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.

[Darlene Jackson, President, Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions]

Good morning and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Darlene Jackson and I serve as the president of the Manitoba Nurses Union, or MNU. I am speaking on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, or CFNU.

The CFNU is composed of nine provincial nurses unions from every province except Quebec, as well as the Canadian Nursing Students' Association. We do, however, work closely and often collaborate with the Fédération Interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec, or FIQ.

The CFNU is Canada's largest nursing organization, representing 250,000 frontline nurses and nursing students. We're proud to advocate for our members and promote the nursing profession on a national level. We work tirelessly to protect the quality of health care for our patients and our public health care system.

My fellow CFNU member, Maria Richard of the New Brunswick Nurses Union, had the privilege of speaking to this committee in Fredericton several weeks ago. As she noted, Canada's nurses face an extremely dire daily reality. In Manitoba, the vacancy rate for nurses in the public health care system remains high, at more than 2,800 unfilled positions as of this past summer, which has further exhausted the front line.

As you can imagine, the vacant positions cannot keep the patient load at bay. The work, therefore, is layered on an already exhausted staff. As a result, we have seen the health regions spend more and more public dollars on private nursing agencies.

I should note that private agencies have a purpose, but we find ourselves in a position where for-profit businesses have managed to find their way into the former Progressive Conservative government's austerity agenda under former premier Brian Pallister. In other words, well before the COVID-19 pandemic and Premier Pallister's replacement, Premier Heather Stefanson, the system was in need of a health human resources injection. The situation in our province became so dire that we at the union needed to create a public awareness campaign to educate Manitobans on the state of our health care system, which was and remains outrageous.

MNU's request for meetings and offers to collaborate with the previous government fell on deaf ears. This past October, Manitobans elected a new government, and with the announcement of Minister of Health and Deputy Premier Uzoma Asagwara, a nurse herself, we find ourselves in a hopeful position, one where we truly believe there exists a willingness to listen to our frontline nurses and an attitude to improve patient care standards. Unfortunately, despite historic investments committed to by the federal government, nurses, other health care workers and, more importantly, patients continue to experience the punishing consequences of insufficient staff to provide the level of care that workers were trained to deliver and that patients deserve to receive.

The CFNU submitted a brief to your committee with six recommendations for budget 2024. I will reiterate them here, as my colleague Maria did, but I'm happy to provide more details on any of them in the question and answer portion of the hearing.

Canada's nurses recommend that the federal government introduce a tax credit for nurses and other health care professionals that incentivizes the retention of health care professionals and their return to the workforce.

We recommend that the government provide funding in the amount of $8 million over four years through the Public Health Agency of Canada to tailor and pilot an Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy program for nurses. CFNU submitted a proposal but were told the funding was not available despite the desire to fund this. We need urgent mental health supports for nurses.

We recommend that the government work with the provinces and territories to set legislated limits on the consecutive hours of work for nurses.

We recommend that the government include measures for the bilateral health agreements with provinces and territories that phase out private nursing agencies from provincial spending, ensuring federal investments aren't wasted on private agency profits.

We recommend that the government earmark $10 million in funding to establish a health workplace violence reduction plan that includes key recommendations from the parliamentary health committee study from 2019, including a national public awareness campaign, a pan-Canadian framework for the prevention of violence in health care settings enshrined in federal legislation, targeted funding to the provinces and territories to upgrade violence prevention infrastructure and training, and appropriate training for prosecutors and public safety personnel to enforce Bill C-3, which came into law at the national level nearly two years ago.

Finally, we recommend that the government lead a national nursing retention strategy, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, that advances proven retention, return and recruitment initiatives. This includes adopting safe staffing measures such as improved nurse-to-patient ratios, expanding nursing programs, supporting students with mentorship and paid preceptorships, supporting nurses across their careers through initiatives such as bridging programs and flexible schedules, and expediting registration and workforce integration for internationally educated nurses through an ethical framework.

Thank you so much for hearing me. I look forward to receiving any questions or comments.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Former Bill C‑75 introduced a reverse onus provision to help victims and make it harder for accused to access bail.

We were looking into other options as well, so we also provided more clarity around certain definitions of sexual violence in former Bill C‑51. In addition, through former Bill C‑3, we ensured that judges would receive better training on how to deal with matters involving intimate partner violence and sexual assault.

