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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The “raise hand” function will serve us all well, so we don't have a free-for-all.

This discussion brings me to a point. I am questioning...and maybe some members from the other parties can answer this. This is our third try at this bill. The bill passed through the House and is now in our committee. It has the support of all parties, I believe, but then we saw this flurry of amendments on Friday. There are some questions being raised about the amendments. I'm sure there are questions about each one of those amendments, and it would be interesting to hear from experts on the impact of each amendment.

We've studied Bill C-3 in its current format a couple of times, but these amendments.... It was the wish of the other parties not to have any more witnesses, so there is no expert to speak to the amendments that are being proposed. That is a shame. As a committee, we're proposing amendments but we haven't heard testimony on the specifics of the amendments. That's not how, in my view, we do our jobs as legislators. We want to get the bill right, so to propose a flurry of amendments without having heard testimony that's relevant and could speak to the specifics is leading us, I think, down the wrong path.

This is an interesting discussion, but it would have been nice to hear some witnesses who could speak to these amendments.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fortin, French is never an inconvenience.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for giving me the opportunity to present amendments. As you know, I am not an official member of the Standing Committee on Justice.

The purpose of Bill C-3 is of great concern to me, not only as a member of Parliament, but also as chair of the Caucus of Black Parliamentarians.

The work you are doing to make our justice system aware of the reality of the status of women is very important. It's commendable, it's essential. I support this bill in its entirety. Having said that, there is a great opportunity for us to include other groups in the objectives of the bill. That is why I am proposing small amendments to indicate that the social context includes not only the issue of the status of women and sexual assault, but also systemic racism and discrimination.

I hope you will support this change, which is broad enough to include groups that experience discrimination, but specific enough to be clear.

A little later, I will present another amendment that is very similar to the one I just proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number two of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As we can see, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of September 23, 2020. The proceedings will be made public and will be available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are all aware, the webcast will always show the person who is speaking rather than the whole committee room.

Before we go into clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, which is on the agenda today, let's first adopt the subcommittee report from the meeting last Tuesday. I ask for your support on adopting the meeting minutes, which have been circulated to you.

(Motion agreed to)

This Thursday, we are receiving the minister for main estimates. Last week, the committee received the order of reference for the examination of supplementary estimates (B). Is it the will of the committee to also do the supplementary estimates at the same time this Thursday, or would you like to do it at a separate time? I open it up for anyone who wants to address this. Would the committee be okay to have the supplementary estimates be brought forward to the minister at the same time as the mains for the Thursday meeting? Can I see a thumbs-up from everybody in agreement? Good. Okay.

Mr. Clerk and analysts, if we can amend the briefing books so that they include the supplementary estimates as well, that would be great. Thank you.

In our last meeting, Mr. Garrison had a question about whether the whips' office staff and members' staff could have access to our Zoom virtual room, with the camera and mike off, for public meetings. We're happy to report that a pilot project is currently going on allowing the whips' and House leaders' office staff to attend in that manner, with their mikes muted and their videos off. We are looking into extending that possibility to members' staff as well.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 19, 2020, the committee is meeting today for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

We are joined today by video conference by officials from the Department of Justice. We have Stephen Zaluski, general counsel and director of the judicial affairs section; Adair Crosby, general counsel, judicial affairs section; and Gillian Blackell, senior counsel and team lead in the criminal law policy section.

You will be able to ask the officials questions, through me, if you have any questions around what we're doing today with the clause-by-clause consideration, to clarify any issues that arise.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules that we should be following.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. You may choose whatever interpretation you would like to hear.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding wearing your mask and health protocols. I see that we have at least one member who is in the committee room today.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. For those of you participating virtually, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer who's here. I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

When speaking, speak slowly and clearly. Note that there is a bit of lag with the interpretation, so when you end a sentence, give it a few seconds before carrying on in another language or before the next speaker speaks, to allow the interpreters to finish speaking. When you're not speaking, I would ask that you put your microphone on mute, so we're not disrupting anybody else who's speaking.

With regard to a speakers list, the committee clerk and I will be doing our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they're participating virtually or in person. When you're participating virtually, please use the “raise hand” function through your participants list. I will be able to recognize the members who are in the room. Just flag to the clerk if you would like to be put on the speakers list; the clerk will let me know and we'll do so accordingly.

