parliament, that training was provided in certain areas of the law, and the number of judges who were provided with it. For example, it would say 250 out of 300 judges in the superior court around the country received the training. Enumerating the specific names of the judges who received it is not a part of this bill. I think parliamentarians should be aware of that. Also, the bill is prospective in the main: Prospectively, people who put forward their names as applicants for a judicial appointment must undertake to take this training. It is only recommended for those who are currently on the bench. That is out of regard for the very important notion of judicial independence.

We have a lot of confidence, however, that given the step that Parliament would take in enacting this bill, given the importance of societal awareness, and given the public clamouring for this kind of accountability, that most if not all judges would participate in the training. As to whether it is ultimately efficacious in rendering judgments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have to allow for other questions, and the hon. member could add to his response, hopefully.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the parliamentary secretary at the justice committee. The bill that we see before us today is a testament to the great work that was done at committee. It appropriately follows the many recommendations we heard from witnesses.

I would say that this bill is an example of parliamentary leadership. Parliamentarians from all stripes have come together, and I believe we have a good bill.

The question I want to ask the parliamentary secretary is specifically regarding his comments about our provincial colleagues. How confident is he that when we establish this bill we may see provincial jurisdictions follow suit?

Does he feel confident that various provinces may in fact put in place their own statutory requirements for judicial training, given that so many cases of this nature are in fact heard by provincial judges under provincial jurisdiction?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his contributions in this go-around and also in the last Parliament. I would also highlight the contributions of the member for Oakville North—Burlington, a Liberal member who did the same thing, participating in the last Parliament and again in this study, showing tangible commitment to the bill.

I would say to the member that I am somewhat confident, in terms of provincial leadership. I was trying to consult my notes, and we have had indications. I believe at least one province has put in place this kind of training. It may be P.E.I., if memory serves. I also have confidence that other members, in their commitment to this legislation, will be encouraging their provincial counterparts around the country to really be thinking about this and how it could be implemented on a provincial level.

I think the sensitization to this issue, social context, systemic racism, systemic discrimination and, above all else, sexual assault law and the importance of understanding it and getting the application of the law right, is something that is not lost in any area or region of the country.

I am confident that this can be advanced going forward.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question.

How can we ensure that this training does not become a convention where a bunch of pals get together once a year? How can we ensure that the training has a tangible, visible impact on both the Crown and the judge, so that we never again hear questions like, “What were you wearing that evening?” or “Did you look his way?” or “Did you approach him?” or “Did you scream?”

What will we do to ensure that this training has a real impact?

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

Madam Speaker, I understand the passion of the hon. member across the way. She is asking a very good question. I thank her.

The text of Bill C-3 mentions the importance of fighting myths and stereotypes. It also includes directions for judges, a recommendation to consult with women and organizations that work with women on sexual assault matters regarding how to establish and run these courses.

The curriculum itself would be designed, ideally, in consultation with those women's groups that spend their entire mandate ensuring they confront the very myths and stereotypes that the member for Beauport—Limoilou just mentioned.

[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 wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts in terms of the manner in which the bill originated and the co-operation it took among the different parties to get it to the point it is today.

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

Madam Speaker, the spirit of co-operation has been quite astounding. In my five years in Parliament, I have rarely seen such unanimous support for a bill. It has been useful, and it has been encouraging.

Obviously, what happens in the House is different from what happens in the Senate. I will note, with a bit of disappointment, what transpired in the Senate in the last Parliament, but we are confident that this will have a fair review and a good, rigorous analysis. We are hoping that this piece of legislation will see the light of day, because so many parliamentarians of all stripes, including independents, are behind the bill. That is a good sign for women and for all those who are concerned with having confidence in the justice system.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, today is my third attempt to speak to Bill C-3 in the House. The first time, there was not enough time and I was interrupted. The second time, there was a technical problem, unfortunately. This time, I finally have enough time.

On our side of the House, we have certainly made a good effort to indicate the challenges females face when they are in positions of power and the judgments they face on a daily basis in terms of what they wear, their makeup and how they express themselves.

This is something my colleagues in the House are not unfamiliar with. They are very aware of it, and my colleagues on this side of the House have done a very good job of expressing that and noting the challenges they have faced throughout their political careers as they have attempted to express who they are and represent their constituents in the most authentic way possible.

Sometimes I get comments on Facebook or Twitter. People say that my eyelashes are too big or my makeup is too dark. It does not bother me, because inside I know who I am. I know my family loves me and my friends love me.

One of those special friends is a woman by the name of Rona Ambrose. I first met her at the Conservative Party convention in 2005 in Montreal. It was really something to meet her. I thought, “Oh my goodness, I am meeting Rona Ambrose.” Fortunately, I have a friend who is a family relative of hers, so I would see her from time to time in Ottawa during my time at Global Affairs. I would run into her on a street corner downtown and it was always lovely to see her.

Throughout my nomination she was incredibly supportive, as she was during the election campaign, and I have one special memory of her. My campaign office was set up, and all the media were there because she was visiting. I recall that right before we walked into the office together, she took a moment and said, “Stop". She said she had to think about what she was going to say and needed to collect her thoughts. For me, that was such an incredible lesson: We should be clear and concise in the words being communicated in the House of Commons as official representatives of the people.

I will never forget this time she came to my campaign office. That moment really sticks with me. We were in the back of a strip mall and she just said, “Stop". It was such a pivotal moment in my political career.

My other dear memory of Rona is when I won the by-election and she walked me into the House of Commons. That is a moment I will never forget. I remember being in the antechamber waiting. My husband and son were there, and there were other federal cabinet ministers ready to walk us in. She turned to me and said, “Put on the biggest smile you possibly can because this is a moment that will go down in your history. This is the single moment that will be seen over and over again.” She was absolutely correct. When I look at all of my videos from the three and a half years since being elected to the House, that video stands out.

There are many special things about Rona, and I would like to think she and I are similar. We both speak more than two languages, we both have a master's degree and we both display a class and decorum that the House deserves. However, what I think is most special about her is that she recognized something in me and encouraged me in seeing that something special.

This is something Rona Ambrose has now dedicated her life to: She is mentoring, encouraging and promoting women all around the world. It is therefore no surprise to me that she introduced this significant piece of legislation.

I was very fortunate to attend an event in Calgary last year with SOS Children's Villages Canada, at which she was the guest speaker. She had incredible stories about her time in the House.

She talked about one time when, as minister of the environment, she was meeting her U.S. counterpart. She was in a room waiting for her U.S. counterpart to arrive and a secret security agent told her, “Listen here little lady; you have to clear this room. There are important people who are about to meet here, two ministers.” She said, “I am one of the ministers.” It is astounding that in this day and age, a conversation like that would happen, but it did.

What is so special about her and this legislation is that it would allow people to tell their stories. Is that not really what justice and truth are about? It is about the opportunity for people to share their stories.

I want to give a special shout-out to all of the participants at the Results Canada conference this weekend. Yesterday morning I woke up at nine o'clock and looked at my calendar. I turned to my husband and said, “Oh, my goodness, I'm scheduled to be a keynote speaker for Results Canada in half an hour.” I wondered why I put myself through this at 9:30 on a Sunday morning, and it became very apparent to me that I do it for myself because it is so inspiring to share stories and motivate young people. That is really what Rona Ambrose is about. She allows people to tell their stories.

Last March, right before the pandemic hit and before the shutdown, I was very fortunate to attend an incredible event that happens every year in Calgary, where people have an opportunity to tell their stories. This past year it was about women telling their stories. It is called the YWHISPER Gala, and it is put on by the local YWCA.

I want to give a special shout-out to the CEO, Sue Tomney, who does an incredible job. I also want to give a shout-out to Nesreen, who has always been incredibly instrumental in my relationship with that organization, and its incredible board of directors, including wonderful women such as Shannon Young. In my previous portfolio, I was shadow minister for families, children and social development, and I hope the minister sticks to his commitments to the YWCA.

Last year, the YWHISPER Gala had incredible guests Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, two women who won the Pulitzer Prize for breaking the sexual harassment story that helped ignite the movement. If ever anyone has an opportunity to read their book, She Said, it is filled with incredible stories that I believe are relevant to this piece of legislation today.

It notes what they went through to get the stories from women. The most telling story for me was about the first house they went to. They knocked on the door of a woman they were hoping to get insight and perspective from. She answered and said she had waited 25 years for them to knock on her door. She waited 25 years to tell her story. That is another reason this piece of legislation is so incredible. It speaks to Rona's foresight to allow people the opportunity to tell their stories.

These are not always bad, horrible, terrible stories, the kind we might hear in courtrooms or at the YWCA about horrific situations that women are escaping from. There are also good stories.

When I was preparing for this speech, the United States was looking to confirm the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett. There was so much light being shed on this potential justice, yet we do not focus on the incredible women within our own judicial system. I therefore want to take a moment to highlight the incredible women of our Supreme Court. Of course, to get into their entire resumés would take hours, so here is an overview.

There is the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella. She is the first Jewish woman appointed to the Supreme Court. Previous to her appointment, she did significant work on equality, discrimination and disabilities.

There is the Honourable Andromache Karakatsanis. She served as Ontario's secretary of the cabinet and as clerk of the executive council from July 2000 to November 2002. As the province's senior public servant, she provided leadership to the Ontario public service and the deputy ministers. She was also involved in a lot of issues related to education, which is what the bill is about as well, so it is incredible to recognize her.

There is also the Honourable Suzanne Côté. She was a partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, where she was head of the Montreal office's litigation group. Before that she was at Stikeman Elliott, where she was head of the litigation group as well. She is another incredible woman on our Supreme Court.

Finally, there is the Honourable Sheilah Martin, who, prior to being a Supreme Court justice, fought for equal justice for all. Of course, very dear to me is the fact that Justice Martin worked as a researcher and law professor at the University of Calgary from 1982 to 1986. She is another incredible woman that I want to shine a light on as we talk about Bill C-3, which would no doubt have significant implications for our justice system.

I will now go back to Rona Ambrose, who is another incredible individual. She had the vision and foresight for this legislation as a result of all the work she has done, and continues to do, with women and girls. I am sure members are aware that very recently she published her first book on girls, entitled The International Day of the Girl: Celebrating Girls Around the World, which is very special.

I remind members that Rona Ambrose is a Conservative woman and that Conservative women have really led the way here in the House of Commons. Since we are talking about stories of survivors and victims, who are often women, I will run through some of the incredible accomplishments of Conservative women in the House of Commons.

We had Ellen Fairclough, who was the first female cabinet minister and the first acting prime minister. That is no small feat.

Of course there is Flora MacDonald, who is very dear to my heart. She was the first female foreign affairs minister. As I was at Global Affairs for a significant period of time prior to being in the House of Commons, she really means a lot to me and touches my heart. I am not sure if I have shared this with the House, but oddly enough, on my first diplomatic trip to Washington, I was on the same flight as the Right Hon. Joe Clark, which I thought was significant.

Moving back to the incredible women from the Conservative movement, who can forget Deb Grey? I would like to think we have Deb Grey reincarnated in the member for Lakeland, another woman who shows that fire and passion for her constituents, for her party and for Canada. Deb Grey was the first woman to lead the official opposition, so another significant Conservative woman there. Of course, I would mention the first female Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell.

I genuinely believe that the Liberals often feel that they own compassion, that they own the rights to people's stories. I am saying here today that they do not. This piece of legislation was brought forward by a prominent Conservative woman and former minister. I am very glad that the government took this legislation and moved forward with it from Minister Ambrose. I want to point out it really was upon former minister Ambrose to come up with this legislation and to say what we are hearing at this special time in history, which is “I see you and I believe you”. That is what Rona was thinking of when she came up with the idea for this piece of legislation.

Believing people's story is what this legislation is about. All that the bill is asking us to do is listen to people's stories and believe them, no matter what they are. I made this point to the Results Canada group yesterday, to be open-minded to the thoughts of Conservative women and to all young women and to see themselves as Conservative women. I was very happy to have that conversation. We are not told in our party what to think or what to believe. When I say, “I see you, I believe you”, I see everyone and we believe everyone. These are the messages we are giving.

If any young women are thinking of putting their name forward for Conservative nominations, they will not get a phone call from the local party representative saying sorry, there will not be a nomination race, the position is being filled by another individual who is being appointed. This is because we believe in fair and democratic processes, but we also believe in women. We believe that women have it within them to run, to compete and to win. That is another thing that Rona Ambrose taught me.

As I said, the Liberals like to believe that they own compassion. They do not. They like to believe that they own the rights to people's stories. That is not true. I know this. Rona Ambrose knew this. That is the reason that she brought forth this legislation and that is all the bill is asking for, that those who have been entrusted with the greatest responsibility in our society be open to all of these stories, listen to all of these stories. That is really what this training is about: “I see you and I believe you”. I am grateful that Rona Ambrose put forward this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Midnapore spent some time outlining the achievements of Conservative women, most notably, those of Ms. Ambrose, to which she will find no objection on this side of the House. There is no doubt her leadership is strong with respect to the bill.

I wonder if the member opposite might comment on Conservative men. Ms. Ambrose was quite public in her criticism of Conservative men who form part of the Conservative caucus in the Senate not expeditiously pursuing the passage of the bill in the last Parliament. Further to that, could she comment on Conservative men who are premiers in other parts of this country, including the province that my colleague represents, Alberta, and about this notion of getting provincial training replicated at the provincial level including by the government of Premier Kenney?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think Ms. Ambrose would very much be in support of men contributing to the process. Men were implicated in allowing her to become a member of Parliament, minister and interim leader. The parliamentary secretary's point goes right back to my point with respect to this. The wonderful thing about being a Conservative is we are allowed to disagree with our colleagues. We are allowed to hold other views. This is not permitted in the current governing party, so I think it is something important to hold out. Conservatives have open discussions all the time within our caucus. We absolutely challenge each other's ideas and viewpoints in a way that I think is unprecedented in the Liberal caucus. Therefore, I would say she very much appreciates and is open to the ideas of all elected officials and parliamentarians. The wonderful thing about our party is that it allows for this wonderful scale of views.

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

Madam Speaker, I too would like to echo the part of the speech by the member for Calgary Midnapore that acknowledged the leadership of Rona Ambrose.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Ambrose for her leadership in bringing this bill forward. The fact we are still debating it today I think speaks to that.

I want to ask the member this. There was some specific debate at the justice committee on how to broaden the term “social context”, and there was debate over the term “systemic”, so we now have in this bill reference to systemic racism and systemic discrimination. I would like to hear not only the member's comments on why it is important that this federal statute now acknowledge systemic racism and systemic discrimination in the justice system, but also her thoughts on what we need to do beyond legislation to ensure that everyone, no matter their background, who goes through the justice system feels accepted, that their experience is going to be valued and that they will get the justice they deserve.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I go back to what I believe is the fundamental beauty of this bill, which is to provide all Canadians and all individuals within the justice system the opportunity to share their stories no matter what those stories are.

The hon. member is correct. I did focus mostly on women and Rona's commitment and contributions to women and girls. This is an incredible time in history of recognizing ourselves as individuals, as free thinkers, as being authentically who we are. That is fundamentally a conservative principle to me, recognizing the individual, believing in oneself and expressing who one is, so I would say that applies to all Canadians.

[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 degree to which political parties have been put to the side as we deal with this very important issue is encouraging. The role the provinces play was raised by one of my colleagues. It is important. My daughter, an MLA, is dealing with this very issue. I am anticipating that sometime before Christmas there will be an act to try to move forward with it. Would my colleague be prepared to share her thoughts with the premier of Manitoba on giving support to any potential legislation of this nature?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will always have love and respect for Manitoba. My husband is from Winnipeg.

Certainly, as a federal member of Parliament, I am not in the business of providing direction to my provincial colleagues, no matter what their station or position. I just speak to the appreciation I have for this bill and, more importantly, its creator today.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to salute the member for Calgary Midnapore, because I know that she played a role in Equal Voice in Calgary and has done a lot for women in politics. In light of that and, again, celebrating the many wonderful women judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, including the former chief justice Beverley McLachlin, our first woman justice Bertha Wilson and current members of the court, I do feel that non-partisanship is important. It is important to recognize that Rona Ambrose did a lot of non-partisan things in the House, including supporting my bill for Lyme disease action.

Please forgive me, but with deep respect for someone who as well as being my personal hero became a dear friend, the late Flora MacDonald would never have wanted to be associated with the current version of the Conservative Party. She was unable to join it once it ceased to be the Progressive Conservative Party. My wish for members on that side of the House is that they strive to be the kind of party that the Right Hon. Joe Clark would join again.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for the compliment, although it was, as always, a little double-sided and a little backhanded. Apparently, she has an ability to speak to the dead. If she could teach me how to do that, I would be interested.

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

Madam Speaker, we see many substantial contributions by Conservative women in various countries throughout the world. It is striking to me that in some corners of the commentary, those contributions are often not recognized. There is legitimate celebration around the achievements of women on the left side of the spectrum, and yet, some of the great heroes of the Conservative movement who are women are ignored.

Does the member have thoughts on that and the steps we can take to better celebrate and recognize the immense contributions of Conservative women?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Sherwood Park has incredible knowledge and is very much implicated in world affairs. I would not know where to begin in terms of the incredible world leaders who are women beyond our borders, but I am very grateful to have worked with former minister Ambrose and to still call her a friend. I will save my recognition for another speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

As far as we are concerned—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order.

We must ask for unanimous consent of the House to split your time given that this is the first part of the debate.

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There is no opposition.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill with enthusiasm, just as we supported all its previous iterations.

We believe that victims of sexual assault must be well supported. The judicial process must be followed and, in our opinion, the only way to ensure that victims come forward and that there is due process, as our justice system requires, is to support the victims. We must ensure that judges who hear these cases do so with an open mind in order to be able to recognize the credibility of the victims and to examine the facts objectively and carefully.

In the past, there have been too many examples of situations where victims refused to come forward out of fear or a lack of trust in the judicial process. I believe that it is one of our main duties as legislators to ensure that victims of crime, no matter the crimes or the victims, trust the justice system enough to come forward and present their case.

That said, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Bloc Québécois finds it very unfortunate that the government is using victims of sexual assault to introduce notions into this bill that were not in the previous versions and that have nothing to do with the purpose of the legislation. I am talking about the notions of systemic racism and discrimination.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that racism and discrimination do not exist in Quebec and Canada. They exist, and we agree on that. We do not agree, however, on whether racism and discrimination are systemic or institutional.

These issues are not clear-cut and they are currently a topic of debate in Quebec. They are not clear-cut and no one can agree on the meaning of these words. When we held hearings in committee on the previous version of Bill C-3, we heard from a number of witnesses. However, we did not ask any of those witnesses questions about systemic racism, systemic discrimination or all of the other notions the government has put into Bill C-3.

Parliament is voting today on a bill that started out as a pious hope on the part of Rona Ambrose. Members will recall that the Bloc Québécois enthusiastically supported that bill. At the time, I even moved a motion in the House to send the bill directly to the Senate and for the Senate to quickly pass it before the end of the Parliament. However, we know that the bill died on the Order Paper when an election was called. Since the bill was not passed, we are starting over again today.

Until now, this was not about systemic racism or discrimination. However, we are making a decision here as legislators and saying that our judges must take training on systemic racism and discrimination even though we have not heard from experts on that subject and we have not put any thought into it. We are doing that through the simple but detrimental process of making last-minute amendments during the clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

We are changing the situation by introducing abstract notions, notions on which there is no consensus and on which we have not heard from any experts, into a laudable bill that everyone agreed on and that sought to give judges training around sexual assault. I think that is unfortunate and I would ask my colleagues to refrain from taking this approach.

If we want to bake an apple pie, then we need apples, not grapes. What we are doing here is adding grapes to our apple pie. In the end, we will have an apple-grape pie, which is rather unfortunate. I do not know what the Senate will do with this iteration of Bill C-3. We will see.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois has always been there to support all victims of crime, no matter who they are, particularly victims of sexual assault. We have been there from the start and we will always be there. We will support this bill, but we are not happy that it now includes concepts that do not belong in it.

Lastly, I want to say that we must not stop here. Yes, making sure our judges get sexual assault training is good, but we need to keep working on this. Victims of sexual assault need support throughout the legal process. It is traumatizing for victims to testify about a crime, and it is all the more traumatizing when that crime is as intimate as sexual assault. Often, that testimony is given years after the crime was committed, and victims who must testify are forced to relive the crime.

Yes, they need a judge who is open, who listens to them objectively, who understands their state of mind during their testimony and who is capable of evaluating the evidence objectively and effectively. However, the system also needs to support these victims in myriad other ways, and Bill C-3 does not enable that. Things will have to be done differently.

I remind members that the provinces are responsible for administering justice. We will always be committed to ensuring that Quebec can manage the entire judicial process. However, in order to truly support victims of sexual assault all through the process, the federal government should make significant investments. Bill C-3 does not include any such investments, but they are worth mentioning.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that training for judges will be a cure-all and that it will eliminate every problem. This is a very important issue that we still all agree on, but it goes beyond that. We will have to continue to work with victims and be cautious when dealing with a topic as important as victims of sexual assault. There is no consensus in Quebec or Canada on the notions of systemic racism and discrimination, and we have not heard from experts to advise us on how to legislate these major issues. The government must not introduce unclear notions into a bill, as it has done and as it will be tempted to do with other bills.

I reiterate our concern, but the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member opposite for his contributions at the justice committee. I will confess that my recollection of the witness testimony during the study was that witnesses did talk about systemic racism and systemic discrimination.