We fully support victims all over the country through our programming, and we remain open to making further changes to address intimate partner violence. I know that one of the members here today put forward a bill on coercive control, and I announced publicly my support for the bill. It's also very important to define offences in a way that is understandable to the victims in those situations.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have acted on several fronts to ensure that victims of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect.

Several bills, including Bill C-3 and Bill C-51, have made substantial reforms to Canada's sexual assault laws to do just that, protect victims. These are some of the most progressive laws in the world. We have invested in programs that help victims of sexual assault.

That is our priority. We will continue to support victims of sexual assault.

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑291. Some bills seem less substantial than others, but are just as important. The bill amends the Criminal Code to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” and make consequential amendments to other acts. Words sometimes carry great weight.

As I just mentioned, this bill makes no other changes than replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”, and has no legal consequences per se.

First, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. Even though this bill has no legal consequences, it does make us think about the importance of terms, their scope and their deep meaning. According to the bill's sponsor, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, the objective is to link the charge of child pornography to sexual abuse. Without changing the definitions, since the notions of consent and current sentences will stay the same, Bill C‑291 explicitly expresses the fact that such an offence is an act involving the sexual abuse of a child.

We understand and support the underlying principle. In my speech, I will share my thoughts on the importance of the words used to provide additional detail about this bill, reiterate the importance of training judges and conclude by expanding my argument to include cybercrime.

First, the term “pornography” seems overused and ambiguous in the sense of both the legal definition and the general definition, because its scope is very relative and can depend on a given individual's sensitivity. Moreover, some schools of thought disagree on the degree of consent pornography supposes and whether pornography is essentially a form of violence. Some feminist thinkers see it that way, and regular consumption of pornography also contributes to rape culture.

One thing is clear: Pornography in and of itself is not a crime, but there are the exceptions we are all familiar with, including child pornography. In other cases, it is difficult to see a clear and consensual difference between eroticism and obscenity, pornography and violence. It all comes down to the participants' consent, which is impossible to establish or obtain. When children are involved, the Criminal Code pretty clearly defines the acts, but I will spare my colleagues a reading of that.

It is understandable to be shocked by the fact that a term with no criminal or even negative connotations is attached to such despicable acts, hence the principle of Bill C-291. In the healing process, it is important, from the outset, that the victim is relieved of guilt about the events and that the burden is carried by the abuser. Naming the abuse can also help the victim. It may not seem important, but being a victim of child pornography does not have the same connotation as being a victim of child sexual abuse. A person charged with possession of child pornography will not be charged with sexual assault. However, they are indirectly participating in it by not reporting it and by taking advantage of the situation to deliberately indulge their deviant urges.

Most of the time, the victim is not mentioned in child pornography cases, except to say that they were indeed a child. When we talk about child sexual abuse material, we are doing two things: We are naming the abuse that the child is suffering, and we are calling the accused a child molester. These are much more powerful words, even though we are talking about the same act. They put things in perspective. In a crime involving child pornography, there is a victim of abuse and there is an abuser, the child molester.

In many types of crime, there is often a grey area, extenuating circumstances, possible doubt over the degree of guilt, participation and consent of the victim. In the case of child abuse, everything is clear and we have to call a spade a spade.

What is more, this term is already being used by some advocacy groups, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and Canada's national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children. Children are disproportionately the victims of sexual offences and are especially vulnerable. In Quebec, 54.4%, or the majority, of victims of sexual assault are adults, but the number of victims under 18 is growing faster than the number of adult victims, with annual increases of 9.5% and 4.3% respectively. Victims of other sexual offences are nearly exclusively minors, at 90.8%. These offences include sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, luring and publication of intimate images.

These statistics make it clear why victims and their loved ones feel as though these situations are being downplayed.

If an offence is not a direct aggravated sexual assault, then it gets classified under “other offences”. In reality, however, the possession of child pornography often involves sexual assault that is often even documented.

According to the Quebec Department of Public Safety, these types of crimes are on the rise. Cases of sexual interference and luring have risen by 6% and 9% respectively. These are moderate increases. Cases of incest have risen by 4.3%. Cases of publication of an intimate image without consent have risen by 7.4%, and cases of invitation to sexual touching have risen by 1.4%, and that number has held steady. These are chilling statistics.

Sexual acts and activities must only take place with the free and informed consent of the participants. The concept of consent is essential. It is based on the idea that the person is fit to make a decision and that they understand the implications and consequences.