Are there any questions at this time from anybody?

I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the first clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in a hybrid meeting format. This is the first time we're doing this. I'll be going as slowly and as cautiously as possible. We obviously don't want to inadvertently do something that we may have difficulty taking back later on. Hopefully, this will go smoothly with the help of all these wonderful supports that we have here today.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member who is proposing it, who may explain or speak to the amendment that they have submitted. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other—and I will identify them as we get to them—they will be voted on together.

Pursuant to the House order of September 23, 2020, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote, except those that are decided unanimously or on division.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. I may be called upon to rule on amendments if you feel they are not admissible because they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when the bill was agreed to at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Since this is the first clause-by-clause consideration of a bill in a hybrid meeting format, I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. If, during the process, the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so we can revisit it at a later time in the process.

The amendments have been given an alphanumeric number—that is in the top right-hand corner of the package that has been given to you—to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing or by email for members participating virtually. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved on an amendment, it has to be voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required, if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a very productive clause-by-clause consideration. If there are any questions at this time, you can raise them now.

Judges Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the House will now proceed with the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-3.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Chair, I'm just cognizant of the fact that we have a bill that's about to come to us when it gets voted on, which is Bill C-3, the judges training act. We have the medically assisted dying bill, which is being debated for two more days in the House this coming week, which will then be coming to this committee. We have a conversion therapy bill that would be coming to this committee.

The medical assistance in dying bill is subject to a court-imposed deadline of December 18. It will be my position and my party's strong position that we need to move forward with that expeditiously and I don't want that court-imposed deadline to be jeopardized, so I think stipulating no later than November 27 is important in the context of this motion.

I'm not trying to be obstructionist. I'm just trying to make it crystal clear as to the timing for when the minister must come by. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Virani.

With that, Mr. Clerk, could we schedule at the earliest opportunity a meeting with the subcommittee to go over agenda and scheduling for the remainder of the year and how, logistically, we're going to conduct ourselves for the remainder? If you could please do this at your earliest convenience, it would be really wonderful, perhaps by either the end of this week or very early next week so we can get the ball rolling.

I'm excited. I'm sure you guys are, too. Thank you.

Just on that note, I know that Bill C-3 will be coming to our committee very soon and I know that we had done a lot of work on it in the past number of months before prorogation. I want to make sure that all of that work has not gone to waste.

In the subcommittee that we will have, we'll discuss the timing of amendments to that bill to be proposed and whether, at the next meeting, we want to adopt the evidence that we've heard, as well as other logistical challenges that we may or may not have with Bill C-3. Obviously I want to give everybody enough time to put forward any amendments. I know that prior to the pandemic and our having to go home, we had established deadlines for proposing amendments to Bill C-3. The bill in and of itself has not really changed in language at all, so I anticipate that we will have already done that work in terms of what amendments we want to put forward.

We will have that discussion in more detail during the subcommittee, but I wanted to flag for you that that is the direction we're moving in.

Now, Mr. Moore, I saw a notice of motion by you with respect to the main estimates and inviting the Minister of Justice, Attorney General and department officials to appear on the main estimates for two hours and for that meeting be televised.

In terms of how we're conducting ourselves and really how I'm hoping to be able to keep our committee very open and transparent, I was also hoping to invite the minister for the main estimates regardless, in the next little while, before the deadline obviously, at his earliest convenience given his schedule.

However, I'm happy to open this motion for debate if any of you wants to speak to it. It may just be prudent given the timing, etc., that we're able to get this through and invite the minister at his earliest convenience.

I will give you the floor, Mr. Moore, if you'd like to speak to that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also thank him for agreeing at the last minute to say the final words in the debate on Bill C-3.

I think we have covered this issue. We are nearing the end of the debate. Everyone agrees that it is important for judges to receive training in order to fight the stereotypes associated with sexual assault.

I think there are two major grey areas that have not yet been addressed. I would like to tie this in with what the member for Saint-Jean said and what my colleague from Repentigny brought up last year. A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. This is a stereotype that we are trying to eliminate in cases of assault. A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. That does not mean that she is asking to be assaulted. To take that even further, a woman's body belongs her and her alone. She even has the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I would like to hear his opinion on that.