I will say to the member, point blank, that when we are talking about a bill that deals with the interaction of women who have experienced sexual assault and sexual violence, given the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry, I think systemic racism and systemic discrimination need to be front and centre in any training of judges being sensitized to these important issues.

Would the member agree with that simple concept, given the increased awareness of these issues vis-à-vis systemic concerns in Quebec in light of what happened to Joyce Echaquan in the health care setting? The health care setting is very similar in that regard to the justice setting.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to apologize for forgetting to wear my headset during my speech. That was my mistake.

I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, some witnesses said that they were the victims of racism in a judicial process. That is clear, particularly for indigenous people. We have seen that happen many times in many court cases where the court was not sufficiently aware of these issues. I agree. Again, I am not saying that racism does not occur. What I am saying is that we did not hear from experts on how systemic racism should be defined, for example, but yet we are still introducing that notion into the bill. We are using words like “systemic racism” in the bill when we do not all agree on what they mean. That is currently the topic of a major discussion in Quebec.

I am still not sure how I would define “systemic racism”, and since I am still unsure, I am even more hesitant and disappointed about it being introduced into this bill. That is what I was saying.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague on the justice committee. I will have to disagree with him on the point of systemic racism and systemic discrimination. It is borne out by numerical data, by policies and practices and by organizational culture.

What does my colleague say when even the Quebec human rights commission makes reference to these terms? What does he think his stance says to Blacks, indigenous people and persons of colour within Quebec who have a very different view than he has on the terms “systemic discrimination” and “systemic racism”, especially when they are going through the justice system?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Yes, there are people in Quebec who are victims of racism and discrimination of all kinds, such as discrimination against women or ageism. There are all sorts of discrimination and there is racism. We have seen it. We deplored recent tragic events. I am thinking about the indigenous woman in Joliette who was hospitalized. We deplore that incident and we are working to address it.

The Government of Quebec is working on these issues. We are aware of that. However, once again, there is no consensus on this topic. The Government of Quebec did not acknowledge the expression “systemic racism” as something that pervades Quebec institutions. While some talk about institutionalized racism and others of individual racism, no one talks about the racism of the institution.

Who is wrong, who is right, I cannot say. I am not saying that it does not exist. I am saying that there is no consensus. I understand that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse has an opinion on this. The party in power in Quebec has an opinion and the opposition parties have other opinions.

It is the same thing here in Ottawa. The parties do not agree on this. Some parties have a different opinion and some individuals within the parties may not agree with the majority opinion of their party.

Before introducing such a complex notion into legislation, we must hear from expert witnesses and ensure that we are all saying the same thing and that we all understand the expression the same way.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Given that many of my colleagues have risen on this subject—I want to thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for all his work on this issue—it will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois feels that passing this bill is in the best interest of the public and, more specifically, victims of sexual assault.

The Bloc Québécois supports this initiative because it is a step in the right direction. This will enable victims of sexual assault to trust the legal system and to feel understood and supported. We often get the sense that people are wary of these institutions, that victims lack trust and do not think it is worth turning to the justice system. That lack of trust is dangerous, but parliamentarians can find solutions because confidence in our institutions is essential, especially in such sensitive cases.

Requiring judges to be educated about the experience of victims of sexual assault, whom I prefer to call survivors, will not fix everything, obviously. However, it is an essential first step toward making sure our courts improve the way they handle this type of situation.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the thorough and rigorous work done by our counterparts in the National Assembly. Through serious work and in the spirit of sincere co-operation, elected officials, and women in particular, are committed to turning this growing distrust of institutions into trust. They are doing this through concrete and intelligent actions. These elected women in Quebec have mobilized many relevant experts and are sharing ideas to bring about profound change in the way survivors are supported in the justice system, and this is a great example.

These elected representatives from the four parties in the National Assembly have managed to rise above the fray and set partisan politics aside in order to study different paths. Does this call for a separate court specializing in sexual offences, for example? In other words, should there be a court specifically dealing with these issues, with lawyers who specialize in these matters, where sexual offence cases could be dealt with in a very specific way?

Do we need special shelters for victims, like the ones in South Africa, where psychosocial services and legal advice could be provided? For some survivors at least, such a place would have the advantage of being more suited to their needs than a police station.

They are also considering the issue of access to services that are already available but not well known and underutilized, such as shelters for women who are victims of domestic violence.

Although their report and detailed recommendations have not yet been tabled in the National Assembly, their work has resulted in the passage of Bill No. 55, which has now eliminated in Quebec the time constraints on civil proceedings against an alleged assailant. This is major progress and, once again, a step in the right direction that will ensure public confidence in the judicial system, no matter the case.

I am proud of this type of constructive action. This important progress reaffirms my belief that politics can lead to concrete, important and results that speak of compassion and that we can look after our fellow citizens. I invite all elected members in this House to undertake this type of constructive work.

At the end of the day, Bill C-3 will ensure that all judges hearing the evidence will have had training. In other words, these judges will have had to reflect on the stereotypes and myths surrounding sexual assault, as well as on the thought process of survivors. These are examples. We hope that every judge will be fully informed when dealing with sexual assault cases. Judges will therefore be in a position to do what they do best and get justice for victims.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, because it has been debated many times in the House and has widespread support.

We are surprised to see that we are still debating this issue here today, since it is so important.

Let us not forget that the idea of providing judges with proper training on sexual assault law has been on the agenda here since 2017. The bill died on the Order Paper during the previous Parliament while being examined by the Senate.

Just one short month ago, I heard colleagues from all political parties clearly and unreservedly support the swift passage of Bill C-3. That rarely occurs in the House. That is why this bill should be passed quickly.

Bill C-3 is necessary because we have lost count of the number of reports of judges who have made inappropriate comments during sexual assault trials or who have rendered decisions that do not take into account the realities of victims.

I spoke earlier about myths and stereotypes. I will now give a few examples.

In one unfortunate case that has now become well-known in Quebec, a judge implied in court that the victim was flattered that an older man was interested in her. We are talking here about a 49-year-old man who licked his victim's face and groped her. She was a minor. That is one example.

Another example is the judge who questioned the credibility of a young survivor's testimony. The judge said that the girl had failed to describe the sexual acts in question accurately enough. He wanted a young girl to use grown-up words to describe the despicable acts she had been subjected to. A young woman cannot be expected to know all the words to describe what happened to her or to have noticed certain details about those sexual acts. That attitude is inappropriate and has no place in either a schoolyard or a courtroom.

As the mother of three girls, just talking about these two cases disgusts me.

In conclusion, I want to take a moment to honour the brave women who are making the effort to go to court, put together a case, be thorough, patient and courageous, and discuss and speak out publicly against these problems. The Bloc Québécois and I stand with them. Together, we will ensure, once and for all, that institutions actually listen to them and that justice is served.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask about the parliamentary secretary's comments earlier. The parliamentary secretary said that although the bill recommended judges who were currently on the bench do this training and asked judges who were being appointed to make a commitment, there would not be a way of publishing who had or had not participated in this training.

We understand the importance of respecting judicial independence, but I am curious to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether this would constitute a limitation and how we might respond if it came out that many people did not do the training.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I know some members of the Quebec bar are worried about that issue. I have confidence in the independence of the judiciary. Judges must commit to taking this training. Quite frankly, I hope new judges will take this training willingly and enthusiastically, because it is crucial. They need to get with the program, and I encourage them to do so. I think public opinion and society will encourage them to take this training and keep pace with our society's culture and values, which include protecting women against sexual assault.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. I have a question for her regarding what will happen with judges at the provincial level.

The topic has already come up in this debate. It has been noted that Prince Edward Island is the only province that has already moved in this direction in terms of training for judges.

Is the member in a position to ask our provincial counterparts and Premier Legault's government if the same kind of training could be brought in at the provincial level in Quebec to combat sexual assault and help victims in these difficult situations?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Obviously we are not going to ask Premier Legault to make a law. Every province is master of its own legislation. However, this issue is of great concern to Quebec's National Assembly. Members of the National Assembly have worked on this important subject.

Every province has to debate this subject and get its own legislature to agree on laws and rules that will promote better defences and protections for women who are victims of violence or sexual assault.

[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, could my friend provide her thoughts on the importance of seeing the federal legislation moving forward and how provinces across the country could look at ways in which they could incorporate it into provincial jurisdiction, which would go a long way in further advancing this cause?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, the question from my colleague across the way is very similar to the question I just got.

All the provinces are watching the debates in the House of Commons. It is up to them to make these choices and decide to debate these issues in their own legislatures to provide women with protections and defences through better training for judges.

It is up to them to decide, and I believe they are capable of making the right decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a very real honour to be joining once again in the debate on Bill C-3. I am glad that this morning the House saw fit to pass the bill at report stage by unanimous consent, and get it to where it is now, at third reading. I hope that in short order the House can pass the bill because it still has half of its journey left: through the Senate. There is a real interest from many sectors of our society to see this legislation enacted in law so that we can take a small step toward restoring confidence and transparency in our justice system, because so many people who go through the justice system currently have a lack thereof.

It is important, given we are now at this stage of the debate, to acknowledge the hard work that has gone into getting the bill to where we are today. That starts with an acknowledgement of the work done by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in the previous Parliament, whose private member's bill formed the nucleus of what we see before us today. It is a testament to her leadership and her acknowledgement of a problem in our justice system that led to a version of the bill being passed unanimously in the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, which unfortunately got bogged down in the Senate. We see it before us now in the version of Bill C-3, a government bill. The fact that we are at this stage and considering it for third reading is a great place to be.

I also want to acknowledge the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, whose testimony helped guide the committee to make the recommendations and amendments that it did. Those amendments make the bill stronger. They acknowledge some of the areas where witnesses had problems with various definitions. The witnesses included members of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. We also had the National Judicial Institute and the Canadian Judicial Council appear before the committee. I believe that their combined testimony helped inform the committee.

I also want to acknowledge what a pleasure it was for me to join my colleagues again on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. That is a committee I am very fond of, and one that I had the privilege of being a member of in the previous Parliament. It is a committee unlike any other within the House of Commons, given the gravity of the situations it regularly looks at. The legislation often involves weighty matters like the Criminal Code, which have very real consequences for people in everyday situations.

It is important to highlight some of the specific recommendations that the committee made: the amendments that were made to Bill C-3. I want to focus my remarks today specifically on how the reference to social context was made to include a reference to systemic discrimination and systemic racism.

Before I go on, it is important to read into the record a few of the quotes from witnesses at committee. I will start with the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. He said:

The second concern we have revolves around the lack of definition of social context. If the amendments are to proceed as drafted, we urge the committee to think about the differential impacts of the law on the bodies of indigenous and black people. More specifically, when it comes to sexual assaults, whether in regard to victims or as accused, stereotypes about black and indigenous people lead to differential treatment under the law. These have different impacts on our bodies and our communities.

This was continued by Ms. Rosel Kim, who represented the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. She said that the previous version of the bill that made its way to committee was problematic in not having specific definitions of what social context was.

While the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund wanted a bit more specific definition of what social context meant, I believe what the committee arrived at is a proper term. It serves to encompass many different forms of discrimination and racism.

A lot of what the witnesses reported to us at committee had to do with stereotypes. We know how different actors who go through the justice system experience things. It is different based on their backgrounds. This was repeatedly said at committee. For example, Ms. Rosel Kim said:

As relates to social context, I think that it would be helpful to have a definition of what social context means. I know that the mandate letter has signalled certain things like impact of trauma and unconscious bias. We would like to see the fact that social context is linked to factors that have led to systemic inequality that have exacerbated these harmful myths and stereotypes in Canadian society.

All of the testimony about systemic racism and systemic discrimination is backed up by the evidence. I want to put a few examples on the record because it is really important to form the basis of the conversation that we are having today.

We know that, for example, disabled women experience sexual violence at about three times the rate of non-disabled women. We know that women with disabilities, those who are institutionalized, aboriginal women, single women and women who are unemployed or have low incomes are at a heightened risk of sexual assault. We know that seniors also experience far higher rates of sexual assault than non-senior women. The way these are reported to police and dealt with by our justice system, and the harmful myths and stereotypes that are brought to bear, are precisely why Bill C-3 is needed: to have these important conversations, support and training so we can ensure at least our federally appointed judges have this background and understand the social context of the cases that come before them.

I want to take this opportunity to zero in on some of the comments made by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. The committee meeting that was held to discuss this bill was not in camera. It is all on the public record for everyone to see. It took place on October 27. A large part of the debate at committee centred on the word “systemic”. My colleague from the Bloc was fine having the references to “racism” and “discrimination”, but not the reference to the word “systemic”. That is problematic for a number of reasons.

First of all, if we want evidence that systemic racism exists, we need only look at the numerical data. We know racialized persons are not being treated equally by our justice system given their percentage of the population, how many of them end up incarcerated and the treatment they receive. We also need to look at the ways policies, practices and decision-making processes are brought about, and the organizational culture of our justice system.

We need only to listen to the voices of Black, indigenous and racialized persons, because they are the ones who have been leading this conversation through their organizations and as individuals. They are the ones who have been telling not only Parliament, but the government and broader Canadian society, that there is in fact a systemic bias in our justice system and that systemic discrimination and systemic racism do exist. It is particularly important that we name those terms and reference them specifically in this bill. If we do not, we are simply whitewashing it and ignoring the fact that this is a very real experience. It is important and we have to acknowledge it.

Systemic racism is, of course, inherent in institutions other than law, but it certainly involves law. It reinforces other spheres of society, it raises questions about all aspects of law, and so on and so forth.

In this conversation about Bill C-3 there have been questions about the role of Parliament and the role of judges. Some of the concerns we have heard in write-ups about this bill have particularly focused on whether Parliament is overstepping its bounds with respect to judicial independence. Of course we have to respect the very important role judges play in our society. One of the pillars of our democracy is the idea of judicial independence. We do not want to arrive at a place where there is even a perception of political interference or control in how judges render their decisions. They have to necessarily be independent of Parliament. They have to be able to understand the facts of law and the facts of a case, and make a completely impartial decision based on those. Therefore, when Parliament is examining a bill that is going to be amending the Judges Act, I think it is only reasonable that questions of this nature arise. What I would say to those critics is this. If we look at the very careful language of the bill we now have before us in the House, the way the bill is currently written gives independence to the National Judicial Institute to tailor its programs in a way that is completely separate from any kind of political or parliamentary interference.

What we are stating as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, which is an entirely legitimate role for us to play, is that we, on behalf of our constituents, are finally acknowledging the problems that exist in the justice system. These are borne out by the unfortunate comments we have heard from judges during trials and deliberations, and the harmful myths and stereotypes they have bought into when making their decisions. We, as the people's representatives, are communicating through a federal statute that we want to see these acknowledged. We believe it is important for them to be acknowledged. We have to name them and actually see them written down in the training that judges take. That is where I believe Parliament's role legitimately ends. Now it is up to the training the judges themselves organize to take that message from Parliament to the next step so we start to see the training that is necessary.

I do not want to spend too much time talking about this bill. From the debate we have seen in the House today there is fairly good support for it. If I'm reading the room correctly, I hope we can get to a vote soon and see this bill passed unanimously by the House to get it to the Senate. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that this one amendment to a federal statute was going to fix the problems. Do not get me wrong: I think it is an important step. That is why we will be supporting the bill. The changes we need to make to the justice system as a whole are going to require far greater resources than just a legislative fix. I really hope a main topic of conversation with the federal Minister of Justice, when he is speaking with his provincial counterparts, is how we tackle these other systemic problems.

I already talked about how myths and stereotypes have extremely negative impacts. We absolutely must make sure the voices of people who have been marginalized by our justice system are heard. They must be actively listened to and acted upon. We need to see those financial resources. We need to see that active commitment to making sure we are striving for equality before the law. There are many organizations out there, including women's organizations, LGBTQ organizations and organizations representing Black and indigenous persons of colour, that are only too willing to step up to the plate to show the government where these fixes need to be made.

I will end my speech with a quote from Michael Spratt, a well-known lawyer in the Ottawa region. He has frequently been a witness before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When speaking of this bill, he recently wrote in Canadian Lawyer magazine:

Step down from your ivory tower with me for a view from the trenches: where complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports; where complainants are almost always provided inadequate information about the court process; where the legal education of lawyers (both Crown and defense) is too often seen as an expensive obligation and not a learning opportunity; and where the wishes of complainants are often ignored.

Maybe we can start by tackling these problems.

This is a fitting place to end my speech. What we have before the House right now is a good bill. The work that was done at committee honoured the testimony that we heard from witnesses. I am pleased to offer my support to this important legislation. I hope we can send it to the other place quite soon so we can see the bill finally receive the royal assent it deserves so we can take this important step.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his contributions at the justice committee in this Parliament, but also in the last Parliament. I also thank him for outlining actual evidence we heard at the committee study. This kind of speech elevates the tone of the debate, and we need exactly that from all parliamentarians.

What struck me was something we heard in the last Parliament from none other than Senator Murray Sinclair. When he was in front of the heritage committee, he said that systemic racism was what was left when all the racists were gotten rid of. What he meant by that was we had to look at the culture, the norms, the mores and the rules that were in place with respect to understanding a systemic problem as opposed individual acts of racism.

I hear the member opposite. I agree with his perspective on what we heard and also the direction of the bill. However, I will put to him something that he raised earlier in this debate, which was it needed to extend further, including to those other levels of government. The member is a representative from British Columbia. The British Columbia government has enacted a number of progressive pieces of legislation.

What are the member's thoughts about different areas, including his province of B.C., moving forward with this? Is this a cause that the member would champion with respect to the training of provincial judges in B.C.?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be raising these issues with my provincial counterparts. I am lucky enough to have the premier as a constituent of mine. No other member of Parliament of B.C. can claim that.

In the recent provincial election, I was very glad to see our mutual friend, Murray Rankin. He is now an MLA-elect, representing the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I know from his decades of experience on justice issues, but also as a previous member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, that he understands these issues only too well. With David Eby, the attorney general of British Columbia, I would be more than happy to take up these conversations to see where B.C. can improve its own laws and processes.

Given what we have seen from the provincial government over the last three and a half years, I expect we will see some pretty impressive, progressive updates on this. I will be happy to have that conversation with my provincial counterparts.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we all feel grateful that all parliamentarians support this issue.

As we look at this, we know that discrimination, racism, all these issues continue to be a significant concern for us in our court system. I think of one of the communities I represent, Port Hardy. Just recently it started moving toward having a system that would allow indigenous folks to be part of the decision-making process in a court system.

How can parliamentarians also do the work with local indigenous leadership in bringing forward steps to move toward a less discriminatory system for indigenous members of our communities?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River has always been a fantastic advocate, particularly on indigenous issues.

What is important to acknowledge is that pre-contact indigenous people in what is today known as Canada had their own system of laws, their own justice system, and that was completely upended with colonization. A completely foreign way of doing the law was often imposed upon them, which was based on our own common law experiences that we inherited from England.

Therefore, if we are truly going to move forward as a nation, we have to acknowledge the pre-contact systems that were in existence for all indigenous communities right across the country. We have to find a way to work on that knowledge and their approaches to justice and incorporate them with our broader justice system. That is an absolutely important way of going forward. It will do wonders for our ultimate path toward reconciliation. As she and many indigenous Canadians would know, we still have a long way before us before we reach that.

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

Madam Speaker, although it is a little outside the scope of Bill C-3, one of the places where we see systemic racism is in the use of injunctions. I know he will have experienced, as a British Columbian, the use of injunctions to arrest indigenous protestors. However, when indigenous nations go to seek injunctions to protect territory, they are far less likely to be granted one than corporations that seek injunctions to violate indigenous rights and pursue projects like pipelines.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has some thoughts on how we might want to reform injunction law to deal with the systemic racism throughout our criminal justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raises an important point. I know that a couple of years ago she joined with the now mayor of Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart, to protest the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. It is quite interesting to note, as she correctly pointed out, the treatments that corporations get versus indigenous protestors who, in many ways, are there trying to protect what is rightfully theirs since pre-contact. These are their traditional and unceded territories. For these projects to proceed, it is important we have that full consent going forward.

It is an interesting question. It is certainly one about which I, as a Vancouver Islander, have been rightly concerned. I still have constituents to this day writing to me about these specific issues. Therefore, I would agree with her that, when we are talking about Bill C-3 and the stereotypes and myths that exist and are acknowledged in this legislation, it does allow us to open up a broader conversation about the justice system as a whole. That is why I acknowledged in my comments that this was a small but important legislative step. However, it is important that we follow through with further actions and commitments to make the justice system much better for all Black, indigenous and persons of colour because of the discrimination they frequently experience.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I will advise him that unfortunately I will have to interrupt him so we can go to question period.

[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, it is with pleasure to speak to this important bill. I am very proud that all parliamentarians of all political stripes have come together in support of this substantial legislation. The very idea of it originates from a former Conservative member of Parliament and interim leader, Rona Ambrose. It is appropriate to give her recognition for bringing this forward in a private member's bill and the government and all members recognizing the true value of the legislation.

Ultimately, it was the will of the House of Commons in the last Parliament to see that legislation pass at third reading, with the unanimous support from all political parties. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the Senate of Canada was unable to pass it. Therefore, we now have, once again, the legislation but in a different format. It is government legislation, which speaks well to the government picking up on what was an important piece of legislation, which passed through the House once before, and reintroducing it as Bill C-3.

I was really encouraged once again by the comments of members on all sides of the House during second reading of the bill, recognizing the importance of it. A number of personal stories were conveyed. Members used previous court rulings, for example, providing what members of our judicial system had said and why so many people were offended.