In Canada, the age of consent to sexual activity is 16. However, in the case of all minors, including those who are aged 16 and 17, a young person cannot legally consent if a sexual partner is in a position of authority over them. If the young person is dependent on their sexual partner for support and has nowhere else to go and no one else to care for them, then they are in a relationship of dependency.

The relationship is exploitative when, as of the age of 12, there are close-in-age exceptions. A person who is 12 or 13 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than two years older. A person who is 14 or 15 can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older. That means that even if one of the partners is over the age of majority, as in the case of a couple consisting of a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old, consenting sexual contact can take place with a minor as long as they are close in age.

This also means that, conversely, in a situation where one member of the couple is over the age of majority, as in the case of a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old, the child cannot legally consent to sexual activity and the act becomes a sexual offence, even with the consent of the minor's parents. There is no possibility of consent when a child is under the age of 12.

It is worth noting that the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee took only 30 minutes. This is an uncontroversial bill, despite the number of amendments that were moved. In fact, most of the amendments came from the government. There was absolutely no debate on the substance of the bill, and all the amendments proposed by the government, 15 in all, were adopted unanimously. This is important work. Amendments G-1 and G-12 essentially added the notion of exploitation to the term “child sexual abuse material” to make it clear that possession of such material automatically involves the exploitation of a child. Naturally, these amendments were also adopted.

Also, not all judges have the knowledge required to deal with sexual assault cases or cases involving certain groups. We have been talking about this for a long time. Training for judges is important. The case of Judge Jean-Paul Braun is a shocking example. He said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should feel flattered to have attracted the attention of an older man. An Alberta judge was fired after making what were considered sexist and racist remarks about indigenous people, abused women and victims of sexual assault.

An acquittal was overturned because a judge who found a man accused of sexually assaulting children not guilty relied on stereotypes. The judge suggested that, because nobody noticed anything, the girl, who was only between the ages of 6 and 12 at the time, was not credible. The judge said the child's testimony was not transparent, reliable, sincere or credible. Forcing all judges to participate in sexual assault and social context training would destroy certain stereotypes and myths that influence judges' decisions and their attitudes toward victims.

Fortunately, Bill C‑3 called on the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that federal judicial appointees to various courts have the tools to help them preside over sexual assault cases. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who worked on that bill, pointed that out. The third time around, Bill C‑3 was finally unanimously passed by all MPs. It was passed on division in the Senate and received royal assent on May 6, 2021. It is an important bill.

In addition, the whole issue of cybercrime is also troubling. Last week, I had a chance to talk with Hugo Loiseau, a professor at the Université de Sherbrooke who is studying this issue. A cybercrime is a criminal offence committed through a computer system that is usually connected to another network. This whole issue of child pornography content, along with incitement to terrorism or hatred, falls under the category of cybercrime.

In conclusion, the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is following this issue closely and is considering recommendations that could be made to the government to take action.

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, we voted in favour of Bill C-3 in the previous Parliament, which originated as a private member's bill from the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I completely support it. I know there was some debate about whether Parliament telling judges they must get educated interfered with their independence. I do not think it did. Judges, like everybody, should be fully educated and informed on the topics they have to address.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

It is an honour for me to be here today to engage in the debate on a very important topic, the reform of the Judges Act.

Bill C-9 introduces comprehensive reforms to the Judges Act. It introduces comprehensive reforms to the process through which judicial conduct is reviewed and sanctioned. The proposed reforms to the Judges Act aim to enhance the Canadian Judicial Council's capacity to effectively respond to all allegations of judicial misconduct. It is not necessarily highly contentious instances, but also instances of lower measure.

The proposed measures seek to promote procedural fairness in an independent, effective and efficient judicial conduct review process designed to minimize delays and to contain costs. The Canadian Judicial Council, under this new set of rules, this new legislation, will be able to respond to all allegations of misconduct. The process of the investigation and review will be streamlined. There will be new tools for procedural fairness. There will be fewer delays. Importantly, there will be funding to make sure that all of this is done in a cost-effective and efficient way.

Importantly, there is also procedural fairness for judges in their pensions in the event they are dismissed for misconduct, if that is ultimately what the finding is. Of course, we all want to be fair to our judges.

