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

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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 to 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.

[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.

[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 agent, 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, transpeople 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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 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.

[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 the frequently experience.

[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, 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.

[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.