I recognize the importance of judicial independence and I think all members of the House recognize that importance. That something weighed heavily on the minds of individuals as we debated this very important topic. I want to pick up on the idea that this is federal legislation and that it only impacts federally appointed judges.

There is another important aspect of our judicial system, which is the provincially appointed judges. I was quite pleased when my daughter, an MLA from the province of Manitoba, raised the issue with me. She has an interest and would like to see this brought into provincial jurisdictions. I see no conflict by members of Parliament from whatever region, raising the issue, talking about the issue and encouraging our provincial jurisdictions.

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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 40 minutes this evening.

Resuming debate, the hon. 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.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to continue the comments I started this morning with respect to a very important piece of legislation. One only needs to look at the bill number to get a sense of why this has been a priority for the government. Survivors of sexual assault need to be treated with respect and dignity. To me, this encapsulates why it is so important we see this legislation ultimately passed.

It is not the first time we have had this debate in the House of Commons. In the last Parliament we had a member from the Conservative Party introduce Bill C-337. There has been a bit of modification from what it is right now, but in essence it is the same bill. It was the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose, who brought it forward to the House. At the time, one could talk and reflect with respect to what was happening, but the bottom line is that we saw support from all sides of the House. It was quite encouraging. Members might remember that in the last Parliament it did not take long for that particular private member's bill to hit the floor of the House of Commons and receive the unanimous support of all members of the House.

Ultimately, it passed through the different stages in the House. Unfortunately, once it got into the Senate it kind of got stuck. As opposed to getting into the politics of why it got stuck, the bottom line is it never passed through the Senate. Members on all sides of the House were somewhat disappointed it never got the support required to get out of the Senate, to the degree that members from within my own political party, prior to the last federal election, incorporated the idea into our actual platform. Therefore, it did not matter what area of the country one was in: Liberal candidates were aware of the platform and campaigned on the issue, recognizing, as I stated when I started my comments, that survivors of sexual assault need to be treated with respect and dignity. That is something I believe is universally accepted among all members of the House, both today and in the last Parliament.

Not that long ago, the bill went through second reading in the House of Commons once again. What was encouraging is I believe there was an intent to have a recorded vote because we wanted to be able to demonstrate very clearly that all members of the House of Commons, no matter what political party they belonged to or if they were sitting as independents, supported this very important piece of legislation. It was very encouraging to see that.

If we look at the minister responsible for bringing Bill C-3 to the House, we find that it was part of his mandate letter. The Prime Minister started a process a number of years ago, when issuing mandate letters to ministers, that they would become public in time. If we look at the mandate letter of this particular minister, we will see that it is there and is one of the reasons why we are again seeing it as a priority issue going forward.

During second reading, or even in the last Parliament, one of the things I noted in many of the comments from members, from the official opposition and others, was that they were focusing on comments that were made by judges.

I think the public as a whole would be surprised at the degree to which some of those comments were made. It demonstrated a clear lack of respect. The impact it had on women who have gone through these brutal incidents was quite significant. One did not even have to be subjected to a physical sexual assault in order to appreciate that those comments, in certain situations, were highly inappropriate.

It is an interesting system we have in Canada. We understand the importance of the rule of law. We understand the importance of an independent judiciary system. That is why the manner in which this legislation was brought through was very important, and ultimately what is within the legislation clearly respects judicial independence. For those who might have concerns in regard to that, I would refer them to look at the Debates on the floor of the House or at the discussions that have taken place in our standing committees. There are hours and hours of discussion and debate, and they will find that there is recognition of the importance of judicial independence. It is something I too respect, as I know all members of the House respect.

I listened in terms of the core of this legislation and what it would do. It would ensure that there is better understanding of and insight into the myths and stereotypes around the issue of sexual assault. The bill incorporates that into something that would allow for educational training of judges prior to their appointment. It would ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability on the issue of sensitivity training for new judges.

When I look across the way or have had the opportunity to talk with many people in regard to this, the support has been virtually unanimous. I cannot recall having had one person say to me that the legislation should not be supported. We should all be encouraged by that. I have had some people provide additional comments on things that we could be doing. I have had some people raise the issue of things such as judicial independence, and I attempted to deal with that particular issue in my comments. I do believe that this training would be of great benefit to our community as a whole.

This is not the first time that the federal government has demonstrated an interest in doing something with respect to this issue. In the 2017 budget, there was a budget allocation to encourage judges to have more access to professional development. It was a multi-million dollar commitment that would see judges have more professional development. That is something that is encouraged in many different professions.

It is important to recognize that the Canadian Judicial Council plays a critical role in ensuring that the professional development does at least occur in part. Through that council, my understanding is that we will receive an annual report to reflect on the legislation that we are passing, again providing a higher sense of accountability.

Through this debate we heard other members talk about other potential areas of concern. Systemic racism is a very real issue. Many of my constituents have raised the issue. I have had numerous emails not only from Winnipeg North but outside of the constituency that I represent, trying to emphasize the issue of systemic racism. We possibly may see something more tangible come from that. This is where the Canadian Judicial Council plays a very important role.

Often we find a very high bar that the public has for our judicial system, where our judges are held in high esteem and respected for the fine work that they do. However, all of us at different points in time can look at ways in which we can enhance our skills and knowledge, and professional development opportunities are an excellent way of doing that. That is why I was glad that not only do we have a government that recognized a good idea when it saw it a couple of years ago in regard to Bill C-337 from Ms. Ambrose, but we moved forward on that idea and brought it back in the form of legislation. We are also investing financial resources to encourage that professional development.

The Conservative member for Calgary Midnapore spoke earlier today at great length in regard to Rona Ambrose and how she was inspired by her. She went on to talk about other Conservative members and some of their accomplishments. It is important to recognize that in our history here in the House of Commons and beyond, there have been some incredible, strong women who have provided inspiration to many, both young men and women alike.

One can talk about some of our current ministers as the member across the way talked about some of her caucus colleagues that were before her. I think of the Minister of Finance and the important role she has in taking us through the pandemic, not to mention the overall finances of our nation. I could talk about leadership from other ministers in dealing with issues such as disability programs.

In my question for the member for Calgary Midnapore I talked about my daughter Cindy. Cindy learned about what we are doing here in Ottawa on this issue, and she right away jumped on it and said that this is something they should be doing in the province, without me even having to say anything. She raises it in such a way that hopefully we will see this type of legislation brought to the Manitoba legislature.

Other provincial jurisdictions, as some of my colleagues here have mentioned, such as the Province of Ontario and, I believe, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, one of the Atlantic provinces, have also brought in legislation of a similar nature. It is important that we look at ways in which we can see an expansion, because not all judges are federal appointments. In order to have the policy be even more effective, it would be nice to see more provinces across Canada support it in the same fashion that we have seen here in Ottawa, where we have all parties getting behind the legislation and supporting it. In my books, this piece of legislation is a no-brainer. Everyone should be supporting it.

As I would encourage my daughter to move forward on this idea and I would encourage the Province of Manitoba, I would go beyond that. I would encourage all provincial jurisdictions to look at what it is we are hoping to pass in Ottawa, and I think that it would be that much stronger if we saw provinces and territories move in the same direction.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

We know that the Liberals consider the list of party donors when choosing judges, but I will not get into that. I simply wanted to point it out.

I believe that it is critical that judges take the social context into account. In that regard, something has been added to the bill about systemic racism.

I readily recognize that there is racism in Quebec and Canada, and I am open to talking about that. However, I would like to know how my colleague defines systemic racism.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are barriers in place or stereotypes or myths that have fed systemic racism. Racism is very hurtful. Sometimes it is unintentional, yet it occurs. Sometimes it is intentional, and we need to recognize that it does not matter. All racism hurts. As leaders of our communities and as parliamentarians of whatever political stripe, we all have a role in, first, recognizing its existence and, second, doing what we can to fight racism on a number of fronts. I personally believe the best way to fight racism is through education and cross-cultural awareness. I hope that at some point we will see more of a discussion about racism on the floor of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess my question closely resembles the one that we just heard from the Bloc Québécois, and it does focus on the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination”. We did have a bit of a debate about these terms at committee. Ultimately the committee decided that adding reference to those two terms was important when we were talking about social context. I, for one, am glad we did.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on why it is important that we have this very important federal statute making explicit reference to systemic racism and systemic discrimination. Furthermore, because we know that amending legislation is not going to be the end-all of solving this problem, what further steps is the federal government prepared to take to truly meet and fix systemic racism and discrimination in our justice system, while acknowledging that we must also work with the provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we need to look at the social context of our communities. We can see racism in certain areas more than in other areas. Dealing with the issue of racism is indeed fairly complex, but it is achievable if there is a political will to have an impact on the issue.

The member referenced the provinces. I would argue that school boards, municipalities, the provinces, Ottawa, indigenous leaders and the many other stakeholders all have a role to play in dealing with systemic racism. To me, the common threads for resolving it in the long term are education and tolerance. Those are the types of things we need to focus attention on when looking at the broader picture or the social context in which it occurs.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, as he is always very passionate about this issue.

The idea of putting social context, systemic racism and systemic discrimination into this bill is important. It is about cultural competence and cultural safety. This is a process that the health care system in British Columbia has been implementing for training doctors and medical professionals. This system is moving to other places in the country because it is important that people understand social context and how discrimination works in an institutionalized way.

In what other areas under federal jurisdiction should we see this kind of cultural competence and cultural safety implemented to train and educate people? We could do this, for instance, regarding indigenous people in this country, given the systemic racism they face and the colonial history they have had to deal with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the spectrum for providing supports and cross-cultural awareness could be wide enough.

During the early 1990s when I was an MLA, the Manitoba Intercultural Council provided a report on combatting racism. One of its recommendations said that cross-cultural awareness is best achieved through education in the broader sense. I still believe that today.

The member asks what the federal government's role is. I believe it is to demonstrate national leadership on the issue. We do that through the actions we take. For example, we proposed this particular piece of legislation and appointed a minister of diversity.

There are different things we can do that will have an impact, whether it is on the military, civil servants or the judicial system. In fact, there are all sorts of things the government can do, and it is important to take these into consideration for legislation. In addition to legislation, we should also be looking at monetary ways of doing things and working with other jurisdictions and appealing to them.

Health care is an excellent example. We had an incident in the Province of Manitoba when I was an MLA a number of years ago. An indigenous person who was sitting in an emergency room was deceased for hours. I cannot recall the exact number of hours, but I believe it was 20 hours or so. He sat in an emergency room for hours and no one noticed he had passed away.

It is there, it is real and it would be nice to see it dealt with.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act, at report stage, which would mandate, among other things, education for judges on matters related to sexual assault and would require judges to provide a written reason for their ruling in such cases.

It is now the third time the bill has returned to the House in one form or another. It was first introduced in 2017 by the then-interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, but it died in the other place when the writs were dropped for the 2019 election. The current Minister of Justice reintroduced the bill with changes that were recommended by the other place in the first session of this Parliament. However, it too died on the Order Paper, when Parliament was prorogued.

In both previous instances and at second reading, the bill received unanimous support from all parties in the House. I believe that for proposed changes like these, no matter how small, to receive unanimous support not once but three separate times in two different Parliaments speaks to their importance and necessity.

We have heard from victims of sexual assault and have come to understand that it is among the most destructive acts that anyone could ever experience, leaving a deep wound in their lives and damaging their confidence, their self-worth and their ability to trust and to experience emotional intimacy. Sexual violence is so destructive to the human person that it is considered a war crime if used as an act of subjugation.

Sexual assault is also a betrayal. In over half of cases, the victims know the perpetrator. It could be a family member, a friend or an authority figure. It is a betrayal of the inherent trust we place in each other to respect and care for one another as human beings. It is a betrayal of the human condition in place of being treated like an object.

We have also heard that individuals do not react to this betrayal in the same way. Some react in anger or pain, fear or denial, perhaps trying to forget the betrayal because the reality is too painful for them to bear, or believe that admitting they are victims would somehow change who they are. For some, admitting that someone they love and trust is capable of such violence is unthinkable, and others continue to live in fear of their abuser, fearing that telling anyone or changing anything might make things worse. Compound this with the knowledge of what they will be up against should they choose to report an assault.

Our justice system has fallen behind our understanding of the impact of these crimes on the lives of the victims and how they react. Instead, it relies on outdated stereotypes that deeply harm women and men who have experienced sexual violence.

As the minister noted in his remarks at the beginning of this debate, there is no room in our courts for harmful myths or stereotypes. We have all heard of the insensitive and grotesque comments by judges during sexual assault cases, including the appalling comment that was the impetus for Ms. Ambrose to introduce this bill. While we have heard these comments, I am convinced that we do not fully understand the devastating impact they have on those who have experienced sexual assault.

As noted by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock in her intervention, our justice system rightly relies on the legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty, which is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 11. This has proven itself to be the most resilient form of justice in history and has protected citizens from government tyranny through the burden of proof. However, it is that same burden of proof that revictimizes those who have experienced sexual assault. It cannot help but do so.

When victims appear in court, they are forced to relive the worst day of their lives over and over, whether it is in statements to police, in conversations with prosecutors, in courtrooms or in cross-examinations. They watch as someone undertakes to find contradictions or mistakes in their testimony, using any small error, discrepancy or perceived character flaw to convince a jury that the entire story is not credible or, worse, is a slanderous lie.

Through this entire process, they may feel like they are poked and prodded and treated like a piece of evidence. I can only imagine what is weighed and measured as one contemplates filing a report. Is it any wonder that the justice department estimates that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported?

In acknowledging that our justice system is not perfect, we must continue to hold fast to the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, while at the same time doing everything we can to improve how victims are treated within that system. This is not to say there are no supports for victims already in place. It is quite the opposite.

Police do receive training to help victims as much as possible. Support groups provide assistance in whatever way is necessary, including 24-hour personal availability. Prosecutors learn how to care about the person, not just the case. Does it not then make sense to ensure that those aspiring to be judges have similar training?

If the purpose of the bill to improve the interaction between sexual assault survivors and the judiciary is realized, then it will go a long way in helping to restore their confidence in our justice system.

As I referenced earlier, Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require that anyone eligible to be appointed to be a judge undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It includes a subsection to clarify the establishment and topics of seminars that must be attended.

Finally, Bill C-3 would require judges to provide in writing the reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. Victims would no longer be left guessing about the reasons for a particular ruling. This would also go a long way in increasing the trust in our judicial system by shedding light on the decision-making process itself.

Rona Ambrose spoke about the importance of this bill when it was first re-tabled and how it went beyond partisan lines, stating:

Supporting victims of sexual assault and improving our justice system and building confidence in our justice system is one of those issues. From the very beginning, this has been about all the MPs in the House, no matter the stripe, putting partisanship aside.

It is important for Parliament to remain focused and committed to doing just that.

I would like to thank Rona Ambrose for first introducing the bill, the Minister of Justice for reintroducing it and the justice committee for its thoughtful study on its contents.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her excellent speech. In my opinion, she has the best last name of anyone in the House, but let's move on.

Something was added to this bill in committee. Systemic racism and discrimination were added to the subjects that should be addressed during the mandatory seminars. Members can be for or against that. I personally believe that systemic racism exists. Residential schools are the most obvious example of systemic racism in our history. However, that was not the objective of the bill when Ms. Ambrose introduced it.

I would simply like to know whether my colleague agrees with me that this addition only detracts from the objective of the bill.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, not having been in committee, not having been part of the deliberations around the bill and contemplating amendments that would be made to it, I rely on my colleagues who were at the table to put thought and due diligence toward any amendments that would be presented to legislation at committee.

I did look at the term “social context”, knowing that was part of the bill. I looked at the definition of it. I have heard today, through others who have made interventions, that “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination” are terms that were included and that the committee decided to reference both in providing clarity to the term “social context”. I would imagine that if there were issues with it at committee, those issues would have been raised and duly noted.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her heartfelt remarks and her support for the bill. I hope maybe the member could speak to her thoughts on the impact of the bill being passed, not only on the justice system itself but on those who are victims of sexual assault.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to reiterate that I believe when Ms. Ambrose introduced the bill in the last Parliament, she was responding to issues she saw within our judicial system that needed to be addressed. This bill will go a long way to building confidence and trust in our judiciary and judicial system by victims of sexual assault, knowing that judges have agreed to and have undertaken the kind of education that will help them understand the social context in all the issues when making their rulings in these cases.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, we cannot lose track of the reason the bill was introduced in the first place. Sexual assault is such a horrendous crime and for too long judges and the justice system have not really given it its due. It has made it very difficult for women to come forward when they have been assaulted. If we add systemic racism to that, it makes it even more difficult for many women who are racialized as well. It is about time the bill was passed.

What does the member see as the benefits of the bill for women across Canada once it is passed?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I went back and reviewed the speech that was given by the minister when the bill was introduced in the House. I also went back to a couple of speeches made by colleagues on this side of the House. It is my understanding that the bill was designed to enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system, in particular, the confidence of survivors of sexual assault.

I know the minister made the observation that it was hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable in the criminal justice system than the women who found the courage to report sexual assault. It is my hope that not only will they have the courage, but they will be rewarded with a system that is actually responsive to them.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to once again speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code regarding training for judges on sexual assault.

At first reading, we heard amazing speeches from engaged and passionate parliamentarians across party lines. I agree with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in his remarks this afternoon that these rounds of debate demonstrate a level of co-operation within our minority Parliament that I too appreciate and would love to see more of.

I would like to use my time today to speak to the opportunity I had to participate in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in tabling my first amendments as a member of Parliament.

As a member of an unofficial party, the opportunities to get involved in these important matters are both broad and limiting. In a three-person caucus, I hold 10 critic files and monitor 10 committees. As I am a member of an unofficial party, my opportunities to be involved are at the discretion of different members. I am not a regular face on the justice and human rights committee, however, I was welcomed and treated with respect, and I wish to formally thank all members for their hospitality.

I also want to thank my incredible team, especially my parliamentary assistant, for working hard and being committed to promoting rights.

I will also take this moment to celebrate that one of the four amendments I tabled was accepted. I sincerely appreciate the support and feedback I received in this venture. More importantly, I am thrilled at what this amendment means for Canadians, for women and for victims of sexual assault. It is a meaningful step toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

I tabled three other amendments that echoed those put forward by my Liberal and NDP colleagues. I joined in their concern for adequately clarifying social context, as it can and does include a variety of subjects. My team and I listened to organizations and advocates. We considered it essential to understand the intersection of systemic oppression and gender identity, and the dynamic it plays in the perpetuation of sexual violence.

I was alone, however, in addressing the need to include indigenous voices in the development of training seminars and in recognizing the impact of the failures within the justice system on indigenous peoples. My amendment to section 60(3) of the act as detailed in Bill C-3 ensures that indigenous leaders and representatives of indigenous communities will be included in consultations to develop seminars for judges related to sexual assault law.

With this in place, seminars on matters related to sexual assault law will be developed after consultation with indigenous leaders and representatives of indigenous communities. It enshrines indigenous leadership up front, not consultation after the fact, which we have seen time and time again. It embeds meaningful recognition that indigenous women and girls face rates of sexual assault three times higher than non-indigenous Canadians.

We cannot continue to ignore the prevalence of sexual violence and its impacts on indigenous, Métis and Inuit women. I believe that this is essential. This section explicitly mentions the need for involvement of indigenous leaders and representatives in the development of these seminars.

This amendment is consistent with the spirit of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it represents a significant act with respect to the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I will celebrate this win, but with a commitment to continue to push from all angles for ways to ensure that the dignity and rights of indigenous peoples are upheld in this country.

I received interesting comments about this amendment. They suggested that it was perceived as being too complicated to explicitly highlight indigenous peoples in the bill and that it is a slippery slope to begin to name different groups. I was taken aback by this, especially considering that same week we had debated in the House a bill that would have indigenous peoples recognized in our citizenship oath, distinctly recognized as the first peoples of this land, as a critical step on our path toward reconciliation.

Therefore, I reject the notion of it being a slippery slope to include indigenous leaders and representatives in this amendment. It is never my intention to exclude when highlighting indigenous peoples. It is, rather, the opposite, and it is within the world view that I was taught, which is an inclusion of all life and all peoples, including 2-spirited, Black Canadians and other people of colour.

Additionally, this amendment was never outside the realm of possibility, as its intent was included in the way forward in the RCMP sexual assault review and victim support action plan. This is where the RCMP outlined its commitment to the development of a sexual assault training curriculum, including mandatory education about the history of colonialism and racism in Canada, the role of racism and sexual assault myths and misconceptions.

The plan includes training being developed in consultation with front-line workers, survivors and organizations that reflect a diversity of backgrounds, including Black and indigenous women and girls, trans people and non-binary people. I would go even further to suggest that, if we include indigenous leadership and representatives at all levels of government and in all sectors in Canada, we will all be the better for it.

I wish to end tonight by sending my condolences, love and prayers to the family of Chantel Moore. They are dealing with yet another immeasurable loss while awaiting the report from the inquest into her death. We cannot take these issues lightly. We cannot ignore that, as conversations about consent and violence against women have evolved generationally, so too have conversations around systemic racism.

As we empower today's bench with the education they need to assess questions of consent and rape, so too must we empower them with an understanding of systemic racism and the way those issues intersect. By passing Bill C-3, we tell the women of Canada, including indigenous women, that they matter, that we believe them and that we will do everything within our power to ensure justice for crimes against them. No longer will a biased judgment from an uneducated judge prevent this from happening.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I think all parties in the House agree that this bill should move forward. I know that in Quebec, there have been some all-party discussions on a special court for sexual offences, an idea proposed by Véronique Hivon. What does my colleague think of this idea?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

I think that is an excellent idea, and I think it works very well for Quebeckers. I would be very interested to see that in other jurisdictions as well. Perhaps we could draw a little from Quebec's lead and use this model in other places.