I would also like to hear what he has to say about the massive budget cuts that the Conservatives made to Status of Women Canada in 2015. The Conservatives have repeatedly said that it is important to broaden the debate and give training not only to judges but also to others, such as those in the education system. Thanks to the cuts and the current crisis, there is a risk that the government—

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is to my surprise and privilege that I rise and speak to the bill, but I am happy to do so. This is an issue that has gripped this Parliament for several years, starting first in the 42nd Parliament and then into this Parliament, not just the first session but now the second session.

I too want to commend Ms. Ambrose for bringing the bill to the floor of the House of Commons. Thanks to her hard work and the work of colleagues, it would appear the bill is receiving broad support. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate this bill, Bill C-3, did not pass in the 42nd Parliament. It is equally unfortunate the bill was upended due to the prorogation the government triggered just a few weeks ago in order to avoid further committee investigation into the WE scandal.

Of course we now hear government members complaining about the democratic process, a process that is there to ensure members of Parliament from across this country have the opportunity to examine and speak about bills like this, even when they have broad support. For no other reason, I think the voices and debates we have today will echo and be that much louder, as opposed to passing it quickly as the government would like.

If the government members wanted to move quickly on this, they had that opportunity. Instead they tried to play politics on other issues and they are now paying the price and trying to blame everyone but themselves, when they should look in the mirror.

I want to thank as well my colleague from New Brunswick, the member for Fredericton, who I thought made a very strong bipartisan point about the importance of allowing members to speak up on issues. This chamber sometimes does move very quickly and at moments like this we are all given a chance to speak on important bills like Bill C-3.

The bill serves to do a number of things that are frankly long overdue. I hope in this go-around it will be three times lucky and the government will finally have the support to do something that should have been done years ago. I would remind the government, which is quick to point to the opposition and say we should advance the bill, that we have been doing everything we can . We have been talking about this the longest. We have been talking about it and trying to make it an issue, but at the end of the day, it is not our responsibility to shepherd legislation through the House of Commons. It is the government's responsibility. If the government is not prepared to do that or is unable to do that, we are happy to take over for it at any time and get legislation through.

This has been a pattern with the current government. It makes grandiose announcements, such as on infrastructure, and fails to deliver. This is another example of good work getting sidelined because of politics.

Why is the bill important and necessary? Let me give the House some facts and evidence. Victims are female, overwhelmingly so. They are young and too often they know their assailants. This of course makes it more difficult, not easier, to come forward when an assault has taken place. Sadly, the vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to police. This is something we need to change as a country to ensure that when a wrong happens it is righted. Less than half of the sexual assault cases that end up in adult criminal court result in a guilty verdict.

I am not here to second-guess the judiciary today with respect to sentencing, but I think it is important for voices to be heard and for victims to have their day in court and be given every opportunity to express themselves and to be treated fairly and in a judicious manner. There are far too many cases, and we have heard about some of them today, repeatedly so, where that is just not happening. If we as parliamentarians can change that and set a better tone so that our judges are treating young people, young women in particular, with the respect they deserve, I think we should view it as a good day and something we should strive for.

I do want this bill to pass, as my colleagues do, and I think that is on both sides of the Commons.

The opposition is not here to do the government's work for it. We are prepared to replace the government and do a better job. We would do it with fewer scandals, with less WE, and with less rule breaking, law breaking and ethical violations. At the end of the day, it is up to the government to get the bill through. We are not going to make it difficult, but we are going to respect the rules of this place. While the government would prefer to govern alone, there are 338 members in this chamber and they should all have the opportunity to speak out on these issues as they see fit.

We hear a lot about the other place. We are breaking tradition here in referring to it as the Senate. In the other place, Conservatives do not hold a majority of seats. Not only that, as one of my hon. colleagues pointed out today, the bill failed in the 42nd Parliament because, again, the government mishandled the legislative business.

Maybe the government should prioritize what is actually important, which is bills such as this, and getting them through as opposed to focusing on handouts for their friends, and the WE scandal, and some of the other scandals we have seen over the years that resulted in Parliament being shut down and the work stopping. On this side of the House, we want to see bills like this pass. We want to see the committees going.