There will be new powers for the Canadian Judicial Council to make orders such as ordering a judge to make an apology publicly, or require that a judge undergo counselling, if that is the right response.

There will also be a capability for the Canadian Judicial Council to order that the judge undergo continuing professional development, something that we all agree with, something that judges and all professionals should engage in, as we all have to do. There are a number of members of the bar here. They have to undergo continuing professional development every year.

There will also importantly be a right of appeal for judges. My colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, went into some detail as to what all the new processes and procedures are. I will not read them into the record.

What is important here is that we want to be fair to judges, but we also want to be fair to complainants, people who feel they have been wronged by the conduct of a judge.

Very importantly also is that Canadian society wants judicial independence. This is so important to help Canada operate as a country. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our judicial system and indeed of our whole democratic system. We are a society that believes in the rule of law. Everybody is subject to the law. Everybody is equal before the law, including the judges who make the law and including politicians who make laws.

It is important that judges be free from political interference, that the whole justice system be free from political interference. Unfortunately, we have seen some bad situations, for example, with the SNC-Lavalin scandal a couple of years ago, where politicians tried to interfere with the judicial process, rather than allow it to operate the way it is supposed to under judicial independence rules. It is inappropriate for politicians to get involved in that.

It is also important to understand that judges must be free from political pressures. The superior courts are masters of their own scheduling, of their own operations. That is fundamental to the way we operate.

Courts are self-governing when it comes to judges' professionalism, competence, ability and conduct. This came up in the previous Parliament under Bill C-3. This was new legislation that was brought in requiring judges to undergo sexual assault training. At that time it was a deep concern to many members in this Parliament and previous Parliaments and to many Canadian citizens that not all judges were properly trained for sexual assault cases. We deemed it important that judges understand how sexual assault cases are different from other kinds of criminal cases.

The reason I raise that here is that judicial independence became an issue then. That was another bill where everybody was in agreement. We deemed it important that it be debated because the issues surrounding that were so important to Canadian citizens. There were, at that time, academics and jurists who said that Bill C-3 was going in the wrong direction and undermining judicial independence. Here again, it was Parliament telling judges what they had to do and saying that they needed to take a course in this and they needed upgrading in that.

After a lengthy debate, Parliament came to the conclusion that there is a balance to be found between integrity of the judicial system and allowing judicial independence. That bill, I submit, found that right balance. After a lot of debate, it went to committee. We heard from experts and we deemed that to be the right way to go with the right balance between judicial independence and ensuring that judges have proper training. The same is true here. It is so important for us to find that right balance.

I said earlier that one of the key cornerstones for judicial independence is that judges be free from political pressures and from outside pressures as well. Sometimes it is difficult for citizens who are not trained in the law to understand how judges operate and how they make decisions that are perhaps controversial.

One example comes to mind. It is going back a lot of years, but it is the O. J. Simpson trial in the United States. Mr. Simpson was charged criminally, but the jury found him to be not guilty, yet he was sued on the same set of facts in a civil court and was found to be liable. People did not understand how that worked and why one court could find him not guilty and the other one could find him civilly liable. That is the difference between the criminal benchmark for finding somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the civil courts where a judge or jury find that someone is liable on the balance of probabilities. That is just one of the important points of judicial independence.

That said, judges are also human beings. They are Canadian citizens. They know what is going on in the world, so we require them to be sensitive to community standards. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw recently in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bissonnette, where the Supreme Court of Canada found that consecutive sentences were unconstitutional. Many Canadians are having a hard time understanding that. This Parliament needs to look into that to ensure there is fairness according to common-law conditions, and also so that the citizens of this country know that the courts are operating in a way that values and understands community values.

In another case, R. v. Brown, just very recently, a person was found to be not guilty by reason of extreme intoxication and therefore he could not form mens rea, as we call it, which is the guilty intention to commit a crime. Again, Canadian citizens have a hard time understanding that. It needs to be reviewed as well by this Parliament, and I hope that happens soon.

[Cee Strauss]

I am not aware of the inputs into the sexual abuse training. I know, though, what that is in the Judges Act. It was put into the Judges Act that development of the training should be done in consultation. In particular, I believe the Judges Act mentions consultation with indigenous organizations. We are proposing to broaden that, as we did in our submissions on Bill C-5/C-3 at the time. There is a precedent for that in terms of what's in the act right now in the sexual assault context.