However, for now, Bill C-3 and what we are working on today in Parliament is something to be very proud of as Canadians. Certainly, there is more work to be done. I do not think there is anything bad in further investigations into these kinds of issues.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. colleague and her incredible speech. I want to thank her for bringing this issue forward and including it in this important bill.

Are we not getting tired of trying to explain to people what systemic racism is? People should just accept the fact that it is there, that sometimes it is unconscious and that is why it is systemic. We now need to move forward and accept that racism does in fact exist and it is systemic.

When it comes to women, that systemic racism adds another layer of trouble to get through and make our voices heard, to have the justice and dignity we deserve. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind words. I know that we both care deeply about these issues.

Absolutely, I am frustrated with having to define what systemic racism is for individuals who refuse to accept it. I see this on social media any time we put something out about this kind of issue. People will say that this is an American issue, that it is not happening in Canada, and that we should stop bringing it up because it is making it an issue.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

That is racist.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Exactly. We have a responsibility not only to acknowledge it, but also to do something about it. To get bogged down in a debate about whether it exists or not is just ridiculous. It is a waste of our time.

I am thankful that we are seeing more and more people coming out to acknowledge and understand what it is, but the work is still there for the actions to eradicate it. Once again, I thank the member for drawing attention to that.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Fredericton for her speech. I would also like to thank her for her tireless advocacy on these issues of systemic discrimination, for seeing it for what it is and for understanding it. Cultural safety and cultural competency are things that all professionals need to learn in every profession, and I think that the amendments that the hon. member has put forward to this bill are valuable. I am pleased to see that the committee has supported them and they have been included in the bill.

I do not have a question in particular. I just wanted to thank the hon. member for her work. If she would like to comment further on any ideas she may have on how we can better train all professionals in this country to understand systemic racism, I would appreciate that.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, before I came to the House of Commons my work was in education. I worked in anti-racism education and in indigenising curriculums in our public spaces and in our schools. That work will continue. I am so honoured to have the opportunity to do it from this vantage point, but this is a commitment that I made a long time ago. I do believe that education is the key to eradicating systemic racism in our communities, and we all need to call out the overt racism that we are seeing, so there are many layers to this, but it takes all of us.

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

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 Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Infrastructure.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can see it is no exception to the previous times this bill was before the House. All the parties are very much in support of us doing more.

Today I rise in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This bill is a key step to ensuring that each individual who interacts with our justice system is treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve. I am eager to see this important bill continue to move through the legislative process.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to ensure all newly appointed provincial superior court judges take part in training on social context and sexual assault law. This bill also proposes that, when the Canadian Judicial Council develops seminars on sexual assault law, it does so following consultation with groups that counsel sexual assault survivors and organizations that support them.

Bill C-3 also seeks to have the council report to the Minister of Justice on the seminars offered related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, the bill would require judges to provide reasons for their decisions under certain sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

This would be a great step forward at this time. The House is not necessarily aware of all the judges going through the currently available programs, so having this transparency would be a great step forward.

Today I would like to focus my remarks on the importance of social context training for judges. In particular, I would like to address how the social context education provisions in Bill C-3 would help ensure an inclusive justice system that is free of systemic racism and systemic discrimination.

Individuals who appear in court are more than claimants, respondents or witnesses. They are not just names on a legal document or faces in a courtroom. An individual's engagement with the justice system is deeply intertwined with their life outside the court. They bring with them to court their experiences, their stories and their context. To ensure that all people who engage with the justice system are treated respectfully, fairly and equally, judges need to understand the realities of individuals who appear before them. Bill C-3 recognizes this need.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about certain cases that have come to light recently. When we speak about the realities individuals face in the social context of their upbringing, the religious or ethnic group they belong to, or how they were raised and the socioeconomic impacts they have had to live with, we do not know a person until we have walked a mile in their shoes. That is a commonly used phrase, and I do not think we expect judges to know all the social contexts people come from without training. It is not a knock on anyone's intelligence per se, but we can benefit in many roles, even as parliamentarians. I know my team and I have benefited from the knowledge we have learned from having to take the GBA+ analysis course annually.

In many of the stories I went through in preparation for today's speech, I saw a common thread linking victims together. They felt like going through our criminal justice system made them feel like they were the criminals. They felt they were on trial. This happens because of either how their work, family or society treats them after they come out, but also particularly because of how our justice system treats them, with the comments made by judges and the faulty decisions that have happened in so many trials. It is very important for us to take a moment to highlight those and understand them a bit better.

In a particular trial I read about a woman was raped over a 15-hour period by her brother-in-law. She screamed at times, she fought her attacker and, at times, she said she stayed quiet out of fear. As a result, in the trial, the judge questioned her credibility because he said her inconsistent behaviour was not credible. Why did she fight it off at times and why, at times, did she remain quiet out of fear? It goes to show that when victims come forward, they are the ones who are put on trial and their actions are put on trial.

We do not see this in regular physical assault cases. For example, if somebody is punched or beaten in a bar fight, we never question the victim. Why were they not able to duck a punch? Why were they not able to run away? Why did they not do better to protect themselves in that moment? I have never heard those types of remarks made by a judge or authority when it comes to those who suffer physical violence unless, at times, it comes in the form of domestic violence. I think we have come a long way on domestic violence, but we hear those types of statements made at that time too. I fear that when it comes to the issue of sexual assault and rape cases, we just have not gone far enough. We have not progressed in our society to where we should be.

In another case I was looking at, a woman was screaming “no” when she was being attacked. She tried to crawl away. She was fighting the person off. However, the Superior Court justice said that it was very curious that nobody heard her cries and that there were no witnesses to testify that she was crying out. Once again, whether someone is quiet or crying out during an attack, it seems that in case after case some insensitivity, stereotype or rape myth was commonly used in these trials.

Another really important case I came across during this pandemic was from my own community. I come from a South Asian background, particularly Punjabi, and my parents immigrated to this country in the 1970s. In the case I came across, this family also immigrated to British Columbia in the early 1970s. I do not think it is unique to South Asian culture, but many cultures find shame in the act of sexual assault. The shame is not necessarily put on the perpetrator the majority of the time, who is often a male perpetrator, but the shame is put on the victim. I have seen it in popular Bollywood movies I watched growing up.

In the case I am going to talk about, the girls involved just released a documentary that I would highly suggest people watch. It is called Because We Are Girls. In this documentary, three sisters were victims of sexual assault from the age of 11 onward for a lengthy period of time. They suffered daily abuse at the hands of a family member. They often go back to think about why they did not speak out at that time, why they were not able to bring the issue up to their parents, or why they felt shame. Often, there are cultural influences people go through. I know our justice system, and many people, would ask why they did not come forward sooner or why they waited until their adult years to finally speak out about the terror they had been through. They go through that in this documentary. They are three girls from the Pooni family, and they really explain the terror they went through.

The three sisters were Jeeti Pooni, Salakshana Pooni and Kira Pooni. They had a cousin named Raj Rana who also brought forward claims of sexual assault.

They grew up in a very traditional family, one that worked really hard to give themselves, their family and their daughters a very good life, which every immigrant family tries to do. Immigrant families work hard to succeed here in Canada and along with success, they want to be able to raise happy and healthy children. With that comes the need and desire to hide these incidents when they happen, because they know that if these incidents come out, they would not just bring shame on their whole family, but perhaps their whole community. Therefore, the need to hide this is even greater among immigrant families.

In this case, I want to talk about the influence of many films they talked about, where the heroine would be raped in a certain scene and then commit suicide because she had become impure. She was going to bring disgrace and shame on her family, so she would jump in a river or use another means of committing suicide. These films are really tragic.

One does even not realize, when watching a lot of these old movies, how often these references are made, how women are made to feel subservient and that good women would remain quiet and listen to the authority figures in their lives, who are generally men. When men in women's lives have some authority over them, as men in some cultures tend to have, it is very difficult for survivors in those cases to come forward. It is extremely difficult.

I want to give credit to the Pooni sisters who brought their story to light through this documentary and went through the horrors of the judicial system for approximately 12 years. In 2006 they first reported the abuse to the authorities, and it was not until 2011 that the perpetrator was charged. The trial did not begin until 2015, and then a verdict in that trial was not reached until 2018. Many years went by.

During 11 years of going through the system, many comments were made to these individuals. The judge found one of the sisters to be too aggressive and too evasive when she was asked questions at trial. At times, the women testified that they really felt it was so difficult to have to relive their horrors and nightmares. Each time there was a delay in the case and the case would be brought back, or when there was an appeal, they were made to testify again.

When there is a long period of time in between proceedings, there are bound to be inconsistencies and details people forget or may recall that they did not recall last time. For a lot of victims of sexual assault, one of the coping mechanisms is to block the assault out and not think about it. When something happens to women at a very young age, it becomes even more difficult.

There is definitely insensitivity within our process to not be able to understand what a victim goes through. In some cases I have seen, if the witness's timing is off by an hour in how they recall events, the victim is not successful at trial. Also, as in the Pooni sisters' case, because there was too much raw emotion in their testimony, the judge found that to be a very negative thing. At times there is just no winning, depending on the inherent biases the judge may have at any given point.

Thankfully, at one point in April 2018, the perpetrator in this case, Mr. Virk, was found guilty of four of the six charges that were laid against him. However, in June 2019, before he could be sentenced, the defence asked for a stay of proceedings due to all the court delays and the fact that the defendant was not able to get a speedy trial. Of course, not being able to get a speedy trial was something the victims suffered from. According to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, people are guaranteed a speedy trial.

There are a lot of flaws in our system and educating judges will be one step forward, but efficiency is definitely needed within our courts system. Efficiencies will be very important for us to be able to provide witnesses with relief so they do not have to live their horrors over and over again. It will also provide a speedy trial for defendants.

After the stay of proceedings was granted, it meant there would be no sentencing even though this man had been found guilty of four of the six charges. It also means the perpetrator is still out there. The perpetrator is still able to offend. Other people could become victims. The perpetrator does not have to sign up and be on the national registry. A petition on change.org was signed by many Canadians around the country to have an inquiry into this trial, which is a good idea. We need to inquire further as to what missteps have happened in this trial and in many other similar trials.

The good news is that the Crown appealed the stay of proceedings. There was a hearing on that appeal on November 5. We do not know what the outcome of that hearing is and I do not think we will know until spring of 2021. Therefore, going from 2006, when these three young brave women came forward about the rape and the horrors they experienced in their childhood, to 2021, they are still living it day in and day out.

They have become role models for many other women who have suffered in silence, many other women who do not have the strength to come forward. I have met many women like that as well. I have to commend the Pooni sisters. They have become great role models for their children and for other women in their position.

I would like to thank Rona Ambrose for bringing this bill forward originally. It is unfortunate that the bill sat in the Senate for two years when there was unanimous support for it in the House of Commons. Elected members of Parliament truly want to see change in this area, and there was a lot of delay in the Senate.

I am really hopeful that the bill will see the same type of cross-party support this time around and that we will see a speedier decision in the Senate. Together, we must work to ensure Canadians have access to a justice system that is responsive, inclusive and free from systemic racism and systemic discrimination. This bill is an important step forward toward those goals and I am eager to continue to work with my colleagues to move Bill C-3 forward.

I would suggest that those who are interested should watch the documentary Because We Are Girls. It gives great understanding as to what sexual abuse victims go through. We can do a lot better.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly review the documentary. I appreciate the member's intervention today in talking about many of the cases, both close to her riding as well as across the country, where there is a tendency in these things to cause shame. There are better ways, and this bill is part of it.

I have one thing I would like to ask the member. The bill would correct where there is a set of standards right across the country. Every jurisdiction, every province have their own administration of justice. There is an issue that we found at the industry committee in the last Parliament, where Crown copyright allows courthouses a fair amount of control over which documents are made public and to whom they are given, whether they are online or whether people have to go in themselves and request those documents.

We could also be discussing how we could make the system more open and available to our citizens. Does the member believe that we should also be looking at other ways to improve our justice system to ensure that every Canadian receives the same level of justice, whether it be from a more informed judiciary or from a more informed citizenry?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. There are many other things we could do to improve our judiciary.

A couple of things I would like to highlight are the investments our government has made. In budget 2018, we provided funding for targeted investments to help eliminate gender-based violence and harassment, while promoting security of the person and access to justice. This included $25.4 million over five years to boost legal aid funding across the country, with a focus to help support victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Budget 2017 also saw investments in this area so judges could have training and professional development, which focused on gender and cultural sensitivity.

I agree that this is only one step and there is so much more to do. However, the federal government is a great place to start. We should lead in this area. We should talk to our provincial counterparts so they will also make the necessary changes and we will not have victims reliving their experiences. If a trial judge gets it wrong, the victims have to relive it, at every single level, until they get to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not efficient and it is not how our system was intended to work.

We should get it right the majority of the time and as quickly as possible.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that the former version of this bill was delayed in the Senate for over two years. I cannot help but think about all the people this bill would have helped if it had been passed expeditiously by that place.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to what that says about the change we still need to see in wider society, in our country and among ourselves as parliamentarians and those who sit in the Senate.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my position as chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, I have become aware recently that there is work going on in the other place to address this issue to ensure that the delays we saw when it came to this bill do not happen again and that bills that pass unanimously in the House of Commons, like private members' bills, should be given a time limit within the other place to ensure we have efficiency so the elected representatives and the will of the people is satisfied.

I look forward to working with the senators who are looking at making these changes and improvements so private members' bills are treated like government legislation and given the priority they deserve as well, especially when there is unanimous consent across party lines. It is not often we have that and there should be no reason for lengthy delays such as what we saw with this bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my colleague again on both her speech and on her earlier answer to my question.

My question pertains to Crown copyright. The Speaker of our House has the ability to say where Hansard and our committee testimony can be protected by the copyright powers given to him under the Crown copyright. The same goes in every province, where the courthouses can set up how they will let their rulings be accessible to the public. For example, in some courthouses, people must present their requests in person, which COVID-19 makes very difficult. Other provinces allow all the documentation to be available online. Right now we do not have that.

Instead of the member talking about the investments the government has made, does she believe that the federal government can make a useful measure and help this issue to step forward so every citizen in Canada will have the same access to the same level of documentation? Actually, there is a bill on the Order Paper by an NDP member to abolish Crown copyright. Does she believe this would be a good thing for our citizenry?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it is not really on the topic of the debate tonight. I would be interested in looking into the matter and developing a proper stance on it. However, without having been able to study the issue, understand it completely and weigh the matter, I do not think giving an opinion would necessarily be fair.

The issue we are talking about today is one that we have been trying to work on for a very long time, but there has been very little improvement in this area. We have seen improvement in a lot of other areas of law. I really hope we do better for the victims of sexual assault crimes. At this point, only 5% of sexual assaults are brought to the attention of authorities and of that 5%, only 12% ever result in convictions. These are extremely sad numbers and we must do something—

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

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share with the House how she would describe the benefits of this bill if she were speaking to one of her constituents. I think her speech was thoughtful and covered a lot of examples. She offered a lot of insight, but I think a lot of times my constituents want to understand how this will touch their lives or how this will touch those who have been victims of sexual assault or sexual abuse. I am wondering if the member could share that with us today.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, honestly, a lot of my speech today is inspired by the people I have met in this role and of course by my past experiences and reading about the experiences of others. The experiences I have shared today are no different from the experiences of my constituents and I am sure of the member's constituents.

I am speaking from my constituency office right now, and often there are women right in the seat in front of me who want to talk to me about the violence or the sexual abuse that has occurred in their lives, whether at a workplace or at home. I do not know why some people feel more comfortable coming to a woman. I have also had people from other ridings come to me to talk about the matter.

Many times they make the decision not to report. They make the decision not to go forward to trial. However, there are many who do report, which takes a lot of courage. I always advise them to report the matter. I think it is the most important first step they can take, but many do not go to trial because they have heard stories over and over again about the insensitivity they would face at trial. I think that is going to make a big difference—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate on Bill C-3. I have really appreciated the opportunity to hear many of the excellent speeches given by colleagues on all sides about this important piece of legislation. For me, it certainly underlined the importance and value of Parliament.

When we have these discussions about listening to victims and understanding what survivors have experienced, it gives us an opportunity to recognize those situations. I think the debate itself, not just the passage of the legislation but the conversations that come out of it, provides a great deal of benefit as well.

Some of the points about process have been particularly important. Picking up on something that my colleague from Brampton North said earlier, many good ideas come forward from private members' bills, but opportunities to bring private members' bills all the way through the process are relatively limited. I was involved in a private member's bill that received unanimous consent in the House and in the Senate, but in slightly different forms, and the reconciliation never took place before the next election.

I appreciate the fact that this has now become a government bill, but it does underline a bit of a structural challenge: It is much harder for us to move good ideas forward that come from members of Parliament who are not in the government, even if the ideas have very wide support across this place.

I had the opportunity to speak in support of this bill at second reading, so I want to briefly summarize some of the points I made at that time. I will then take my arguments in a bit of a different direction. I want to talk a bit about building up confidence and recognizing some of the limitations of this bill. I have the honour of serving as the shadow minister for international development and human rights, so I also want to share some thoughts about the international context we are operating in when it comes to combatting sexual violence and what lessons we might take from this conversation for our engagement internationally. I think there is a lot there. I think there is a lot we can learn from and apply to our international development and to our work on promoting human rights around the world that specifically comes out of this conversation.

The bill in front of us, Bill C-3, requires those seeking to become judges at the federal level to agree to undertake education with regard to sexual assault law and social context, essentially committing themselves to becoming aware of and educated about issues around sexual assault. This is aimed at responding in particular to cases where judges have made some very insensitive comments and—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpretation has been working only intermittently or not at all for a while now. It is impossible to understand.

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

I do not think the member is wearing the proper microphone for the interpreters. The interpreters cannot follow him.

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

Madam Speaker, I do have a lapel mike on, which is right by my mouth, so I can try to adjust it.

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

The interpretation does not work at all.

The hon. member would not have his headset, would he?

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

Madam Speaker, I do, but it will probably take me about five minutes to transfer the set-up. If another member would like to speak in the meantime, they could.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to do an exchange, giving the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville the opportunity to do his speech now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that technology can always be a challenge, and we want to make sure that our interpreters are able to hear what we have to say so that it can be provided in both official languages.

Today I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This is a critical piece of legislation that is necessary to ensure that judges understand the context in which offending occurs.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require candidates seeking appointment to a provincial superior court to commit to participating in training related to sexual assault law and social context. Thanks to amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, candidates must also commit to participate in training on systemic racism and systemic discrimination. The bill would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that those knowledgeable in the field, potentially including sexual assault survivor organizations, are consulted in the development of this new training.

The bill would also assist in ensuring transparency in judicial decision-making by amending the Criminal Code's sexual assault provisions to include a requirement that judges provide reasons for their decisions, either in writing or in the record of the proceedings. This requirement complements existing legal requirements for reasons including specific obligations for judges to provide reasons in sexual history evidence and third-party records application hearings.

Allow me to explain why these amendments are so critical to a fair and effective response to sexual assault, which we know disproportionately impacts women and girls. Canada has come a long way in this regard. We have one of the most robust sexual assault legal frameworks in the world, but we must not forget the myths and stereotypes to which Canada's existing legal regime responds, nor the fact that those very same myths and stereotypes persist to this day. For example, pre-1983 sexual offending laws were repealed and replaced with “affirmative consent”, the model we have in place today.

The previous laws accepted as a fact, first, that a complainant who fails to resist is consenting and, second, that a complainant who consented to sexual activity with the accused before an alleged sexual assault likely also consented to any subsequent sexual activity. It is hard to believe that this was in place before 1983 until changes started to be made, like the changes that we are looking to make through this bill.

We now know that myths and stereotypes like these are false and distort the court's ability to seek the truth. We also know that these myths and stereotypes have a detrimental impact on victims, who are overwhelmingly women and girls, and that their impact is compounded when they intersect with other discriminatory stereotypes. In particular, they deter women and girls from coming forward to denounce their assailants, which means that those assailants cannot be held accountable.

Statutory rules of law and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence now clarify that myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims have no place in the courtroom, yet we continue to hear that such myths and stereotypes persist. Allow me to expand on examples I have just noted.

We have known for quite some time that a failure to resist is not the equivalent of consent. More than 20 years ago now, in its 1999 Ewanchuk decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the accused's belief that “silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct constitutes consent is a mistake of law, and provides no defence”. That can be found at paragraph 51.

That rule is reflected in all of the Criminal Code's provisions that relate to consent, sections 273.1 and 273.2. Thanks to former Bill C-51's sexual assault amendments, which were enacted in 2018, this important principle has been further clarified. The provision that limits when an accused can raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent is now clearly limited to situations where there is some evidence that the complainant communicated consent affirmatively through words or conduct. That is found at paragraph 273.2(c).

More recently, in its 2019 Barton decision, the Supreme Court of Canada aptly renamed this defence as the “defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent”. I understand that many now refer to Canada's sexual assault framework as an “affirmative consent” model. This means that failing to resist is not relevant to the issue of whether the complainant consented or whether the accused believed the complainant consented. However, in 2014, the Alberta case of Wager, a trial court judge asked a sexual assault complainant why she did not squeeze her legs together if she did not want to engage in sexual activity she alleged was a sexual assault. This is unbelievable. It is unheard of that someone would make a comment like that and that we would hear it from a judge.