Even if my hon. friend on the government bench had his way and passed this bill today, to what end would it be? The committees are not sitting, because the government and this Prime Minister closed down Parliament weeks ago to protect him from the investigations of numerous committees into the government's malfeasance when it came to dealing with friends and cronies and the handouts to family members of the Liberal Prime Minister and the former finance minister.

Let us do the work, but set priorities and make sure they are the priorities that Canadians care about, not what is important to Liberals and their friends. The case for this bill has been made time and again. I echo the support of this bill, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, suddenly and with little notice. I look forward to taking some questions on it.

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

[Nelly Shin, Conservative, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I give my first speech in this session of the 43rd Parliament, I would like to thank the amazing people in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra for allowing me the privilege to stand here today. I want them to know that it is my joy and honour to serve them, especially during this unique and challenging time in Canadian history.

I am grateful to stand here in the House of Commons as a woman speaking on Bill C-3, legislation that I trust will mark one step forward in the healing and empowering of women and girls to thrive and beautify the world with their vision, wisdom and love. I would like to thank the Hon. Rona Ambrose, former interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the official opposition. She originally introduced it as Bill C-337 on February 27, 2017. I am encouraged to see this legislation adopted by the Liberal government earlier this year as Bill C-5 and reintroduced in this session as Bill C-3. I am happy to see many members contribute their ideas, thoughts and feelings during the course of debate on the bill.

One in three women around the world is victim to physical or sexual violence. In Canada, young women aged 15 to 24 years have the highest rate of sexual assaults, 71 incidents for every population of 1,000. The impact of COVID-19 has created an environment of an increase in violence against women and girls, but I know there is hope because of counsellors, social workers and community outreach programs on the front lines across Canada that provide a safe oasis for vulnerable and victimized women.

On that note, I would like to thank Tri-City Transitions, a shelter for domestically abused women and children in my community. The unconditional love and caring work of women like Carol Metz and her counsellors help the women in my community find hope to heal and the courage to break free from the cycles of abuse and violence.

I am also grateful for the tireless work of champions like Mary O'Neill and recovery programs like Talitha Koum that provide caring mentorship to help women reclaim their lives, not only from addiction but many times the trauma behind their substance abuse. I thank them for being beacons of hope to women who are hiding in the shadows of fear, broken will and shattered self-image. The sad truth is that the fact that we need more shelters and programs for victims of domestic violence and assault, and the fact that they exist, shows a broken system that allows the cycle to perpetuate. This cycle must stop.

I support Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, because it is one step in a long series of many steps we must take to break the cycle of violence and abuse against women. Bill C-3 addresses the lack of justice for women in the court of law by seeking to improve the interactions between sexual assault complainants and the justice system, specifically the judiciary. Bill C-3 seeks to amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed a judge of a superior court by requiring them to commit to undertaking and participating in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This bill also requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on delivery and participation in the sexual assault information seminars established by it. Bill C-3 also requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases.

We need only look at a couple of incidents as prototypes of court decisions that show reviling misogyny and biases. Robin Camp, a former federal judge, in 2014, when the alleged rape victim was testifying, asked her why she could not just keep her knees together. Throughout the trial, he criticized her for not screaming while the alleged assault took place and suggested she wanted to have sex. Camp later acquitted the defendant, Alexander Wagar. After acquitting him, he told the defendant, “I want you to tell your friends, your male friends, that they have to be far more gentle with women.” This is absolutely disgusting.

Cindy Gladue, an indigenous woman, was paid for sex by Bradley Barton, the alleged killer, and was found dead in a pool of blood in a motel room after a violent death. I dare not repeat how graphic that picture was because it is just so reviling. The judge presiding over the trial repeatedly referred to her as native and a prostitute. Barton was acquitted because of biases formed against Gladue's history. Such appalling incidents further victimize and silence women from speaking up. It is also unjust for families of victims.