[Cee Strauss, Staff Lawyer, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Cee Strauss. I'm a staff lawyer at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF. I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear today from the unceded lands of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabeg peoples in the place that is now called Montreal. LEAF works to advance the equality rights of women, girls, trans and non-binary people through litigation, law reform and public education.

I'd like to start by thanking and recognizing Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater for her leadership in pushing for this important and necessary call for judicial education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. LEAF supports judges receiving this training; however, we believe the bill requires specification about how it should be implemented. These are details that I will discuss shortly. On the other hand, LEAF has serious concerns regarding clause 1 of the bill amending the Criminal Code.

I will begin with our support for judicial education.

Intimate partner violence is the most widespread type of violence against women, accounting for 45% of all violence reported by women aged 15 to 89. The risks of IPV are greater for women who are indigenous, Black and racialized, as well as for women with disabilities and migrant women. These risks are also greatly increased for people who are 2-spirit, non-binary, trans and gender nonconforming.

Victims and survivors of IPV have struggled to make courts understand both the impact of intimate partner violence on themselves and their families and the risk that such violence will occur. It's because of legal system actors' lack of attention to family violence and its impacts that LEAF strongly advocated for and celebrated amendments to the Divorce Act. These amendments, among other things, added a definition of “family violence” to the act and mandated that family violence be a consideration when determining the best interests of the child. Significantly, IPV, including coercive and controlling behaviour that is not physical, constitutes family violence.

However, identifying the presence of IPV or coercive control in a partnership requires training. IPV is an umbrella term that encompasses complex, varied forms of abuse. It's often misrecognized due to gendered myths and stereotypes, as Dr. Paterson and Pamela Cross so eloquently shared. This needs to change, and it will not change without training. However, in order for such training to be effective, we believe the bill requires specification in certain areas.

First, we recommend that training on matters related to IPV and coercive control include social context. The way the amendment is currently worded, social context is only relevant for training on sexual assault, yet systemic inequality in Canadian society, including colonialism, systemic racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia, has led to and can exacerbate intimate partner violence and stereotypes about survivors of such violence. In 2021, indigenous women and girls made up 19% of femicides in Canada. Women with a disability are twice as likely as women without one to have been the victim of a violent crime. It is critical that judges are aware of these realities when assessing the presence and impacts of intimate partner violence.

In addition, educational materials on IPV and coercive control should be created in consultation with survivors of intimate partner violence and organizations that support them. For this reason, we would recommend that a similar provision be added to subsection 60(3) of the Judges Act in respect of training on IPV and coercive control. Training should include information on the different forms of IPV, the well-documented social reality that family violence is a gendered phenomenon and the impact of trauma on a survivor's memory, demeanor and well-being.

Finally, we would recommend, as Luke's Place does, predicating eligibility to become a superior court judge on a person's undertaking to participate in continuing education on matters related to IPV and coercive control. This was a crucial element of Bill C-3, formerly Bill C-5, as without it, one could not be sure that any judges would attend training on sexual assault law at all. This bill should provide the same reassurance.

Briefly turning to the bill's proposed amendments on electronic monitoring, there are some concerns that should not be ignored. It's important to note that electronic monitoring is already available to judges as an option when considering bail conditions. Electronic monitoring may make some survivors of intimate partner violence feel safer and may serve to protect survivors and their children from harm in certain cases. However, as it has already been said, this will not be the case for every person. For this reason, electronic monitoring should be a condition that is available to judges, which it already is, but it should not be something that judges are required to consider, as is proposed in this bill. This is because there is a significant likelihood that if judges are required by the Criminal Code to consider a particular condition, it will end up being added to bail conditions as a matter of course.

With electronic monitoring devices costing hundreds of dollars a month, the routine addition of electronic monitoring as a bail condition will have devastating consequences for low-income families. This may detrimentally impact the interests of, at least, some survivors.

Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

[Melissa Moor]

The Judges Act as amended by former Bill C-3 lists training on matters related to sexual assault law and social context as topics on which the CJC may establish seminars.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you.

I understand that. However, currently, Bill C-3 as it was passed does list sexual abuse as a listed training for judges. Is that not correct?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come.

This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus.

From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus.

It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community.

I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad.

Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives.

There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee.

The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate.

If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing.

We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast.

This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today.

The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to.

If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections.

In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times.

Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate.

I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies.

We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with.