We have also known for quite some time that a complainant's prior sexual conduct is not relevant to the question of whether she consented to sexual activity that she alleges is a sexual assault. Originally enacted in 1983, the sexual history evidence provisions, sometimes called the “rape shield provisions”, were amended in 1992, almost 30 years ago, to ensure charter compliance. These provisions were upheld as constitutional in the Supreme Court of Canada's 2000 Darrach decision. They directly target two myths. The first of these is that a complainant who is sexually active is more likely to have consented to an alleged sexual assault. The second is that she is less worthy to be believed in respect of her claim that the sexual activity was non-consensual. These are sometimes called the “twin myths”.

The sexual history evidence provisions require an accused who wants to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual conduct to bring an admissibility application to the court. The court then plays a gatekeeper function at the admissibility hearing to prevent the evidence from being admitted to infer one of the twin myths. Former Bill C-51 strengthened these provisions. Specifically, it clarified that communications for a sexual purpose or whose content is of a sexual nature constitutes sexual history evidence, which is found in subsection 276(4).

In the Barton case, the trial court had to determine whether the sexual activity that caused the death of the victim, Ms. Gladue, was consensual. In this case, evidence of prior sexual activity with the accused was admitted without the judge holding a hearing on whether it was appropriate to admit this evidence as would usually happen. In addition, numerous statements about the complainant's status as a person who provides commercial sexual services were admitted, as were statements about her ethnicity. I want to be clear that both the Wager and the Barton trial court decisions were overturned on appeal because errors of law were made. It provides a measure of comfort to know that such errors are corrected on appeal. However, that fact may not offer much comfort to the victims in such cases, or in the case of Ms. Gladue, her loved ones. When the law is misapplied, appeals follow and perhaps even a new trial will be ordered. This can significantly lengthen the criminal justice process.

What can we do about this problem? How can we help our criminal justice system function fairly when addressing one of the most complex human interactions? We can support Bill C-3, which would assist in ensuring that judges have the education they need to understand sexual assault law, those most impacted by sexual offending and the social contexts in which sexual offending occurs.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. Everyone here is in agreement. I do not think anyone is opposed to this bill. I would like to pick up on my colleague's remarks by talking about myths and stereotypes.

Some judges may have certain stereotypes. That is not too hard to imagine, given examples like the one my colleague shared about the Alberta judge who told the poor victim to squeeze her legs together. This bill may put an end to outdated cultural constructs and stereotypes. However, it seems to me that the Liberal government is introducing a new myth and new stereotypes by selecting judges from a list of Liberal Party donors. That could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Does my colleague think we need a more rigorous process to preserve public confidence in judicial neutrality?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak about the stereotypes that still exist and persist in our society. When it comes to the courts, they should be completely neutral. They should be listening to the evidence and not be subject to those stereotypes that we have heard about, which have been in the courts for decades.

This legislation cannot come too soon. This will be an opportunity for our judges to truly understand and, as I just heard one of our eloquent members from Brampton say, to walk in someone else's shoes, to walk in her shoes. To understand and put those stereotypes aside is important for our courts, and it would make a more robust system for us here in Canada in addressing these horrific crimes of sexual assault.

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

Madam Speaker, I was sitting on the justice committee when we made the amendments to the bill. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is important that the bill now includes specific reference to the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination” when talking about social context.

Also, could the member talk about how much more needs to be done than just this legislation and how he will pressure his Minister of Justice to do more? What more could the federal government be doing to ensure that we are addressing these profound issues in our justice system?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the work he has done over many years and for his advocacy when it comes to victims of sexual assault. He has been very vocal, very impactful, very passionate and has brought so much to the table.

When Bill C-3 has been studied and debated here in the House, we would see almost wraparound services for the victim, which is part of this bill and would have an impact by providing those extra social services and those opportunities that come with community-based supports. I know the member has spoken about that and how important it is to him. I fully support him on that, and we want to see Bill C-3 pass.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the government has reintroduced this bill that we all agreed to in its original form in the last Parliament. Credit is due to the Liberals for doing so.

In the member's speech, he addressed the issue and talked about trust in the justice system. I would like the member to answer the question that was put to him by the Bloc member a moment ago, about the impact of seemingly having political influence bear on the judicial decision-making process at appointment.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have to be very proud of the justice system that we have here in Canada. What we try to do in this chamber every day is continue to make it better. By desensitizing the courts, by being able to address where we have found, as we have just heard, systemic discrimination, where we know that there are stereotypes and myths that—

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

Resuming debate, I am going to go back to the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you, the House and especially the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for his flexibility and assistance with this. I appreciate the opportunity to continue the remarks that I was making.

Bill C-3 prescribes a mechanism by which judges would be expected to go through a process of education when it comes to sexual assault law and social context. Additionally, it requires judges to provide written reasons in these cases. That will provide greater clarity about the way in which decisions have been made.

At second reading I spoke about that. I spoke about my support for the bill and I spoke about the importance of understanding the value, but also the limitations, of education, recognizing that education is not the whole solution. As C.S. Lewis pointed out once, education without character might simply serve to create more clever devils. When we think about how to create a society without sexual violence, or at least with substantially less sexual violence, we need to pay attention to those strategies that encourage the development of empathy, understanding, goodwill and self-control. These things, in addition to education and the provision of information, are sort of combined effects that work together to achieve the desired result. When individuals fully absorb the importance of justice and self-control, the way that they treat others will reflect that empathy. We will find that education of judges is not the only thing we need to do, and it is not the full and complete picture. That came through well in all of the remarks that different members were making.

This is an important step forward nonetheless for us to collectively underline the importance of awareness about sexual assault law and the social context for all of those who are going on to the bench. That is the general thrust of the remarks I have made in the past about this bill.

As I was thinking about the particular things I wanted to say here at third reading, the idea that jumped out at me, in terms of the importance of what we are doing with this piece of legislation, is the issue of confidence. It is the issue that when people have something terrible happen in their lives, they make a decision about whether or not to come forward to others and seek support in that situation. Whether they do so stems from the expectation they have about how they will be treated when they come forward. People need to have confidence in our justice system. They need to have confidence in our health system. They need to have confidence in our police. They need to have confidence in our legal professionals. If people do not have confidence in vital social institutions, they will be much less likely to come forward to share and seek assistance in the context of the challenges they are facing.

What we are trying to do with the bill is to make sure that judges are aware, and that we do not have the kinds of things happening to women and others in the court system that have happened in the past. Critically, the fact that we are doing this through legislation recognizes the importance of speaking and acting collectively to try to restore and strengthen confidence among people who are victims in the justice system.

Many of the things that we are doing through the bill could have been done without legislation. There could have been directives given, and I think the government has said that it is putting forward the importance of training in every case with an appointment being made. That is valuable. Given the time that has elapsed, it is valuable that the government is taking the steps that it can in the meantime. The value of acting in legislation in particular is that it is an opportunity for us to collectively communicate an awareness of these problems and a desire to resolve them.

It is to try to restore what has been, I think for a long time, a lack of confidence, and to try to create the conditions in which, if someone experiences horrific acts of sexual violence, they feel intuitively that if they bring those issues forward to the police and judges, they will be heard and responded to in a way that is empathetic, that treats them with justice and that seeks to treat the perpetrator with justice as well. We need to not only fix the problems that have existed, but we need to be seen to have fixed the problems that existed and thus restore a sense of confidence in the system.

Other members have cited these statistics before, but it is important to underline them again. The vast majority of sexual assaults in Canada, over 80%, do not get reported to police. We know that one in three women has been a victim. Many men have been victims as well, and the vast majority of victims do not come forward. I suspect that in many cases it is because of a lack of confidence in the kind of response that they will receive. This is something that we need to change not only by passing this bill, but also by speaking about these issues, by participating in this education and seeking to communicate the messages about the challenges and the need for change, as we are doing in the House today.

What I have seen as well in the last few years is the #MeToo movement. The willingness of people to speak out about their experiences has helped to contribute to a willingness on the part of others to speak about it. It has helped to build this sense of confidence. When people speak out and tell their stories and see that others are listening to them, it builds confidence and makes it easier for others to come forward.

Conversely, if people speak out and are not heard, if there are instances where complaints are made and there is not a proper process or is not meaningful accountability, that detracts from people's confidence. We have seen a lot of these issues play out in real time and it speaks to the importance of people being held accountable in every case, including, and perhaps especially, in very public cases. Not that there is not due process, but the processes are engaged in seriously, victims are treated with respect and justice is sought and achieved in an equal way that applies in every case.

About nine years ago, I was on the board of a local organization in my community called Saffron, which did and continues to do incredible work on education dealing with sexual assault and other forms of violence and bullying. It offers education to young people and parents about these issues. It also provides counselling to victims. The social context has changed a bit in the time since I was on the board for about four years prior to getting elected and now.

At the time, we would discuss as a board how we could raise awareness in the community about these issues, and maybe sensed that there was a real need for greater awareness. Today, there is much more awareness, and that has concrete impacts for organizations such as Saffron in my community that are doing this work. What it means is that more people are coming forward and seeking help.

Right after the #MeToo movement started, what I heard from people who were still involved with this organization in my community was that so many more people were coming forward and seeking counselling and support for events that had happened long in the past. In some cases these were decades and decades ago. People speaking out, being heard and listened to, gave others the confidence to seek counselling, seek support and try to work through and understand things that had happened to them that they maybe had not spoken with anyone about before.

When we do things like debate and pass this legislation, and when people speak out about their experiences, that can have a positive ripple effect of giving others confidence to come forward, to seek counselling, to make complaints and so forth. We can work toward ensuring that a greater proportion of victims of sexual violence is coming forward and that there is meaningful accountability. Ultimately, the result of more people coming forward will be a reduced sense of impunity and less victimization going forward.

It is important for us to acknowledge, in the context of this debate, that our justice system will never be perfect, that we work toward improvements and that we have the end goal in mind, which is ending all violence against women and against all people in general. However, we do not give people the false sense that we are ever going to pass one, or two or three bills and then have a perfect justice system that will respond perfectly in every case.

We should be impatient in our pursuit of reform and improvement, but we should also recognize that this work will never be completely finished, that those of us as members of Parliament, the people who work on these issues throughout the system, will continue to be engaged and work on these things for a long time going forward.

I always think it is important to underline, as we talk about combatting sexual violence, the fact that more and more young people, especially young boys, are accessing very violent sexual images on the Internet. Our country needs to have measures in place, things like meaningful age verification online, to address this issue. When we have very young boys learning about sexuality in a context which is very violent and absorbing images that shape their sense of what is normal, this has major implications with respect to subsequent acts they may commit and acts they may perceive as being normal.

I hope to see government action on that issue as well, that we will see greater exploration of the negative health effects that come from early exposure to violent sexual images online and appropriate legislative responses to that.

I know there was a motion from my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, in the last Parliament for a study on this issue at the health committee. I understand he may be speaking later on this evening. That motion received unanimous consent, but the health committee could have gone further. It ultimately comes down to the government needing to act on these issues.

We need to think about the kind of socialization that contributes to what many people have called “rape culture”. Some of that response has to include addressing this issue online.

In the remaining time I have, I want to speak a little about the international dimension. I have the honour of serving in our opposition shadow cabinet as the shadow minister for international development and human rights. For a long time, a big part of Canada's engagement internationally has been seeking to advance the rights of women and girls.

Members have spoken about Rona Ambrose's involvement in putting forward this bill in the last Parliament. She was also a big part of working with former Prime Minister Harper and others on advancing the rights of women and girls internationally as part of our development assistance. That approach got a bit of a name change under the Liberal government.

Frankly speaking, although not in every area, there has been a great deal of continuity in terms of initiatives that were started under Stephen Harper and have continued, with some modifications but not that many in the scheme of things, under the current government.

Part of our engagement internationally on the rights of women and girls should be promoting reforms to justice systems, helping to facilitate the development and strengthening of justice systems around the world. The quality of justice systems, the protection of young women from violence is a key part of achieving larger development objectives in countries that are struggling around the world.

There may be cases where parents are reluctant for their daughters to go to school if they feel they are not safe on the way to and from school or if they are not safe at school. These are the kinds of issues that are linked to questions of education and access to health care, if justice systems and safety are in place for women around the word.

I also am regularly contacted by people in Canada who are concerned about cases of sexual violence involving abduction of women from minority communities also associated with forced conversion. There have been a number of prominent cases of this in Pakistan recently where women from the Christian community have been abducted and there have been instances of forced conversions as well as forced marriages.

We see these cases in a number of different contexts and require a strong response, recognizing the linkages that exist between violations of religious freedom and the rights of minorities as well as sexual violence. Often, we see cases where women specifically from minority communities are targeted in countries that have relatively weak justice systems.

Canada's engagement in understanding the linkage between different human rights issues around the world is important. That is part of why I was a champion for leaving in place the Office of Religious Freedom. It was working in this space, recognizing the linkages that exist, for instance, between violence against women and violence targeting minority communities.

Also, we need to do more in Canada to recognize how online sexual exploitation is a growing problem in certain countries around the world, how the sexual exploitation of people, often of children, happens in a way that is linked to the demand for that kind of material in other countries, perhaps in Canada. It is so important for us in Canada to be willing to work with justice systems in other countries, building capacity to work together to combat online sexual exploitation where the perpetrators may be here—

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

We now go to questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, the member always has very erudite speeches. Like the member, I am very passionate in my support of this bill. I will probably not ask a question, but let him carry on because I know he always has a lot of very important input. However, I want to make a couple of comments.

One was mentioned earlier this afternoon. Over and above the bill, which is very important, Bill C-51 added some very important steps. I want to ensure that all the elements of Bill C-51 are implemented so we can get the full benefit of the bill to deal with this.

The second point I want to make is that I am very strongly in support of indigenous involvement in designing the training. Indigenous women and girls, who are often the targets and victims, come from a different culture and a different history of their own unique legal systems. They are different social structures of which we just cannot understand—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I will have to leave it there to permit some other interventions.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yukon for his kind words.

He mentioned Bill C-51, which was an omnibus justice bill from the last Parliament. If I recall rightly, it contained many different elements about many different issues. To the member's point, sometimes when we have these kinds of omnibus bills, there are particular elements of it that get relatively less discussion.

What the member is pointing out with respect to indigenous communities is something I was talking about in a slightly different context. I was talking a bit about our engagement internationally and the link we sometimes see between violence against women and violence against minority communities and that women from minority communities are sometimes particularly targeted. The member is speaking about something in a similar context in Canada. That is an important complement to some of the points I was making more broadly, that we need to understand human rights and the dignity of the person in an integrated way.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for his speech.

It is always a pleasure to listen to him. He tends to build solid arguments and is glad to share ideas. I would even say I found the first part of his speech rather dazzling, but perhaps more because of its delivery than its substance.

We are here to exchange ideas. Most members of the House agree with this bill, and we will be supporting it. However, it is important to remember that there has been some criticism, particularly from the Quebec bar, which believes that this bill jeopardizes the independence of the judicial system. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's point of view on that, and I will put on my sunglasses to listen to him.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

The member is asking about the issue of judicial independence and how that interacts with this bill. The mechanisms that would be put in place with this bill would respect judicial independence. They involve a person committing to undertake training, but they preserve a level of autonomy in pursuing that training. The decision they make is ultimately still up to them, the things they say, how they make those determinations and so forth. They have to commit to the training, but in practice there does not seem to be a way of compelling them to do it.

In some respects that is a limitation, but it may well be a necessary limitation in that it preserves the independence of judges to act independent of the legislature even though we are going as far as we can within the balance of judicial independence to very strongly recommend the value of this particular training.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some references to the per cent of reporting in Canada and also some of the incidents that happened overseas in different countries and victims who were in minority groups.

I often hear of the need for protecting women or to provide them a safe place. I can completely relate and understand that, and it is necessary. However, would the member also think it is necessary to perhaps do a better job at educating our men, ensuring they are not committing these types of offences against women? We know nine out of 10 incidences involving sexual assault are female victims. We are also not doing so well in the country when we look at the statistics. We have a very low conviction rate.

Does the member think our system is also one that is broken? Perhaps we do not have as strong of a judicial system as we may think compared to other countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about providing training to judges in Canada. It is one that I strongly support because I think it is absolutely necessary. I completely agree as well with the member's comment that education as well as character formation for men is critically important. Most of the victims of sexual violence are women. Most of the perpetrators, statistically, are men. Absolutely, that is important and complementary to the point I made.

With respect to the international context, as we seek to make reforms in our system, we can see the need to strengthen the effectiveness of justice systems as being an important part of our international development assistance as well. Just as I do not think we should wait until poverty is fully solved at home before addressing poverty overseas, I do not think we should wait until this problem is fully solved at home before we engage overseas.

We also need to recognize the issue of online sexual exploitation means, unfortunately, in these crimes there may be links. There may be victims overseas who are being victimized by perpetrators in Canada. It speaks to the need for an international perspective and for that collaboration.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the recognition in the House this evening. Bill C-3 is a vital bill to speak to. I want to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks and his speech. I echo his remarks about celebrating Rona Ambrose and her being such a vital aspect to this proposed legislation.

I know that each and every member of this House is responsible for certain training. As a matter of fact, just this upcoming Monday I will be taking the House of Commons harassment training, so training is vital. It does not matter if one is a member of Parliament, or what profession one comes through, it is absolutely vital.

The previous speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal party, said that this legislation cannot come too soon. My hon. member, with as much passion, said it is time to speak out. How detrimental was shutting down the government to allowing people to speak out?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the point that my colleague is making. The prorogation of Parliament was a mistake. We can identify many vital areas of work that were either halted or put on hold as a result of that, including the important study being done at the Canada-China committee on Hong Kong, the work on this bill and other legislative items. There were certain aspects of the fiscal response to COVID-19 that were also delayed as a result of prorogation.

Across the board, on all of these issues, we have had a situation where the government prorogued Parliament, which caused a big delay, and then we came back and it said that we needed to rush.

I think it was very clearly a mistake. It was a mistake that was aimed at addressing political controversy around the WE scandal, as opposed to the public interest.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today, back in our nation's capital again for another sitting week.

I rise today in support of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This bill is a key step to ensuring that each individual who interacts with our justice system is treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve. I am eager to see this important bill continue to move through the legislative process.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to ensure that all newly appointed provincial superior court judges take part in training on social context and sexual assault law. This bill would also propose that when the Canadian Judicial Council develops seminars on sexual assault law, it does so following consultations with groups that the council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and organizations supporting them.

Bill C-3 also seeks to have the council report to the Minister of Justice on the seminars offered related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, this bill would require judges to provide reasons for decisions under certain sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

I am proud to note that Bill C-3 continues to be an example of parliamentary collaboration on key issues that have an impact on Canadians. The bill before us today is identical to Bill C-5, which was referred to committee before Parliament was prorogued.

Like Bill C-5, Bill C-3 reflects the private member's bill introduced by the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I want to thank her for her work and her commitment to these important issues. I look forward to continuing our collaboration to ensure that this bill is brought before the other place and that Canadians can benefit from the important changes it seeks to make.

This evening I would like to focus my remarks on the importance of social context training for judges. In particular, I would like to address how the social context education provisions in Bill C-3 would help ensure an inclusive justice system that is free from systemic racism and system discrimination.

Each individual who appears in court is more than a claimant, respondent or witness. They are not just a name on a legal document or a face in a courtroom. An individual's engagement with the justice system is deeply intertwined with their life outside of court. They bring with them to court their experiences, their stories and their context. To ensure that all people who engage with the justice system are treated respectfully, fairly and equally, judges need to understand the realities of these individuals who appear before them. Bill C-3 recognizes this need.

By requiring candidates to superior court benches to participate in continuing education on social context, Bill C-3 would help ensure that new judges are aware of the many factors that can affect a person's involvement in the justice system.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to a provincial superior court to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to social context after their appointment. This means that every new provincial superior court judge would begin their tenure on the bench with this important training.

Social context refers to a range of factors that impact an individual's reality and experiences, including experiences leading up with their interaction with the justice system, their first contact with the justice system and their experiences before a judge. The factors that make up social context intersect an individual's life. Social context includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination.

Bill C-3 reflects this reality. During the clause-by-clause study of this bill, the member for Hull—Aylmer proposed an amendment to specify that systemic racism and systemic discrimination are part of social context. I was pleased to support this critical amendment and see it pass at committee.

For too many Canadians, notably indigenous peoples, and Black and racialized Canadians, systemic racism and systemic discrimination are lived realities. We see this in health care, access to economic opportunity and our justice system. We know that indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We also know that Canadians who experience systemic racism and systemic discrimination face structural barriers to access to justice, barriers that have sadly been worsened by the pandemic.

Amending Bill C-3 to specify that social context includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination reflects where we are as a nation, where we are as a country. We have work to do.

Our government is committed to doing that work. We released Canada's anti-racism strategy for 2019 through 2022. We are investing in economic empowerment for racialized communities. We are combatting online hate, and we are creating a unified approach to better collect disaggregated data. Through these and other actions, we are taking concrete steps to combat systemic racism and systemic discrimination in their many incarnations, including in the justice system. Bill C-3 will help us achieve this critical goal.

Bill C-3 focuses on the importance of providing training for judges that addresses racism and systemic discrimination. When appointed, judges should be aware of the reality lived and experienced by the people who will come before them. The requirement for social context education set out in Bill C-3 would ensure that new judges have this awareness.