The majority, 83%, of sexual assaults are not reported to police. These two examples alone illustrate very clearly the cause of this hesitation: 67% of women in Canada have no confidence in the justice system and of the 20% of women who take their cases to court, only 10% that make it to court come out with convictions. Among those convicted, only 7% of the perpetrators actually get punished with jail time. Others get probation or fines at the judge's discretion. There is no justice, so why would these women pursue it?

Insult is added to injury when they are left to walk away, feeling like the ones who were sentenced. When an agent of authority like a federal judge gaslights a woman before the court, where does that leave her? There is no justice for that woman. That little seedling of self- esteem she fought to salvage is trampled, but the chain of injustice is long.

There is fear of retaliation from perpetrators when they are not locked up in jail and are free to stalk and repeat their offences, and perhaps even go further and murder the victims. The lack of support, condemnation, shaming and shunning that victims experience from taboos and cultural stigmas prevent women from speaking up. If the perpetrator is someone she knows, like a friend, acquaintance or neighbour, as is the case in 52% of sexual assault incidents, it is even harder.

The court's decision can take away a victim's credibility in the community and inevitably put a toll on the mental and physical health of that victim. It takes a lot of courage for women who have experienced sexual assault to speak up.

I just want to pause here and commend and congratulate the women who have taken steps to speak up and go to the courts. This is why we are standing here as parliamentarians. They inspire us. It takes a lot of courage for women who have experienced sexual assault to speak up and seek the justice they deserve. They have to relive the trauma when speaking about it. If they go forward to the courts, they risk being condemned for speaking up.

Similarly, it does not help when families of victims like those who came forward with testimonies for the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls have to relive their traumas through the retelling of their stories and now still await action from the government. However, I hope that these discussions will inspire the government to take action more quickly.

I am very proud that my Conservative colleagues in the last Parliament supported the “JUST Act”, because we recognized that the justice system failed to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault far too often. I would like to thank Ms. Ambrose again for her work on this important file.

As I support Bill C-3, I do so with a hope that it is an important step among lawmakers in Canada to improve the justice system to work for all people, including women and girls, and not against them. Bill C-3 is a positive beginning, but simply that. I hope the passage of the bill will not give license to the government or my colleagues across all aisles to simply relax, because the bill does not get to the root of violence against women.

If we are to break the cycle of violence against women, we need to get to the root. The root begins with the family and the way women are treated by their intimate partners and their parents. Domestic violence breeds abuse and violence. There needs to be more education, awareness and a breaking of the code of shame and silence. Speaking with women's shelters, men also need mentoring and accountability. They are a missing part of the puzzle that is necessary to make the healing journey for families and society fulsome.

Indigenous communities need all the support they can get to help their women, and the provinces cannot do all of this alone. We need all tiers of government and all community front-line agencies to work together to create long-term solutions. Prevention will save lives.

My mandate as a member of Parliament is to contribute to the making and passing of laws and policies that will help heal individuals, families and society, so each person will prosper, so Canada will prosper and that personal peace will help build a strong and free nation. Bill C-3 is a bill that I am happy to support and reminds me why I am here. However, let us not applaud too loud, lest we become complacent and fail to do the daunting work that lies ahead: to heal our women and our nation.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here to put my comments and support on the record for Bill C-3.

To understand this bill, it is important to back to where it came from. It is very fortunate that our former leader, Rona Ambrose, saw the need, saw the problem and looked for a solution. If we as parliamentarians can find a little of that every day in our duty, we will be in a pretty good place in the country.

We do not need endless study. We need action and fortunately for our judiciary, this is what this will be. I would once again like to thank Rona for all her advocacy work on this file.

I was duly elected last year. I understand that this has been debated, went to committee and has been discussed at length. I am honoured to add my comments and my support to the initiative because it is needed.

I did some research after being informed that I would have the honour to speak to the bill and it was probably some of the toughest reading I have done in this job, to read first-hand what some sexual assault victims had faced. This is very much needed.

I interacted with couple of people and I want to highlight how the bill will affect our country, and thankfully it will. I think of Erica in Montreal. She is a rape counsellor. Throughout the day and even some evenings she counsels people on the phone and in person on some horrific crimes. Hearing these stories through these victims, it stays with her. I suspect she is thinking about it long after the day is done. I think about the number of people Erica would have counselled, that may not have been strong enough to report charges for some of the unfortunate incidents of sexual assaults. Sometimes it is family members.