We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business.

Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation.

Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult.

As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts.

We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening very closely to what has been said. In good part I agree when members talk about the partisanship we are seeing on the floor, but I take it from a different perspective, where, over the last while, there has been a great deal of partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons.

I know that a good number of people are watching and are very much interested in this piece of legislation ultimately passing and receiving royal assent. There was a great sense of disappointment when it passed the House of Commons but the Senate was not able to get its royal assent. There is no doubt that a vast majority of Canadians recognized that it should be a crime to travel abroad without the donor's consent in order to get an organ transplant.

They try to give a false impression. I referred to it yesterday, and more and more we are seeing this unholy alliance of opposition parties coming together to try, in every way possible and in as partisan a way as possible, to make the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus look bad. Seriously, I am not aware of any Liberal member of Parliament who would want to prevent this from becoming law. There are procedures that need to take place. Each political entity has a House leadership team with whom the issue could be addressed.

I say, to individuals like Irwin Cotler, David Matis, Maria and so many others who have been strong advocates on this issue, that what they are witnessing today is a partisanship that is not coming from the government. The government is doing what it can to ensure that there is a series of pieces of legislation. I could cite specific examples that have been provided to me. We know that we could pass this with unanimous consent, as we could do for a number of pieces of legislation.

Where was this empathy for the people the legislation would benefit, for example, when we dealt with Bill C-3? Bill C-3 was about the judicial appointments and training. Members will recall that it, too, passed the House of Commons in the last Parliament and the government reintroduced it as Bill C-3. How many hours of debate took place on that bill, even though it went through the full process the previous time? It was hours and days, but the Conservatives did not want it passed, and for what reasons? I will let people follow the debate.

Members will say that the issue has been debated already. I remember opposition members, when the shoe was on the other foot, would say that it was the previous Parliament and there are new members of Parliament who were just elected back in 2019 and ask if they should not be afforded the opportunity, if they want to be able to contribute to the debate. I understand the rules, the process and how things operate regarding legislation. We now have an offer saying that if we pass this bill unanimously right now, we will be allowed to debate Bill C-30. Members can imagine the hypocrisy. That is the reason I raised the matter of privilege I raised earlier today.

Last Friday and this Friday the NDP and the Conservatives were working together through privileges to prevent the government from being able to deal with legislation. Is this legislation not also important? What about other private—

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the chief whip of the official opposition in the House of Commons.

Let us be clear from the start. We have no problem with extending work hours at this time of the year, as in fact our standing orders provide.

However, we are extremely concerned about the motion introduced by the government and voted on a few moments ago, because we know that facilities are limited, given the current pandemic situation. A lot of technical efforts are being made and government officials have made generous offers to co-operate with us, and we greatly appreciate that. However, when we get to this time of year, there is a kind of bottleneck. That is why we have to strike a very fair and reasonable balance between extending the work hours in the House of Commons and keeping parliamentary committees running. That is where there is a disconnect with the motion put forward by the government.

I would remind members that the House of Commons is part of Parliament, and as its very name suggests, Parliament is a place for parley, in other words, for discussion. We in the official opposition discuss things with our counterparts on the government side and with the other opposition parties. I would never, ever go into the details of those discussions. However, one thing is certain and indisputable, that is, that we had honest, good-faith discussions with our counterparts and could not come to an agreement. That is the point.

As we saw, when my colleague, the chief whip of the official opposition, asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a very specific question, that good man, whom I like and respect a great deal, was unable to give anything even remotely resembling the merest hint of an answer. As parliamentarians, we cannot give carte blanche in terms of which committees will survive this proposal and which will not.

It should be immediately obvious why we have some very serious concerns about the lack of clarity on the parliamentary committees. We need only look at this government's track record over the past few months in terms of parliamentary work.

However, it was funny to hear my Liberal colleague for Winnipeg North talk about everything being in limbo because of Conservative opposition members, that their tactic on a daily basis is to delay, delay, delay, and that there is a filibuster each and every step of the way on each and every bill. This is anything but true.

When we talk about filibustering, I think that the king of filibustering is the Liberal Party of Canada, especially in this session, and there is a record of that. I do not think that the member for Winnipeg North and his colleagues would be very proud of what they have done in committee.

Let us look at what the Liberals have been doing in parliamentary committees over the past few months. They were the ones who accused us earlier of filibustering, as in talking for hours and hours in order to waste time rather than get to the bottom of things.