Learning about social context will ensure that newly appointed judges are aware of systemic racism, systemic discrimination and the ways these pervasive problems impact individuals' experiences with the justice system. When judges have this fundamental awareness, courtrooms are more sensitized, hospitable and inclusive. A judge who is aware of social context is, for example, better prepared to ensure that a racialized young woman with a disability appearing in court experiences a justice system that is respectful and responsive to her reality. Social context training supports understanding, empathy and appropriate judgments for all Canadians.

By bolstering judges' awareness of the context in which they fulfill their functions, social context training ensures myths and stereotypes or personal societal biases do not play a role in their decisions. Social context shapes the experiences of all individuals who interact with the justice system, whether they are before a judge, in superior court, or in provincial or territorial court. That is why our government is also working with our partners to improve the availability of training on social context for provincially and territorially appointed judges.

We must ensure that our justice system treats everyone with respect and dignity. The team work involved requires the collaboration of all parties and potential stakeholders in the justice system.

Together, we must work to ensure that Canadians have access to a justice system that is responsive, inclusive and free from systemic racism and systemic discrimination. This bill is an important step toward these goals, and I am eager to continue to work with my colleagues to move Bill C-3 forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

The Bloc Québécois believes that passing this bill serves the interest of Canadians. As the member stated, this is about trust, awareness, emotions and social context. Bill C-3 touches on our beliefs, our values and our emotions. Victims, just like judges, have their own value systems, which vary greatly from one person to the next.

Does my colleague believe that the training given to judges will truly have an impact on the decisions they will have to make in sexual assault cases?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my answer, quite simply, is that, yes, this will have a positive impact on our justice system. It will have a positive impact, once the law is put in place and implemented, for judges to be more sensitized to the needs of Canadians who face systemic discrimination and racism. Bill C-3 would also reaffirm the principle judicial independence for our legal community and judges, and rightly so.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Of course it is necessary to train judges to ensure they have increased knowledge and awareness when dealing with cases of sexual assault. That is something that the Bloc Québécois supports.

However, there is another skill that is important when becoming a judge in the highest court in this country, and that is language skills. Right now, there is no legal obligation for judges to be bilingual.

I want to give some background. In 2006, Stephen Harper's Conservative government appointed a unilingual anglophone judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, which caused quite an uproar. Many francophones in Canada, particularly in Quebec, were appalled by this insulting decision. Then, in 2010, Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser stated that bilingualism should be an essential criteria for becoming a judge, particularly in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, in 2011, Stephen Harper's Conservative government appointed another unilingual anglophone judge.

Today, the Minister of Official Languages, the member for Ahuntsic-Cartierville, very strongly suggested that French was declining in Quebec and Canada.

Does my colleague believe that Supreme Court judges should be officially required to be bilingual?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is a very important factor for me and my family, but I would generally state that Bill C-3 would improve the confidence in our justice system for all Canadians, especially sexual assault survivors, and that is the intent of the bill.

I also wish to thank the hon. member who brought forward the original incarnation of the bill, the Hon. Rona Ambrose.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on how encouraging it is to see all political entities in the House of Commons get behind the legislation, which will ultimately see it passed.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the collaboration that we are seeing on Bill C-3 is great to see and it reflects the reality of where we are as a nation. We want to move forward on breaking down barriers, especially for systemic racism and systemic discrimination, and we want to make sure that survivors of sexual assault have the confidence to come forward, and that their stories will be listened to in a manner that is appropriate. I wish to thank the justice committee for its great work on this and the Minister of Justice for his great work on Bill C-3.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to address Bill C-3. It has gone through committee and is now back in the House of Commons, and we once again get an opportunity to speak to it.

I want to point out that this is a pleasant departure for the Liberal Party in supporting the bill. In the past the Liberals have typically been odious, pointing out errors that the justice system gets. For them to give clear instructions to the justice system is refreshing. I am excited to see that they are supporting the bill, that they have moved it forward and that we have the Government of Canada pursuing education of judges.

We have seen in the past some horrendous crimes that have been committed in this country, and we have seen sentencing that does not seem to fit the crime. The sentencing does not provide an incentive to not do the crime again. I am talking particularly in the area that I know best, around human trafficking. I have a series of examples in which folks were convicted of trafficking people and the justice system was incapable, or folks in the justice system were rude about what was going on. It led to people being concerned and not willing to come forward when they had a crime perpetrated against them.

I remember one situation in which a gal was talking to me. She had come forward and pressed charges against an individual, but the guy was out on bail very quickly and was standing at the end of her driveway making threatening gestures such as slicing across his throat. This is a justice system that was supposed to be there to protect her. I am happy to see the government supporting the bill to provide judge training, and it is important that we get it right. The justice system should get it right.

I also want to note that I will share my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, a great colleague of mine. I also had the opportunity to tour him across the promised land. He is from Quebec and I am from Alberta. I know there is a bit of rivalry there, although it is more imagined than real because when I had him, a Quebecker, in Alberta, I stuck him in a trench of a pipeline and showed him what pipelines were all about. He was impressed with the size of the farms that we have where I come from. He is the member of Parliament for the maple syrup capital of Canada, and I am the member of Parliament for the honey capital of Canada, which I think is pretty sweet, either way. I do take a little honey in my coffee because I think that makes me a little sweeter all the time.

We have seen human traffickers get off with sentences that were in many cases less time than they had spent trafficking their victims. We have seen traffickers who trafficked multiple girls for several years get months in prison. We also see traffickers, who have made hundreds of thousands of dollars trafficking people, get fines of $5,000. It is important to me that the justice system provides justice and deterrence. It says in the Bible that the law cannot save us, and that is true. The words on a piece of paper will not in the instant save someone, but we do try to rectify these situations after the fact. Our justice system is to bring justice to the situation. We see in the bill the acknowledgement that our justice system does not get it right all the time.

From time to time, things change, things come to light, society changes and society sees the need to shine a spotlight on particular issues. That is what this bill does. I am pleased to support the bill.

However, this is a departure from what we have seen in the past. We have seen the Liberals hesitate on bringing justice through the justice system for human trafficking victims. When it comes to consecutive sentencing, we saw a bill that was first introduced by a Bloc member, then was introduced by an NDP member and it was finally passed under a Conservative government. It was brought into force by the Liberal government.

However, before the bill was brought into force, the government waited for two years to pass Bill C-75. It could have been brought into force immediately when it took power back in 2015, but the government waited in order to pull out consecutive sentencing, because, lo and behold, if a trafficker had to go to jail for an extended period of time, that would not have been right.

The Liberals delayed the passing of that bill. While it had originally been introduced in 2013, it took all the way until 2017 to be reintroduced. We see that when the bill was finally brought, the Liberals had pulled the consecutive sentencing out and went back to concurrent sentencing, saying if someone had trafficked one girl, they were going to jail for a maximum of 10 years, and if they had trafficked 10 girls, they could serve those sentences concurrently. Regardless of how many people they had trafficked, they would serve the sentences concurrently.

That is not justice. That is not bringing people to justice. That is not providing any deterrent. Perhaps the Liberals will stand up and ask me questions about this, and maybe they will clarify whether they actually believe that deterrence should be something that is part of our justice system. Do Liberals believe that deterrence is part of our justice system?

At the end of the day, serious penalties for this type of sexual violence is important. However, it is more important to provide real protection for victims who endure years of trauma and take years to recover, knowing that their trafficker could be out and back on the streets before they have been fully integrated back into society.

Today we see that judges are still handing down human trafficking sentences that do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. The government refuses to send a message to traffickers by mandating serious penalties.

I propose that the government, at the very least, consider adopting a similar approach to human trafficking as it did on this bill. Judicial training on human trafficking law would be unprecedented. Maybe we could go beyond this. Maybe we could look at special courts. I know there are a number of special courts in Canada. We see drug courts where there are two doors. If someone is convicted of a drug crime, there are two doors. One is rehabilitation; the other is jail. People can choose which door they want to go through. If they do not abide by the conditions set when they cross the first door, then they are switched to the second door.

Those kinds of things have been successful in Canada. I think Ontario is the province that has been pushing that the most. I think that is great. In Alberta, we have the child advocacy centre. It is not a special court, but it is a centre where children of sexual abuse come. There are complete wraparound services. It is not a sterile institutionalized facility. There are puppy dogs wandering around. There are nice trees. The whole place is a place to put people at ease.

All of the government services that come into play in a case of child abuse come to the child, rather than sending the child through multiple different institutions. That, again, has been a great model and is something that we could see across Canada, in terms of dealing with human trafficking victims.

While I support the government's initiative around the bill, I hope that we can see some of these other things that Conservatives are pushing for that get our justice system to provide justice but also, on the front end, prevent these crimes from happening by providing a deterrent.

It is always an honour and privilege to rise in the House of Commons.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has been talked about in the third reading and a bit in second reading is how wonderful it is to see the unanimous support for a good idea. What would make the idea even better is if we were to see more and more provinces look at their appointments.

Could the member share his thoughts on what role we could have in encouraging this? I believe Ontario has moved forward and possibly another province has. What are his thoughts on that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know appointments are a very important part of the judicial system. What I always say about the judicial system is that we have to get it right. If the average Canadian thinks the case is being judged fairly, then we are getting it right. If we are not getting it judged right, then we have a problem and we need to have a chat with the judges, which is what the bill would do.

As to provincial jurisdiction, I am always concerned about treading on provincial jurisdiction. I have close colleagues who work in provincial legislatures and I talk to them about the bills I am working on, the ideas I have and they do the same. On appointments and training for judges, we should be working hand in glove with the provinces.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech.

The Quebec bar has expressed some concerns about Bill C-3, particularly because the vast majority of criminal offences are handled in provincial courts.

Training for judges is a good idea, but the Quebec bar has pointed out that many of these cases will be handled by provincial judges and not federal ones.

Does my colleague think that this could create some irregularities or lead to an uneven administration of justice across Canada?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think that will be a problem at all. The bar association can step up for sure. I believe it represents both federal and provincial lawyers. The bar associations could provide this training, which would be more useful than us having to pass bills on that.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on human trafficking, which is so important.

My question is on accountability. We seem to have an issue with accountability. He mentioned some of it with the sentencing. With respect to Bill C-3, which I support, how does the member propose there will be accountability for the justices so they actually follow through with what we want them to do in the bill?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the issue all the time. If we go back to the appointments, which the member from Winnipeg talked about, this kind of training sends a message to the judicial system as to our expectations in this place.

As for accountability, there is an independence between this place and the judiciary which we must always appreciate. There can be a conversation about it, but that is always going to be a challenge. I do not see a great accountability structure at this point, so we really just send a message and hope that is the case. It goes back to appointing the right people. Appointments are very important.

I know the member for Kootenay—Columbia is right next door to Alberta. I like to call him an honorary Albertan. Any time that part of the province wants to join Alberta, come on down. However, I want to point out that the Alberta government has aggressively pursued anti-human trafficking measures. It has come out with a great strategy on ending human trafficking in Alberta. I hope the federal government can get behind this and bring in a national strategy that works for all Canadians.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be here this evening. First, I would like to commend and thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his excellent speech. I was impressed by the pipeline construction I saw when I had the opportunity and the pleasure to visit his riding. Perhaps we could find a new use for pipelines. We could send maple syrup from the beautiful riding of Mégantic—L'Érable to his riding via pipeline in the spring and then Mégantic—L'Érable could get delicious honey from his riding the same way in the fall. That would be an excellent opportunity for trade between our two ridings.

It is with honour and enthusiasm that I rise today at third reading of Bill C-3, which is also known as the just act. I hope it will help women who are victims of sexual assault to regain some trust in the justice system and encourage them to come forward when they are assaulted.

I would like to remind members that this is the third time that the House has tried to pass the just act. We must give its original author, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, all the credit for bringing before the House the serious issue of the lack of training of some judges who hear sexual assault cases.

When introducing the just bill, which was private member's Bill C-337 at the time, my hon. colleague Ms. Ambrose said:

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House to introduce a bill to address the need to build more confidence in our judicial system when it comes to the handling of cases involving sexual assault and sexual violence. Too often, those involved in these cases come away with the feeling they have experienced not just a judgment on their case but a judgment on their character.

On another occasion, she gave more detail to explain why women are afraid to file a complaint. She talked about what survivors go through in the justice system and the repercussions it has on them:

We have people who have backgrounds in corporate law, and oil and gas law who are overseeing some of these trials. That's not good enough. They need to have the training in criminal law and particularly in these kinds of cases, I believe. We know from research that's conclusive now that these kinds of crimes and this kind of trauma, especially at a young age, have a massive impact on girls and women. We know that women who experience violence are at least twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues, and they deal with these issues for the rest of their lives.

Clearly, the justice system is frightening for women who are victims of sexual assault. The statistics are clear: too few women report the assault, even fewer go to trial, and an infinitely small number of those trials end in convictions.

As I mentioned in my speech at second reading of Bill C-3, the numbers do not lie: 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. Of the remaining 17% of cases, one in five gets dropped, while the other four are subjected to intense scrutiny, leaving the victims caught in the middle of a difficult and stressful process that unfortunately has only a small chance of success. In three out of four cases, the proceedings are stayed, and just one in five will go to court. One in 10 cases ends in a conviction resulting in a fine or jail time.

Can we seriously ask women who are victims of sexual assault, especially women from disadvantaged, racialized or indigenous communities, to trust a system that finds it so difficult to recognize the crimes committed against them and punish those responsible?

Let me talk about a study I read. The topic of this action research study was “Female victims of violence and the criminal justice system: experiences, obstacles and potential solutions”. This study was conducted by several groups in Quebec and uncovered several reasons for this harsh reality.

The women interviewed for this study revealed the reasons they were fearful of the justice system. These include a lack of trust and the fear of not being believed; the perception that the safety of victims cannot be guaranteed throughout the process; and the influence of comments made by justice system stakeholders and the women's friends and families, who, according to studies, express doubts about the women's ability to navigate the justice system.

From the outset, the women are clearly told that they may not be able to see the process through and that it will be very difficult. In short, many obstacles are placed in their way from the beginning.

Some of the other reasons that came up include the need to take care of themselves first and to manage everyday life in the wake of sexual violence; the anticipation of the consequences of the legal process on the women and those around them; a lack of information on the legal process; and the fact that women know that assailants or perpetrators of sexual violence will get fairly lenient sentences.

The study went even further. Women who had gone through the justice system spoke about the obstacles and issues they had faced, such as the dearth of knowledge about female victims of violence; the continued existence of bias; being made to feel guilty by people within the justice system; the feeling that violence against women is minimized because of the very common legal procedure of sentence bargaining, during which the Crown and the defence negotiate sentencing; a perception that the accused has more rights than the victim; and lengthy delays.

I encourage my colleagues to read this study. They can contact my office or just google it. This study helped me better understand what women face after experiencing sexual violence.

Bill C-3 is not a magic wand that will change everything all at once, nor will it single-handedly change the statistics, but I think judges are the cornerstone of our justice system. Canadian judges must have all the tools they need to deal with every possible situation. If we give judges access to sexual violence training and require new judges to take the training, the entire justice system will clearly be better off. I sincerely believe it is high time Canada took action on this issue.

To ensure a better understanding of sexual assault cases, a new law concerning judges' education just came into force in August 2020. Judges will be required to attend specific training provided by a judicial training institute. Amnesty International and SOS Viol, a victim support organization, have called this a major victory, saying: “This new law is a positive and important step in the right direction. It addresses one of our main concerns in the fight against rape and sexual violence in Belgium: the many gaps in the training of those on the front lines, particularly in the judiciary.”

In France, the training course on sexual violence created in 2016 is five days long and addresses relevant issues pertaining to this specific type of violence.

In England and Wales, a tracking system was implemented that requires Crown Court judges to take a specialized training course before being able to hear sexual violence cases.

After all these years of waiting and all of the opportunities that we have had to pass Ms. Ambrose's bill, it is time to finally take action and pass this bill so that it becomes a reality.

However, I heard the questions that were raised throughout today's debate and I know that this bill will apply only to judges appointed by the federal government.

Although it is an area of provincial jurisdiction, I want to say a few words about training for Quebec court judges because they are responsible for the majority of the province's sexual violence cases. The Quebec Court has a six-page training program, which provides a very good summary. The Quebec Court and the Quebec Judicial Council are responsible for this continuing education, which is an ethical obligation for these two institutions.

The Judicial Code of Ethics states that judges have an ethical obligation to acquire and foster the knowledge and skills they need to carry out their judicial functions. However, I had to read through until the fourth page of the document to learn that the Court of Quebec is working on a special project to give judges specialized training on preparing rulings. However, there is no mention of training on sexual violence there.

The very last page mentions training on the rule of law and also on the society in which these rules are applied. I quote:

With respect to sexual offences, the training deals primarily with the evolution of jurisprudence and legislation regarding the notion of “consent”, the admissibility of means of defence and the tests for ensuring that myths or stereotypes do not influence the assessment of the credibility of complainants.

Once again, the training is not mandatory—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired. We will now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a study he consulted that demonstrates how certain myths and stereotypes are sometimes perpetuated in the justice system. That is what I took away from it. As I said earlier, it would be good for judges to get away from these outdated cultural constructs.

I do not want to dwell on this too much, but to continue my reflection, I have to wonder whether certain members would not benefit from this kind of training. I am thinking about Bill C-6. As a reminder, that is the bill on conversion therapy. Certain members had some reservations.

I would like to hear from my colleague on that. Does he think certain members should take that training in order to better understand the realities facing sexual minorities?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my two daughters, my wife and all the women of Mégantic—L'Érable, Quebec and Canada, I would say that it is of the utmost importance to support Bill C-3. I hope it will receive royal assent as quickly as possible. I am also in favour of Bill C-6, which I will support without any hesitation.

However, what I am thinking about the most right now is the fact that this is the third time that Parliament has tried to adopt the Hon. Rona Ambrose's bill. This is not the time to be playing politics. It is time that we moved forward.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of the debate today has focused on the inclusion of language related to systemic racism and the importance of education and training for judges, including training specifically on systemic racism.

I am wondering if the member supports that inclusion and, if so, why he thinks it is important to have it in the bill.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That is already in the bill. My colleague is well aware of that because the committee proposed amendments to the bill and thus the changes are already included.

As I mentioned, there are problems of sexual violence, especially in racialized, underprivileged and indigenous communities. It is important that any form of sexual violence be well understood by judges. That is the initial objective of Bill C-3, and I support it 100%.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judges shape society, so it is important that judges understand the society within which they work and, indeed, the society in which those people who appear before them in court live, work and breathe. I am thinking of accused people and witnesses, of course, but I am thinking particularly of victims.

Sadly, that has not always been the case in the Canadian court system, and this is especially true in sexual assault proceedings. There have been instances where victims have felt mistreated, disrespected and not treated with the dignity they deserve as human beings, and that is not acceptable.

The result is that many people do not bother to report cases of sexual assault. According to Statistics Canada, 95% of sexual assault cases are never reported. Fully two-thirds of sexual assault victims surveyed by the justice department say they have no confidence in Canada's court system.

One of my constituents, Lia, wrote a very thoughtful email to me, and I will highlight a couple of sentences from it. She said, “For far too long, survivors 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 must change. Survivors of sexual assault have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.” Sadly, that has not always been the case in the Canadian court system. I agree with Lia that this must change.

What has gone wrong?

The Canadian criminal justice system is based on many centuries of common law tradition coming out of England. It is a legal structure built around an adversarial system where the Crown advances a rigorous prosecution and the defence an equally rigorous defence. The accused always has the presumption of innocence in their favour, so the hurdle for the Crown prosecutor to overcome is a very high one. That is the system we have adopted, and that is what we say is best for society.

However, the result is that victims are often treated very badly, in their opinion. The accused has the right to meet their accuser in court and to subject the evidence to rigorous cross-examination, which will often involve drawing the victim's reputation into question. Sometimes, despite the prosecution's best efforts, the accused person is not convicted and, unfortunately, the victim's reputation is left in tatters.

The risk associated with our criminal law system is far from perfect as it is, but we say it is the best way to conduct criminal trials because it is more important that innocent people are not convicted than it is that guilty people are left to go free. However, the sad result is that in many sexual assault cases it is the victims who are revictimized in the process, and that is not acceptable.

The bill before us is about the education and training of judges, and it is very timely. It is about rebalancing the right of the accused to have a fair trial with the right of the victim to be treated with dignity and respect. It is about ensuring that trust is maintained in our justice system, which is important not only for the victim but for all of society, and that survivors of sexual assault are treated respectfully. It is about judges being equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to run fair trials. Ultimately, the bill is all about maintaining that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute by poorly run trials. We need educated judges.

All parties in the House agree on this, so why are we debating it? Well, there is a little thing called “judicial independence”. It is a little thing, but it is fundamental to the way our society operates. Politicians do not tell judges what to do. Judges need to be independent. We set laws, but we do not tell judges how to run their courts and how to make decisions. That is up to them. This is so fundamental to our judicial system and our western democracy. Sadly, it seems that some elected officials have not learned that lesson.

From the sounds of it, everybody in this House is in agreement that this bill should become law. That is not true of all people. There are some academics and jurists who say the bill is going in the wrong direction and is undermining judicial independence. What about that? With Bill C-3, are we stepping over the line of judicial independence? When we consider that question there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First, not every lawyer who is appointed to a superior court will have had experience in their careers up to that point with actually working in the criminal justice system, and certainly not with any sexual assault proceedings. Some will have practised in other fields, such as commercial law, tax law, intellectual property law or, like I did, corporate law.

Therefore, I would submit it is important and completely appropriate that judges should undergo special education in the field, as is stated in Bill C-3, including, “instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent”, which is so fundamental to sexual assault law, “and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings”. I could not agree with that more.