We know that a fraction of cases actually go before a judge. The number of crimes not reported is probably one of the more eye-opening statistics I witnessed during my research. Probably the most impactful measure in the bill to improve things is making the court system much more understanding of these victims. That will go a long way in helping Erica. She will still have those long days and long consulting sessions with clients, but at least she will know that if those cases do go forward, they will find themselves in front of a judge who has the training to be much more sensitive to the victims.

I think of Kim, a prosecutor in the Hamilton region, and all the times she showed up to court and the victim was not there, because of fear of past injustices toward people who had been sexually assaulted. I think of the days when Kim goes to court and may witness court proceedings that we would not want for any of our loved ones. She has to stomach it.

Things really hit home when I started reading different articles and research. I would like to read one passage that is impactful and has guided my belief of how worthwhile Bill C-3 is. It is from “Aiming for Justice: The Legal System Has Failed Sexual Assault Survivors”.

It reads, “She was a 19-year-old indigenous woman, and the assault was as brutal as it could be. The accuser slapped her repeatedly, forced her to crawl, bit her hard enough to break the skin, threatened to cut her into pieces if she didn't stop screaming, and forced himself into her mouth and then into her. A roommate called 911, and yet even when four police officers rushed in and shouted at him to stop, they had to pull him forcefully off the naked, screaming victim. It's hard to imagine a more open and shut criminal case. Unlike the vast majority of sexual assaults, there was no possibility of the victim failing to report to the police. Four police officers after all were witnesses, and yet the cross-examination of the complainant stretched over five exhausting days. The defendant's lawyer repeatedly suggested that the victim was lying, even though four police officers witnessed the crime, and forced her to describe the sexual acts. The young woman complied, against her will, to testify, and was so distraught by the grilling she endured on the stand that she refused to return to court. She was then arrested and compelled to return. Halfway through the week-long cross-examination, she tried to admit herself to the hospital, fearful that she was being driven to suicide. The next day, he was questioning the witness about whether she had gone to the hospital because she had overdosed on drugs. Over and over, she expressed agony at having to relive the assault.”

For me, hearing first-hand how these victims have been revictimized really reinforces why this bill is so needed. Additional training could help avoid victims being revictimized by defence lawyers and help improve our system.

The article goes on about what these tactics are called and why defence lawyers use them. It continues, “Multiple scenarios from recent sexual assault trials involve pit bull tactics. Judges hesitate to stop such questioning because they believe they may be uneducated about the law or may hold sexist beliefs themselves. Judges may also hesitate out of fear the judgment will be overturned on the basis that the judge interfered with the right of the defence to question a witness.”

This case is an example of where I believe additional training would help. If there is the possibility a victim does not have to face what this victim has, it is worth it.

I know we have great judges in Canada. I believe the vast majority are appointed to these roles because of the work they have done in their careers and on a personal level. They are good individuals, but there are some who would benefit from a little more training on sexual assault. I am so grateful that, with this change, we would be granting that opportunity to these judges, especially the very small few who may need this extra training.

I would like to also thank the other opposition parties that made this possible. It was a Conservative bill, Bill C-337, introduced by our former leader. I am very grateful to the Liberals and the members who are here today for picking this up and making this a government motion. In a very short time, this will be read a third time and with royal assent become law.

I am so grateful for my role as a parliamentarian and to add my comments to the record on Bill C-3.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for her speech and her commitment to the government's Bill C-3. I share many of the member's concerns, particularly with respect to some of the statistics that she cited regarding women who are victims of sexual assault not feeling comfortable going to the police, pressing charges and moving ahead with our judicial system and its processes.

In that context, would the member be favourable to some of the proposals that we made in our throne speech with respect to community policing and other reforms of our judicial system and, in particular, our policing in Canada?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I unequivocally support this bill. As a new member of Parliament, I did not have the opportunity to state my support for this legislation in the last Parliament, so I am very thankful for the opportunity to do it now. It is my hope that, once passed and proclaimed, this legislation ushers in a new era of change, one of accountability and trust within our legal system and one of real justice for women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people facing sexual violence every day.