We can look at the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs where the Liberals had filibustered for 73 hours.

The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours, preventing the committee from doing its work. Why?

It is because we wanted to get to the bottom of things and allow witnesses to appear and explain why the government prorogued Parliament. The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours to prevent witnesses from testifying. Now they are the ones accusing us of being the bad guys holding up the works. It is ludicrous.

However, it does not end there.

We can look at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where the Liberals filibustered for 43 hours. Why? It was to block getting to the truth about the WE Charity scandal.

There is a common thread in all this, however. When we want to get accurate information on Liberal scandals, they filibuster. They are very unhappy about that and accuse us of wanting to delay parliamentary work, when we are just doing our job.

These are concrete examples, but it does not end there. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals filibustered for 35 hours, once again to prevent parliamentarians from getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Liberals filibustered for over 16 hours. The committee chair, who is a member of the government party, unilaterally suspended the meetings 23 times.

This is starting to really add up: 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at a third, 16 hours at a fourth. I have not even mentioned the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, where the Liberals filibustered for 10 hours, between February and April, on the study we wanted to conduct on the COVAX facility, which was created by rich countries to provide poor countries with access to vaccines. Sadly, members will recall that Canada, a rich country, helped itself to the supply for poor countries because it did not have the vaccines that the Prime Minister had announced at his December dog and pony show. That is the reality.

I hear government members accusing us of being the bad guys and filibustering, when they are the ones who filibustered for 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance, 16 hours at the Standing Committee on National Defence, and 10 hours at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In light of the Liberals' dismal parliamentary record, we feel it is perfectly valid to want to be sure of what is planned for the committees before we give the government carte blanche to extend the committee and House sittings. However, the government refuses to tell us its plans and instead demands a free hand. We think this is unacceptable.

I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North explaining the status of some bills, so we will take a look at that assessment.

He talked about Bill C-3, regarding judges, which is modelled on a bill originally introduced by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. We are very proud of that legislation, but the Liberal government used the strongest weapon in its arsenal to delay its passage or concurrence, namely prorogation.

Let us not forget that last summer, when the Liberal government was in a real jam over the WE scandal, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met day after day in July and again in August. The official opposition members strenuously challenged the government's moral authority, because it had adopted a despicable strategy for dealing with this scandal.

What did the government do when it was in trouble? It prorogued Parliament. This was the worst thing it could do to slow down the work of parliamentarians. Once Parliament is prorogued, everything goes back to square one. That is what happened with Bill C-3.

What about Bill C-11? I heard the member for Winnipeg North say how important this legislation is, and he is absolutely right. I even remember the member and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry calling out the Conservatives on Twitter in February, accusing us of delaying Bill C-11 and saying that it was awful.

I quite like the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the minister responsible. I have a lot of respect and regard for him, but when I saw that on Twitter, I found myself thinking that I had not seen Bill C-11 in a long time. When I checked, I saw that the last time the government had brought Bill C-11 forward in the House was on November 24, 2020. The bill then sat around for three months, through November, December, January and February, before the government brought it forward again. However, the government went after us in February, claiming that we were delaying it. That is completely absurd.

The member also mentioned Bill C-14, on the economic statement, since there was no budget. The government accused us and is still accusing us of filibustering it, when two-thirds of the official opposition members did not even speak on it.

I am proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition. Our caucus has 120 members who duly represent eight Canadian provinces and regions in the House of Commons. We are the only truly national party. I am very proud of the calibre of people I work with, and that is why, when they ask to speak, I am happy to add them to the political debate. However, it is utterly ludicrous to accuse us of filibustering when two-thirds of our caucus did not even speak.

That is why the motion, as currently presented, is unacceptable to us. We are ready and willing to work longer hours as long as the parliamentary work in the House of Commons can be done without compromising the work of the committees, but that is absolutely not the case with this motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

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

Thank you, Ms. Illingworth.

Last, we recently achieved royal assent of Bill C-3, the bill that dealt with judicial training, specifically on matters relating to sexual assault. It was widened to consider social context, including things like systemic racism and systemic discrimination. Those, I think, are useful changes in the right direction.

Can you comment on what a bill like Bill C-3 does, broadly speaking, in the context of victims, particularly victims of things like domestic violence or sexual assault?