Another thing to keep in mind when we are talking about whether or not this bill steps over the line of judicial independence is that other countries, and some of the previous speakers have alluded to this, require their judges to have special training before they become judges. They have to go to judge school. We have not done that here in Canada. We say that if one has practised law for 10 years, regardless of whatever field it is in, he or she is now qualified to become a judge. That is why it is so important that we have the special education for judges.

One more thing we should keep in mind when we ask whether Bill C-3 is stepping over the judicial independence line, is that the bill states it is the Canadian Judicial Council, which is run by judges for judges, that is the organization that will decide what the content of the courses is and how they are to be connected. Therefore, this bill does not tell judges what to do or how to decide cases. It does not tell them to have a higher rate of conviction. It simply tells judges to get themselves educated because that is what society expects of them. It is certainly what victims expect.

If we hope that more victims will report cases of sexual assault, which I think is fundamental to our court system working properly, then I think we need to do whatever we can to build that confidence back into the minds of the Canadian public that our court system is fair to victims of sexual assault.

The bill also talks about the requirement that judges in sexual assault proceedings must give written reasons. Does that go too far? I would submit that it does not because the victim, the accused and their lawyers should have the right to review the reasoning of the judge, how he or she came to that decision.

Also, I would say the requirement that judges should give written reasons will inevitably result in more guarded and well-considered language when judges write up their decisions. That is good for everyone involved, including the victim, the accused, all of Canadian society and, importantly, the credibility of our criminal justice system.

When we weigh the risk to judicial independence introduced by Bill C-3, which I think is a very small risk for the reasons stated, against the risk of our courts being disrespected, which is a real and present danger, most Canadians will support the purpose of intent of Bill C-3. That is why I thank the people who have written to me, including Lia, encouraging me to vote in favour of this bill.

This bill is a step in the right direction to rebalance the interests of the accused to a fair trial and the complainant to respect and dignity. As a Conservative, I am proud that this bill was initiated on this side of the House by our former colleague Rona Ambrose. I thank the Hon. Rona Ambrose for introducing this.

I have a quote here from Ms. Ambrose, which I think is really interesting. She said:

...like me, many Canadians would be surprised to learn that a lawyer does not need any experience in the sensitivities of sexual assault cases to become a judge overseeing these types of challenging trials.

As I said earlier, this might be the first sexual assault case that a judge has ever heard or been involved in, in a criminal law setting, much less in a sexual assault proceeding. The judge, prior to becoming a judge, might have been a tax lawyer or dealt with intellectual property law.

I am a little less surprised than most Canadians about this gap in judges' education. In this debate, we have talked about new judges who have little or no experience in sexual assault proceedings. That creates challenges, obviously. However, at the other end of the spectrum are judges who, as lawyers, practised solely in the field of criminal law, maybe even specializing in sexual assault cases and, when they become judges, have a first case of complex commercial law.

I think there is something missing in judges' education. That is where I am going with this. Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction. The field of law is so broad that not even the smartest, most educated and well-intentioned judge could know it all.

As a lawyer, I must undergo continuing professional development every year in order to maintain my practice licence. I would submit that the same should apply to judges, and maybe even more so to judges because they are societal influencers. They need to understand the society within which they work.

I am confident that our judiciary, in consultation with appropriate stakeholder groups, will develop an effective, responsible, continuing education program for judges, and that judges will respond favourably to Bill C-3. I will be voting in favour of this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have about three minutes or so remaining for questions and comments. Of course, the full 10 minutes could be taken if the House chooses to get back to that, when it gets back to the bill in front of the House. For now, we will go to questions and comments, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this bill is focusing in on a very necessary aspect of our justice system, and that great injustices have been done.

However, I want to ask the hon. member if he feels that, incrementally, we should be thinking of the same process for judges when it comes to dealing with indigenous people, who tend to be overrepresented in terms of the severity of the sentences handed out and in terms of imprisonment, etc., or Black people. There are a number of different categories of people who appear in court and who appear to be treated badly. I am wondering how the member would want to see those issues approached.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Judges influence society; therefore, they must understand the society within which they work and within which the people who appear before them in court live.

Sadly, indigenous people are overrepresented in our court system and in our prisons. I think it would be very important for judges to get training in understanding some of these societal influences to a much greater degree than they do right now.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and his support of this very important bill. I want to give my personal thanks to the Hon. Rona Ambrose for the work that she did in the last Parliament. Now we are dealing with this again in this Parliament.

I have an organization in my riding, SACE, the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, that has been desperately waiting for this legislation to be passed. How frustrating does the member think it was for this bill to have been delayed again by the proroguing of Parliament?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation should have happened a long time ago. This must be done quickly.

Ninety-five per cent of people who experience sexual assault do not even report it, because they do not have confidence in the judicial system. It needs to be fixed. It is a high priority. It should have been done a long time ago.

The House resumed from November 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in this House to speak to Bill C-3, a piece of legislation that is absolutely vital. It is vital not only for today, but for the future on so many fronts.

Before I do that, I would really like to make a huge recognition of a life lost yesterday on Manitoulin Island, of an OPP officer for 28 years in the Little Current dispatch. He responded to a call only to not be able to go home and see his family.

I have first cousins who serve on the OPP. One of them, in fact, ironically, is the captain of the Chris D. Lewis OPP boat in my riding. I get asked a lot if I named that boat. The truth of the matter is that I did not; I am Chris B. Lewis.

We thank Constable Marc Hovingh for his service, not only to Ontario but to Canada.

I got a text from my mother last night. She is in Silver Water with my father. I know I am not speaking to Bill C-3, but this is very important. She sent me a text asking what was going on in Gore Bay. I told her I did not know what she was talking about. This is where our family cottage of 23 years is. To find out when such hurt happens on the largest freshwater island in the world and the smallest community, quite frankly, it is astonishing and it is sad.

My heart goes out to the family of Constable Hovingh and to all the residents of Manitoulin Island. I know he will be dearly missed, and I thank him very much for his service.

I would ask this House to please join me, just for 20 seconds of thought for the constable. This is absolutely astonishing. I will take 20 seconds of my time to remember him.

[A moment of silence observed]

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. member. I represent the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and I extend my deepest condolences to Marc's wife, Lianne and her children, as well as to all of his OPP colleagues, both currently serving and past, because we know that it also affects everyone, and to the community of Manitoulin Island because although he served in the Little Current detachment, he served all of Manitoulin and the area. I do appreciate the hon. member's comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Essex.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much as well and again, our hearts are with you and all the members of Manitoulin.

I have been reflecting on Bill C-3 and what an honour it is to stand in the House in this place. At the same time, I look at it from a different angle and l say why do I have the right to stand in the House and speak to Bill C-3. It is not because I sit on the justice committee. It is not because my office overlooks the Supreme Court of Canada, it is because I was duly elected to come to this place to represent all of my constituents.

I am a bit of a political geek. Along my path of trying to become a politician, I used to go on the various parties' websites and look at each individual MP and always be in absolute awe and dive into what they were doing and saying. Rona Ambrose was one person who resonated with me. For some reason, she really stuck with me and it took until last night for me to really understand why that was. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity yet to meet Ms. Ambrose and I hope at some point I do. I would love to talk to her at some point in time and what better platform to use than the House.

She was so far ahead of her time on this legislation. Unfortunately, as we all know, it has been introduced twice. It has failed twice and now it is being introduced for the third time. I believe it will get unanimous consent in the House and I do not want to speak for anyone, but I believe that to be the case. We have to celebrate the groundbreaking achievements that she made with this legislation. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for her leadership on this legislation and I could never be prouder than to stand here in this place and speak to that.

I have 20 minutes, but I could probably talk for two hours or more.

First and foremost, there are four females in my life who have been incredibly influential to me along the way on my path to where I stand here today, proud and excited to be a Canadian.

First and foremost is my mother. My mother allowed me opportunity. She allowed me the gift of being myself. She allowed me the gift of openness, truthfulness, not being pushed into a corner. She allowed me to smile. She allowed me to make my own decisions without fault and for that I will always be grateful.

The second person I admire, and this is a slippery slope, is my lovely wife Allison. It always goes my mother and then my wife, because my mom is the one who is going to send me a text afterward.

The second one is my wife Allison, coming up on 22 years, a woman who, again, allows me to do what she knows I believe is right, is right for Canada and is right for this world. She gives me the freedom. She gives me the longest dog leash ever to let me come to Ottawa and do what is right, absolutely without any question.

The third woman, who is why I am so passionate about Bill C-3 today, is my daughter Faith. Faith is 17 years old. She is going to graduate, likely with honours, this year from grade 12. Her ambition in life, all she wants to do, is to be a veterinarian. Notwithstanding the fact that it is tougher to get into the school to become a veterinarian in Canada than to become a general practitioner, the very fact is I do not care what she wants to do, but I am awfully proud of her.

Regarding the fourth person, about a year and a half ago when I was running to become a member of Parliament, I went to a school in the town of Essex, in my riding, and I spoke to a grade 5 class. When I got there with my handler, so to speak, we had to go to the principal's office. Who greeted me, other than this amazing young woman?

Her name is Jade. She is about yea tall, and has the most bubbly, energetic, fantastic, positive attitude one could ever imagine. I am telling members that they have never met anybody like this. By the way, I am happy that she is as young as she is, because she could run for my spot and probably beat me. She is just fantastic, and there are no rules with her. Yesterday, because I have not had a chance to talk to Jade as of late, I asked her teacher from last year if we could please set up a Zoom call, and we did. Not only did I get to speak to Jade for about 20 minutes, I also got to speak to the rest of the class.

Why am I saying this? Every day that we wake up we can learn something new, and I have to tell the House that if I did not say this, it would be an injustice to Jade. I asked Jade to tell me something exciting and what she wants to do. I was thinking she wanted to be the Prime Minister of Canada. I did not know what she wanted to do. Members have to understand that this beautiful young lady is just fantastic and full of passion for life. She said she wants to work in a museum.

I said, “In a museum? That is neat. Tell me something that I do not know.”

She said, “I know,” and she had her hand up.

I love it. She said, “I bet you don't know what a pangolin is.”

I said, “A penguin?”

She replied, “A pangolin.”

I said, “I have never heard of a pangolin in my life.”

She said, “Well, it's just an aardvark with a whole bunch of scales on it, and they're really pointy, so nothing can get at it.”

I said, “Wow.”

Her teacher from last year, Mrs. Armstrong, was an enormous role model for that young woman, and I thank Mrs. Armstrong enormously for what she has done. I am telling members that Jade is the reason I stand in the House so proudly, and I know we have to fight going forward.

Why do I bring up these stories? Why do I bring up the women? It is because it is absolutely vital that we protect them. Let us just suggest, for a moment, that my mother, my wife, my daughter or Jade, along that path, had been assaulted. I do not believe any of them have ever been assaulted, but in the event that they had been, how would that have impacted my life? How would it have steered the ship of my life if they had not received due justice? Because of that, I am incredibly proud to stand here and celebrate my mentors. I am sure the members of the House have many mentors as well.

I had a Zoom meeting on October 27 with an amazing woman: Marion Overholt. We discussed the training for judges on sexual assault cases. I am going to read through a few of her points. First and foremost, I was a firefighter for seven and a half years, and we responded to all types of calls, whether a fire or a heart attack, but we responded, at some times, to assault victims, when the ambulance could not get there quickly enough. I remember one very dearly that I will not give details of. I recall it like it was yesterday, but I did not realize the people who were behind this. As a firefighter, I would go and put a fire out and go home to my family, but it continues on. I did not realize that until after this discussion with Ms. Overholt.

She has actually appeared before the justice committee in the past. She has 37 years of practice. She is a community legal aid worker, and works out of the local OPP detachment. She said, “In the past, victims have shied away from pressing charges, because they do not think that they would be believed.” That is an incredibly powerful statement. If those four main ladies in my life did not believe that they would be believed, it would be an absolute injustice.

Ms. Overholt went on to say that sexual assault often happens in private, intimate settings involving no witnesses and often without clear evidence. The narrow focus then becomes about credibility. Often, the victim will not testify but the complainant will, potentially widening the gap.

What does that mean? To me it means this, and I am going to go back to the basics.

Next year, hopefully, I will proudly see my daughter off to university somewhere, be it in Calgary, Guelph or the U.S. if COVID ever gets under control there. I believe that she needs the right, the confidence and the belief that if something happens to her, she can come forward and have a voice and not feel victimized, but will know that the courts and the justice will do their due diligence for her.

Getting back to my meeting on October 27th, Ms. Overholt went on to say that Crown prosecutors don't actually represent the victim. They represent the Crown, whereas the defence lawyer is there for the defendant.

That was an interesting conversation. The next time I am told that I am guilty or that I am a victim, I would certainly think that the Crown would go the other way and reach out to the victim, especially when the victim does not necessarily have a voice.

She went on to say that the burden of proof is high: Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Victims often describe the trial as being worse than the assault.

What does that mean? We had some great discussion about this.

It takes so long to get to court. If somebody is victimized tomorrow, blessed that they are not, it can take years to get to court. By the time it gets to court, the healing process of the victim has begun to, I would suggest rudely, at least put a scab on it. The moment that it goes back to the court, the victim has to look the defendant in the eye, listen to the testimony, and the band-aid with the scab comes off, and they have to again live through what they already went through years prior. It is deplorable, and it is wrong.

I will speak quickly about training.

As I mentioned, I was in the fire department, and I trained for CPR, WHMIS and high-angle rescue ropes. In my personal business, I had to train for confined space. There were all kinds of training. This upcoming week, as a member of Parliament, I am taking harassment training. My point is that nobody is above the law, and should not be. If members of Parliament are good enough to do training, surely our judges are fine to do training. Why do I say that? Well, nobody is perfect. I do not really call it “training” so much as “tools in the tool chest.” Let us have an open discussion, and if there is a case in Ontario then let us see what is happening in B.C. If there is a case in B.C., let us see what is happening in Newfoundland, and let those judges integrate and talk about this, because, quite frankly, this is a much larger discussion.

To conclude, I really want to thank Ms. Ambrose for bringing this legislation forward. I will be very proud and honoured to vote in favour of Bill C-3.

[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, Bill C-3 is about training judges related to sexual assaults, and is applicable to federally appointed judges.

The member made reference to being proud of his daughter. Yesterday, my daughter, who happens to be an MLA in the province of Manitoba, introduced the province's Bill 215, which is known as the provincial court amendment act. In essence, it does the same thing that Bill C-3 does for federally appointed judges. For us as a society to be able to move further on this issue, we need provincial and territorial legislatures to adopt similar legislation, so as he is proud of his daughter, I too am proud of my daughter.

I would encourage the Manitoba legislature to do what the House of Commons has done, and recognize a good idea that was brought forward by a Conservative interim leader. It will be supported unanimously here. Would the member recommend that the Manitoba legislature do likewise?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am unable to recommend it because I am not part of the Manitoba legislature, but this is absolutely vital.

I can appreciate how proud the hon. member is of his daughter and, rightly so.

I think we have to look at this on a national scale. I think it is absolutely vital that in each region and each province, we continue to push this forward to protect the most vulnerable, and make sure that the most vulnerable are the ones who have a voice at the table when it goes to the courts.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I honestly do not think that we hear enough feminist speeches like the one the member for Essex just gave in the House. We need more speeches like that.

I think that there should be more focus on these issues and that equality will be achieved when more men speak out on issues affecting women, and so I thank the member for his speech.

I listened with interest to the member's speech. I expected him to talk about what should be included in the training for judges. If the member for Essex were teaching it, what issues would he like to make judges aware of, for which we could propose possible measures?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, specific to the training, and wrapping up my final point, I think the biggest thing is that we need the training to not only dive into the details, but to make sure that we have open communication across the country. Again, Ontario justices may not know what happens in B.C. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Rather, that open line of dialogue needs to happen.

It is absolutely vital, and will always be vital, for victims to have a true voice at the table, for them to be heard and to bring their issues forward without feeling like their voices are being left out.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague acknowledged the revictimization of women who have experienced sexual assaults when they seek justice.

I wonder if the member also agrees that issues where women have experienced injustice are further compounded for indigenous and BIPOC women, who often experience a dual revictimization based not just on their gender, but also on their identity.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I never thought I would be able to speak for 20 minutes and not even get to some of my other points.

In days past, I flew into two indigenous reserves in Manitoba. One of the elder's homes that I went to actually had a victim present. I have been speaking about this by way of Bill C-7, specific to people with disabilities and indigenous peoples.

I would strongly suggest that this should not stop in the House, but should be for all people across Canada, be they indigenous or people of colour.

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

Madam Speaker, this is about young women and girls and ensuring that as generations grow, people understand that women are not objects. I appreciated the member's words and I know he will always defend women's rights when it comes to their safety and security.

I wonder if the member could continue on with some of his thoughts on how we can do more than just teach our judges. What can we possibly do in the education system to help young boys and girls understand their own sexuality as well as respecting others?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, long before it gets to training judges, it needs to happen in our schools. To some extent, the discussion has already started, but I have to question if it has gone far enough. A young woman going from grade 8 to grade 9 is one thing. However, when they come out of grade 12, go off to university and something happens there, which is much more likely, have we told them it is okay to stand up for themselves? Have we told them, both women and men, that it is okay to tell their stories, that they will be trusted and believed by our court system?

Therefore, yes, a lot more needs to be done within our school system for sure, and to some extent it has started. I can say that because I have a 21-year-old, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old at home. I have watched them go through the school system and I know some discussion happens, but much more needs to be done.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the speeches throughout the week. There have been very heartfelt stories from all sides of the House. Just as we talk about the stigma associated with mental health, mental illness and mental injury, I cannot help but think Bill C-3 would help break the stigma and allow people to come forward more.

My colleague, the member Brampton North, is the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. She gave very impactful testimony about three sisters from my riding, the Pooni sisters, who came forward and gave their testimony about a long-standing issue of abuse.

Could my hon. colleague expand on how the bill would help break the stigma, obviously not everything, and critical barrier for those coming forward?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the incredible work he has done on the mental health file. He is an absolute ambassador for it and has personally reached out to me.

To his point, absolutely, much more needs to be done. Collectively, because everyone in the House agrees this is a vital issue, we will make this right.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

As I prepared to talk today about Bill C-3, I could not help, like many of us I am sure, to think back to what we had experienced and learned over the course of our lives. I am firmly ensconced in white guy middle age, in old white guy zone.

However, I started out in public life as quite a young guy. I was 21 when I was first elected to Huntsville town council and the Muskoka regional council, and I did not know anything. I was fairly clueless and needed to learn an awful lot. Among the first things I learned about were the needs that existed in my community.

There is a perception of Muskoka as the playground of the rich and the famous and that everything is rainbows and sunshine. However, the reality in a place like Muskoka, and certainly the entire part of my riding, Parry Sound and Muskoka, is that the people who live and work in these communities year-round have a median income about 20% lower than the provincial average. There are struggles, there is a housing crisis and there are a lot of social problems, which I, as a kid, tended to think only existed in places like big cities.

I was in the home of a good friend of mine, Claude Doughty from Huntsville. He was the mayor at that time. He was a dentist in town and left his practice to become a developer, and he has built lots of wonderful things. His wife Kim Doughty is one of the most dynamic women I have ever known. They live in a beautiful home overlooking Fairy Lake, a gorgeous, absolutely stunning place. We were sipping on a Heineken and thinking about how this was all wonderful and we had great things going on in our town.

Claude's wife Kim came home and she was clearly upset. She had a difficult day. I knew she worked with Muskoka victim services. I asked her what had happened that day. She proceeded to tell me some of the most tragic and heart-wrenching stories I had ever heard. What struck me more than anything was that the situations she described, these traumas, these fears, these anxieties that existed, were literally blocks away from this home in the lap of luxury overlooking Fairy Lake.

Claude and I were both quite distraught by what we heard and decided we needed to do something, so we got to work. I immediately spoke with the executive director of Muskoka Women's Advocacy Group, which ran a shelter for women, called Interval House, in Bracebridge. We recognized that we needed to do more for north Muskoka and certainly into the Parry Sound area.

Claude, with his building expertise, donated a piece of land. We started a campaign that consumed the community. We were able to build a six-room shelter and 10-unit transitional housing facility for women escaping violence in their homes. As that project started, I came to know an awful lot more people in the social service industry and business in our area.

One of the other amazing people I met through the process of starting this was a woman by the name of Carolyn Bray. Carolyn was the executive director of the YWCA of Muskoka. People called it the Y without walls. It was not about gyms; it was about programs and supporting women and girls. I learned a lot from Carolyn about the issue of sexual violence and how, yes, they were most certainly victims. However, she recognized the importance of not just supporting women and girls, but helping little boys who may have grown up in a circumstance where they saw domestic violence, saw the way their father treated their mothers and because of their own lack of understanding, fears, anxieties and mental health, modelled the same behaviour when they became intimate partners.

Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Security means without care and without anxiety. Sadly, we know not all Canadians experience security.

Sexual assault is the only violent crime in Canada that is not declining, and 67% of Canadians know a woman who has experienced sexual violence. Roughly 6,000 women and children sleep in shelters on any given night in our country. Despite these numbers, only 5% of sexual assaults were reported to police in 2014.

We know it is because of the fear. We have heard people talk about how women are afraid to approach the justice system for fear of being revictimized or reliving the pain of the experience.

I have had the privilege of learning throughout my life and growing up into this role. As shocking as what I heard many years ago in the lovely home of Mr. Doughty, it is dismaying that we are still here talking about these things, that we have not solved these problems.