In the 43rd Parliament, a record number of 98 women were elected to the House. The statistics on sexual assault say that 32%, or one in three women, over the age of 15 will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, and that is only based on the reported data. This means that as female parliamentarians we come to the House and this debate with lived experience.

I also have the lived experience of being a resource teacher for youth and of having dozens of children disclose to me the traumas they have endured in their lives: the mental anguish and stress, the inability to trust. I have sat in courtrooms where abusers had more rights than the victims, where delay tactics and games prolonged the experience until a victim gave up, until they had been worn down enough from inaction and intimidation. To think that Canadian judges, those entrusted to uphold our laws, to protect victims and to deter further crimes, could be complicit in lending power to abusers through such ignorance and gaslighting is unthinkable.

I wish to thank Rona Ambrose for having the courage to bring this issue to light with her private members' bill. I also wish to thank the Liberal government for bringing it back as Bill C-3, and thank my colleagues on all sides of this House for their words, solidarity and support for seeing this through.

I would be remiss if I did not include the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and the ongoing systemic racism in our legal system. New Brunswick's chiefs are calling for a full inquiry into the failures of our system with respect to indigenous peoples, particularly women, whose lives have not been given the respect and dignity they deserve.

The issue of missing and murdered indigenous women has deep roots in the early days of colonization, where invading forces recognized the power and stature of women in traditional indigenous society. Just as they intentionally decimated the buffalo because it was the lifeblood of the indigenous economy on the plains, they decimated the population of indigenous women as the lifeblood of the people.

The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls reveals that persistent and deliberate human and indigenous rights violations and abuses are the root cause behind Canada's staggering rates of violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Testimony from family members and survivors gives context to this violence, marked by multi-generational and intergenerational trauma and marginalization. This takes the form of poverty, insecure housing or homelessness, and barriers to education, employment, health care and cultural support. Experts and knowledge keepers spoke to specific colonial and patriarchal policies that displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and that diminished their status in society, leaving them vulnerable to violence and sexual assault.

Human rights and indigenous rights abuses committed and condoned by the Canadian state represent genocide against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. Given the failures of our education system to confront these realities until recently, we find ourselves in a position where the people with the responsibility to offer justice to survivors of sexual violence are from a generation when consent was not part of the discussion, when the burden was put on women to avoid being sexually assaulted rather than holding men accountable for their sexual violence, when considering how many sexual partners a woman had reflected on her worth as a person and when the intersectionality of misogyny and racism was not well understood.

This is reflected in some of the comments that have been made by judges in recent years. They wonder why a woman could not simply keep her knees together, comment that she should be flattered to receive the attention or reinforce the flawed notion that a drunk woman can provide consent. This shows without a shadow of a doubt that many judges are not well educated on sexual assault. They have the power to influence the victim's recovery, but in many cases we see the victim is left retraumatized and without justice.

Judges are entrusted with an important job that carries a number of privileges but also comes with significant responsibilities, and if they are missing important knowledge surrounding myths, stereotypes and biases, their ability to accurately interpret the facts and the law will be impacted. Until our bench more accurately reflects the makeup of our society, it is essential to ensure that judges are empowered with the education they need to do their job effectively.

Rape is not about sex; it is about power. It is our job as parliamentarians to ensure that our system restores power to those who have had it taken from them. Perhaps someday our legal system will live up to its other name, Canada's justice system, but we are not there yet.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege today to come to the House from the traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw First Nation to speak about Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain aspects of the Criminal Code.

I agree that we are going to have unanimous consent moving the bill forward. It is a very important piece of legislation. Judges need to be educated about sexual assault and about these issues. However, I would put it to the House that the issues that have come up with judges asking inappropriate questions of women who have been sexually assaulted, those questions would not be asked of white women who are the daughters of judges, mayors, chiefs of police or members of this chamber. Those questions are asked of women who are marginalized, women of colour and indigenous women.

The speech I heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre talked about the sexualization of indigenous women and girls, and how that perpetuates violence against indigenous women. We need to do much more than amend this act. The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry has called for a task force to deal with a whole range of outstanding cases. Even to get before a judge to talk about sexual assault, there is the need to have the RCMP or police force investigate the case properly and bring forward charges, and then have those charges approved by a prosecutor.