Bill C-3 is an important next step. It is really a minor next step. We have much more work to do. I am honoured that I have the opportunity to speak in favour of the bill. As a new member of Parliament who oftentimes sees how dysfunctional this place can be and how it takes forever to get anything done, I am thrilled that everybody gets the importance of the bill, of supporting women and ensuring that all women feel the same security and liberty I feel.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively when the member talked about Interval House and the work he and his community had done to set that up.

Back in the early 1990s, my mother worked for Interval House in Kingston for quite a while. We really got to see some of the hardships women who were coming from abusive relationships were facing. I saw the work that Interval House could do to significantly change lives.

I know the member talked about creating an Interval House. Could he talk about the results he saw having Interval House in his community?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has had a tremendous impact on my community.

I want to share a quick story that was in the newspaper about a woman who lived in a 17-year abusive situation with her ex-husband. When she left, she wound up in another abusive relationship in North Bay. When she left that one, she made it to Chrysalis house in Huntsville, which is the facility we built. She did not have bruises, it was not a recent event, yet she made it to Chrysalis house. She was scared. She did not know if it would accept her. She was offered a place to stay that was warm, safe and without judgment. She said that it was a feeling she had not known in 22 years. Imagine that.

She is doing really well. She stayed at the shelter and was able to move into the transitional apartment units next door, where there was support. She could get her life back together and get a job. She is doing really well. I am really proud of the role I played to get that place built.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I think that all of my colleagues will agree that this bill is critically important for protecting victims and improving our justice system.

I would like my colleague to reassure members and the public regarding some of the criticism of this bill. Some are saying that the bill could make the justice system less independent, whereas I believe that the more training there is, the better. Training can help break down myths and taboos. I would like to hear my colleague speak to that.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think an important point to make is that one cannot have too much education. There is no question that there are biases, myths and misunderstandings. As a society, we evolve. It is important for all of us to evolve along with it, so I would simply say that a little more education is always a good thing.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about domestic violence, but we know that many women who experience violence are not necessarily in a domestic dispute. In fact, if we look at the findings of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, many women experience violence as a result of, for example, not having proper housing or a safe place to stay.

I really am thankful for the work he has done to find safe spaces for women. I wonder if, in addition to training on the issues women face in courts, he also thinks it is important to include training on issues of systemic racism and poverty, and the impact they have on women seeking justice who have experienced sexual violence.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a completely important and accurate point. It is why I am pleased that one of the amendments made at committee was to include training related to systemic racism and the bias that exists in our society. I am glad that is in there.

We can talk about housing for many more hours. One of the reasons I came here was to talk about housing, so I appreciate my colleague's question.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of W̱SÁNEĆ peoples. I raise my hands to them. Hych'ka Siem. All honour to my colleagues gathered here.

I want to specifically thank the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and the Conservative caucus for organizing this morning's speeches so as to allow me an opportunity to speak to the bill. It highlights what I think will be a theme for what I want to say about Bill C-3 in that, right from the beginning, this bill started from a vantage point of non-partisanship. It was generous of the official opposition to grant me a speaking slot this morning as we are coming together to support good legislation.

We, of course, have referenced many times, that the origin of this legislation is entirely non-partisan in that, as we all know, it was put forward by Rona Ambrose. It is an extremely important piece of legislation. She put it forward when she was interim leader of the Conservative Party. It did pass Parliament. As we all know, it got bogged down in the Senate.

To see it come back here now as a Liberal government piece of legislation is extremely heartening. It is important legislation. I want to emphasize a couple of things in today's presentation to let the Canadian public know the ways in which the bill has been improved from when it was first tabled, and improved again in a spirit of non-partisanship.

The essence of the bill, of course, is found in many decisions that enraged citizens of Canada. Men, women and non-binary people looked at this issue and asked, “What on earth?” How can we have judges make pronunciations from the bench, and I have already spoken to this in the House, such as that of the judge who famously asked why the victim did not keep her knees together?

Judges make assumptions against the interests of victims, assumptions that a woman who had been sexually assaulted would not have responded in a certain way, or that she would do the following things. Judges without any training imagine what they might do in similar circumstances, and then they hold that as evidence against the veracity of a victim's claims. These things are what gave rise to this bill.

However, I can say now, and the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre just made this point, that much of what is in this legislation could have been taken from a report that was not yet written when Rona Ambrose presented this bill as a private member's bill. It was not written yet, because the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry had not been reported.

I would point out to members themes 16, 17 and 18, and part 3 of the report of the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, which point to these very factors that judges and the judicial system do not understand and do not recognize. They do not take the sexual assault and high levels of violence against indigenous women seriously. They do not take it seriously, and they do not understand that they need to learn more. That is spoken to in this bill.

At the point the bill came forward, we have been very occupied as a society with questions of violence against racialized people, now the acronym BIPOC for Black, indigenous, people of colour. They are more at risk of violence and more at risk, in disproportionate numbers, of being jailed for crimes.

Again, this is a non-partisan observation, but the bill is improved through the work that was done in committee. Whereas I initially, and I apologize to the people whom I took by surprise, thought that we all agreed on this bill and that it should move along a little faster, the time in committee was well spent.

The existence of a Black parliamentary caucus is relatively new, and it was formed as the world responded to the horrors racism and violence by police. That response was crystallized with the murder of George Floyd. There is now a Black parliamentary caucus.

That caucus is multi-party, and it took it upon itself to say that while the bill is to train judges to understand how women experience sexual violence, as well as how evidence should be received and how women are re-traumatized by that experience, could we not also use this training opportunity to broaden what judges learn.

For Canadians watching this, the bill now includes language that the continuing education for judges on matters related to sexual assault and social context now include the specific language “which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”. Again, it was a multi-party response and a way to improve the legislation.

I am particularly so proud of the work of the hon. member for Fredericton, who is a member of the Green caucus. Her amendment was accepted. Many Canadians would not know that as a party with fewer than 12 members of Parliament, Green Party MPs are not allowed to sit on committees. However, we do have a process, which is new since Stephen Harper. We can look at this new process as an opportunity, or we can look at it as being compelled to be at clause-by-clause in committee, but it is quite worthwhile when an amendment gets passed.

In this case, for her work, the hon. member for Fredericton is responsible for the amendment in the law, which, in reference to the group of people who advise on the content of the training judges are to receive, now includes the language, “Indigenous leaders and representatives of Indigenous communities”. That is a quote from the legislation with the new amendment thanks to the hon. member for Fredericton.

This legislation shows what we can do when we rise to our best selves, decide that an issue is not partisan, and embrace what my mother raised me to believe, which is that we can accomplish anything we want if we do not care who gets the credit. In this process, credit goes to everyone involved.

I thank again the Hon. Rona Ambrose for bringing this forward. I thank the hon. Minister of Justice and the current government for bringing it back to us as government legislation. I send thanks to everyone who laid a single hand. There are many fingerprints on this legislation, and they are all helpful. They are healing; they are feminist; they are racialized. However, we understand that we must do better.

This legislation is a first step. We must do more to ensure proper services for women who have been victims of sexual violence. For members who are looking for a model for their own community, in Victoria, B.C., the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and Clinic is an absolute model for how to aid victims of sexual assault and violence. We must do more in our communities, and we must do more as parliamentarians.

I appreciate the time allowed this morning to speak to the bill. I look forward to its passage. I hope it will be unanimous.

[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, it is amazing what we can do on the floor of the House of Commons. Last week, we passed legislation relatively quickly when all parties, including Greens, New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, came together. We passed wage subsidy legislation and rent assistance. It went on to the Senate and it has received royal assent.

Now we have yet another piece of legislation that appears to have the support again of Greens, New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. Hopefully, it will go to the Senate later today. I wonder if the former leader of the Green Party could provide her thoughts on how constructive we can be on the floor of the House of Commons when we collaborate and work together.

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

Madam Speaker, this is not something that will surprise anyone who knows me in this place. I know that we accomplish our very best when we are able to set partisanship aside. When we are together in a common cause, the Parliament of Canada represents the best of Canada. When we allow ourselves to devolve into sucker punch ideas that go over really well in question period, that is when Canadians are disappointed in us.

If we can see ourselves, first and foremost, as parliamentarians and somewhere down the list as politicians, we will make Canadians proud of us. The words of our current Speaker, when he accepted the election as Speaker, were that we should conduct ourselves in ways that would make our children proud if they happened to tune in. Today is one of those days.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will have about three minutes after question period to continue responding to questions and comments.

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 third time and passed.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech.

This bill would require prospective judges to take training, but it does not apply to judges who are already on the bench and cannot be removed.

Does my colleague hope that this requirement for new judges will encourage incumbent judges to take the training as well? We hope that incumbent judges who are already hearing cases, especially sexual assault cases, will also get up to speed on current knowledge, especially with respect to consent.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I think she is right. It is clear that judges who are already on the bench also need training to learn about the circumstances of women who are victims of sexual assault. I hope that this bill will also make this training available to judges who are already on the bench.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, if this kind of training were in place long ago, does she think the situation we have with respect to the missing and murdered women could be impacted?

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

Madam Speaker, there is so much about systemic racism that is part of the cultural genocide identified by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Certainly, the relationship with law enforcement must be taken into account.

The fear that marginalized women have is going to someone who is there by his or her job description to protect them but may in fact represent a threat. Yes, training for judges would certainly have helped, but I do not think it would be sufficient to avoid the ongoing scandal of the way missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are treated and our societal response.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This bill is very important to me as a lawyer, as a woman, but also as the shadow minister for women and gender quality. As such, I am pleased to stand in this place and debate the bill.

However, I am disappointed that because of the Prime Minister's continual lapse in ethical judgment, instead of facing scrutiny for his decisions, he chose to prorogue Parliament and the casualty was having to reintroduce the bill, meaning victims of sexual assaults still cannot get due justice. It is shameful.

Bill C-3 would add new eligibilities 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 would require 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 would do 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 certainly is 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. 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 heard instances of judges using insensitive language. For example, in 2014, Justice Camp made a comment to a sexual assault victim in my home city of Calgary, asking her why she could not keep her knees closed together. Comments like Justice Camp's are all too familiar and further lead to the stigma that the courts are not there to protect the victims.

In 2019, nearly a dozen cases were going through Canada's court system that shed light on how some judges continued to rely on myths and stereotypes when informing their decisions on sexual assault cases.

We are still hearing 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 complainants, potentially further revictimizing them as they have to relive the trauma by constantly retelling lawyers and judges their horrific experiences, in some cases, preventing them from being able to mentally heal.

The way victims are treated during their court proceedings as well as in the public eye is a major hindrance to reporting the crime in the first place, particularly if the person who committed the assault is someone in a position of authority or if it is someone they know, such as a father, brother or uncle.

Other victims witness how other sexual assault victims are treated in the justice system and are terrified that if they come forward, they will be treated the same way. It is well documented that sexual assault cases are 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. Because of this, many victims do not believe they will see a positive outcome in the justice system, which is why they do not come forward. This simply cannot stand.

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

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

The hope is that with education and training, victims of sexual assault will be treated with respect to avoid at all costs revictimizing them, which can be incredibly traumatizing for the individual. This will let other victims know they can be confident in our justice system and feel safe in coming forward.

Ms. Ambrose, as she provided her testimony before the status of women committee, said, “Really, to be honest, 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 ever going to see an increase in sexual assault 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.

I hope this bill passes quickly as this will only move us forward as a society and help grow confidence in our justice system.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Skyview for her speech. I am fortunate to serve with her on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which has actually already studied this bill, but that was some time ago, and we know that the pandemic has exacerbated the problem of violence against women.

I am actually just about to present a petition signed by one of my constituents. Her blog, Les Mots de Myra, or Myra's words, shares powerful testimonials from women who face prejudice when they try to speak out about their sexual assault cases. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that. December is coming up, and so is violence against women awareness week.

Is it not time for all of us here in the House to come together to pass this important bill, which is a big step forward for victims and survivors of sexual assault?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sit on the committee with the member, and I enjoy our conversations. It is time to start talking about women. The pandemic has highlighted what, to some extent, we already knew. It has brought all the problems to the surface.

This legislation is a step in the right direction in that women will feel more comfortable coming forward and talking about their experiences without having the feeling of revictimization. That is the whole purpose. I am very thankful that the bill is here before Parliament. All the parties seem to be supporting it, and I cannot wait for it to pass.

[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, to pick up on the member's comment, we also cannot wait for the bill to pass.

It is encouraging that last week we had all-party support from the Greens, New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals for the wage subsidy legislation and the rent subsidy assistance program. The legislation received royal assent just yesterday. It goes to show just how effective the House can be.

We now have another piece of legislation before us, and once again, it is receiving all-party support. Could the member provide her thoughts on how good it is to see all parties getting behind legislation in the hopes that it also receives royal assent soon?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is different than the usual one of venting on how previous governments screwed up.

The Conservative Party was there for Canadians. When the Liberals brought in a bill that addressed the concerns and helped Canadians, Conservatives were there for them, co-operating with the Liberal government in passing those bills to make sure that the help gets to Canadians as fast as possible.

In certain instances we also pointed out deficiencies that were highlighted by our constituents who could not meet the criteria for these programs. Yes, definitely in terms of helping Canadians, the Conservative Party has been there, and there has been acknowledgement from the other side as well that Conservatives have supported Canadians. We will continue to do that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken to a number of people in my riding about this bill.

I have also spoken to sex workers who are disproportionately impacted by the stereotypes and prejudices in our justice system. What they said to me was that this kind of bill is very important, but they also want parliamentarians and politicians to start listening to sex workers, and to acknowledge that sex work is work.

I am wondering what the member's comments on that would be.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill is here before Parliament and is about to get passed. It addresses the concerns that women have and women face when accessing the justice system. I am going to leave it at that.

This is a step forward in the right direction.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, at third reading. Bill C-3 should receive all-party support since it is a vital step forward in achieving justice and equity for women and girls who are still too often affected by rape and sexual assault in our society today. It is still very much misunderstood, and it is an affront to all women.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require candidates seeking an appointment to a provincial superior court to commit to participating in training related to sexual assault law and social context. This is a critical piece of legislation that is necessary to ensure that judges understand the context in which offending occurs. Thanks to amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, candidates must also commit to participate in training on systemic racism and systemic discrimination. This is an idea, and a bill, whose time has come.

The bill would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that those knowledgeable in the field, potentially including sexual assault survivor organizations, are consulted in the development of this new training.

The bill would also assist in assuring transparency in judicial decision-making by amending the Criminal Code's sexual assault provisions to include a requirement that judges provide reasons for their decisions either in writing or in the record of the proceedings. This requirement complements existing legal requirements for reasons, including specific obligations for judges to provide reasons in sexual history evidence. These amendments are critical to a fair and effective response to sexual assault, which we know disproportionately impacts women and girls.

Canada has come a long way in this regard. We have one of the most robust sexual assault legal frameworks in the world, but we must not forget the misogynistic myths and stereotypes to which Canada's existing legal and, I would say, largely patriarchal regime responds, nor the fact that those very same misogynistic myths and stereotypes persist to this day.

For example, pre-1983, sexual offending laws were repealed and replaced with the affirmative consent model that we now have in place. The previous laws accepted as fact, first of all, that a complainant who fails to resist is in fact consenting and, second, that a complainant who consented to sexual activity with the accused before an alleged sexual assault likely also consented to any subsequent sexual activity. We now know that these are false. They are misogynistic myths and stereotypes that distort the court's ability to seek the truth.

We also now know that they have a detrimental impact on victims who, as I have said, are overwhelmingly women and girls. Their impact is compounded when they intersect with other discriminatory stereotypes. In particular, they deter women and girls from coming forward to denounce their assailants, which means that those assailants cannot be held accountable.

While I was in the legislature in Nova Scotia for 10 years as an MLA, a bill came before us. I rose in the House as the status of women critic to discuss these issues and the fact that too many women and girls were part of the #MeToo movement because we have been sexually assaulted or raped in our lives, if not once, possibly twice. We never know. Sadly, this is a major crime and should be considered a major crime in Canada. We need help to make sure that assailants are taken to task and that this does not continue to happen.

In Nova Scotia, there was a case where a young woman was raped in a taxi and the reason given in court was that she was drunk and, therefore, the judge said even drunk people can consent. She was passed out. I do not think a woman who is passed out in the back of a taxi, expecting to be driven home after she has given her address, should be held accountable for the male driver stopping the taxi and raping her in the back seat.

As a staunch feminist, and as somebody who has been sexually assaulted and raped in her lifetime, I can say that these kinds of laws need to be changed and amended. Otherwise, more women and girls will not be able to come forward, just as I did not 30 years ago.

When a law is misapplied, appeals follow. Perhaps even a new trial will be ordered. This can significantly lengthen the criminal justice process and continue to harm victims.

Victims tell us that their interactions with the criminal justice system are often experienced as revictimization. It is therefore critically important that sexual assault matters be resolved as quickly, efficiently, effectively and compassionately as possible. Otherwise, victims will not want to come forward to denounce their assailants. They will not have confidence in the system that is supposedly there to protect them.

What can we do about this problem? How can we help our criminal justice system function fairly when addressing one of the most complex and, I would say, abhorrent human behaviours, a behaviour that is based on dominance, aggression, violence and power? It is not a sexual act in the sense of what some people may call sexy. It is violence and it is about power. It must be stopped, with zero tolerance.

I believe that all members of the House should support Bill C-3, which would assist in ensuring that judges have the education they need to understand sexual assault law, what misogyny is and systemic racism and to make the right decisions so that the right decision is made in each case. The people who are most impacted by the sexual offending and the social context in which the sexual offending occurs need to have justice and need to believe in our legal system.

With that, I will add that in Cumberland—Colchester we have many incredible feminists who are fighting for justice for women and girls. I would like to mention Linda MacDonald and Jeanne Sarson in particular, who have been very vocal and very active with regard to laws about non-state torture and human trafficking and about our need to crack down on the awful actions of the people who are profiting from human trafficking and sex trafficking. It is our intent to bring Canada into the 21st century so that we have people who understand what feminism is really all about and its importance. It is important to understand where the woman is coming from in these cases.

As an actor, I did a scene where I was being raped at knifepoint. The director and producer, on the spur of the moment, wanted me to show my breasts. They wanted to show a knife cutting into my shirt to show my breasts, and I said I was not going to do that. I was a young actor but I stood up for myself. They said, “Well, what are we going to do, then?” They wanted the scene to be impactful. I said they could just pan up to my face and show how I feel, how the victim feels, instead of trying to titillate an audience with this act of violence and aggression. That is, in fact, what we did.

That is the kind of thinking that Canada needs, and more creative people need as well, so that we can stamp out this awful behaviour.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her story. It was so impactful. When a woman can stand in the House of Commons to share her story, we know we are doing our jobs.

One of the concerns I have right now relates to the discussions on COVID delays. This has to do with women as well. With COVID delays, is there a concern that some of these cases may be thrown out? I am not just looking at Bill C-3. What will happen if some people are outside of the normal time frame of 18 months? What does the member think the government can do, and what should we all be doing, to make sure that women find justice?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I too am concerned about this. As a woman who has gone through it, I know 30 years is a long time to have no justice and to be looking back and saying I would have, should have, could have. I believe anybody who has been assaulted sexually or in any other way needs to have justice done.

In Nova Scotia, we passed laws whereby a person could go back 20 years. I believe something like this should also be considered in this particular case. It is an emergency situation and women should not suffer because of that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, Nova Scotia, for her very moving speech and for sharing her experience with us.

She also talked about films. I recently had the chance to see the film Woman by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, a portrait of the female experience around the world. She also talked about the importance of Canada joining the 21st century. I had the opportunity to talk to representatives from the Australian embassy about the importance of training judges to set prejudice aside when they hear sexual assault cases.

This bill does not solve every problem, but it can help us ensure that women in Quebec and Canada can have judges who are a little more sensitive to their case. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her words.

I come from Australia and am well aware of Australian film, which is very strong. Part of the reason I moved to Canada when I was a kid was that my mom and dad felt Australia was very sexist and racist at the time. Canada was a beacon. We came over with 2,000 Australian teachers on a boat in 1968 because Pierre Elliott Trudeau had asked for teachers to come to Canada, as there was a lack of teachers.

Any step forward is a good one. Obviously most feminists would like things to be rapid-fire, and there are many other things we can and should do. I would therefore be very happy to work with the member and talk about what other things we can do and introduce here, for all parties. I put that out to her. Let us get together and talk about what else we can do. I am very interested in talking with her to come up with some conclusions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her lived experiences with all of us.

While the bill is important, and I hope it will pass through the House, another issue that weighs heavily on me is the 231 calls for action with respect to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The government promised that on the anniversary of the release of those calls to action, a national action plan led by indigenous women would be available. However, we do not have such a plan.

I would like the member's comments on that. What can be done to get the government to put forward that plan and not use COVID as an excuse?

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and yesterday the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations came to our committee and answered that question. She said that it is coming out very shortly. We will have a national strategy, and I do believe her. I have enjoyed working with her.

I know we are all very frustrated with the delay. There is a wonderful first nations community within my riding, Millbrook First Nation, and I work very closely with the Nova Scotia Native Women's Association. I will give a shout-out to Karen Pictou.

We need to move forward on this. The time has come. Women demand it and we deserve it. I will work with the member to make sure this happens in a very timely fashion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[Assistant Deputy Speaker, Mrs. Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wants to request a recorded vote or request that the motion be passed on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Therefore, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the division stands deferred until Monday, November 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 at this time so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-3.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #24

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)