I want to talk about a case that happened in my community. This is an 18-year-old case of a 21-year-old woman named Lisa Marie Young. In 2002, on June 29, she went out with friends, drinking, partying in town. She was at a local nightclub. At the end of the evening, she went to another party and then off to get something to eat. She was driven away by a young man in a maroon-coloured Jaguar.

She called friends to tell them that this person was not letting her go and that she wanted to leave. However, her friends, who were intoxicated, did not think to call the police or to raise attention.

The next day, Lisa Marie Young was nowhere to be found. She had very close ties with her family, her mother and father, Joanne and Don, and with her friends. People phoned the RCMP right away, and they started to raise awareness about her being missing. An RCMP officer came by and had a discussion with them, but then went away. He was away, off duty, for five days. When they talked to someone else, that person said they should give it 48 hours. They said it was an extremely unusual situation. She had actually phoned a friend and said that she was being held against her will.

This young woman and the stories swirling around her have all been brought back to light because of a podcast put out by a journalist, Laura Palmer, called “Where is Lisa?”

It is very clear that the police did not respond in a proper way. This was a young indigenous woman. The police did not do a ground search until September 17. She went missing on June 30 and the police did not engage in a ground search until September 17. It was members of her first nation, the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation of the Tofino area, those family members, who conducted searches on their own, without the aid of the RCMP.

The RCMP did not interview anybody from the nightclub this young woman was at. They did not interview some of her friends. They did not do a Crime Stoppers video until 2009. The family had been asking for a Crime Stoppers video about Lisa's disappearance, and they did not go through with that until 2009. They made sure there was a good likeness of Lisa on that Crime Stoppers video, but the young man in question, Chris Adair, who was driving that Jaguar, a preppy-looking kid from a privileged family, was made to look like a street tough. They botched that.

The police handling of the car used to drive Lisa to her death location is another issue. The Jaguar reportedly was not examined by the RCMP until after the owner, a well-known realtor in Qualicum, had it steam-cleaned and detailed. If this young woman had been the daughter of a judge, a mayor or a member of the House, that would not have been the case. The police would have been all over this right away.

The RCMP dismissed an urgent call from a witness who is believed to be an associate and accomplice of Lisa's killers who called to alert the Young family that Lisa's body was being moved at the moment it was being moved from the original location. The RCMP ignored that call, basically saying that she was not a credible witness, mainly because she was tied to criminals, there might have been drugs involved and she might have been street-involved.

As I said, the people at the Jungle Nightclub where Lisa was last seen were not interviewed, neither were the staff. The RCMP failed to respond to other members of the public seeking to provide information on Lisa's disappearance or murder. In some instances, police have entirely failed to respond. In other instances, their response has been delayed.

One informant, a former associate of the prime suspect believed to be Lisa's killer, one of several responsible in her death, called the RCMP in 2006 to report details of Lisa's murder, a videotape of the crime and more. What people have said about this case is that Lisa was taken to make a “snuff” film. They said she was drugged, sexually assaulted and then killed by accident, that it was not the intention to actually go through with the whole process, but she apparently died in the process. The people who know about this have come forward to talk about it, but because they are all associated and known to police, and known to people who are known to police, it has not been investigated properly.

It is also suspected by people in this community that the prime suspect in this case was a police informant. This echoes what happened in Nova Scotia. The killer in Nova Scotia was suspected of being a police informant, and police have no obligation to release any of that information or to talk about that information.

There are multiple issues of concern with this case. The prime suspect did a polygraph, which the police said he passed. Lisa Marie's mother, Joanne, was taken to the Parksville Police Station to take part in an interview with Chris Adair, who was the last person known to see Lisa alive. She was told by the RCMP to hug Chris. Who does that? How does this happen?

This is an outrageous case, and Laura Palmer has outlined all of this in a seven-hour podcast. Once the podcast was released this summer, the RCMP started actually doing some interviews of people. However, this case just goes to show why the missing and murdered indigenous women's inquiry has called for a task force to be looking into these cases to find out why the RCMP and other police forces have not gone through the proper procedures of ensuring that these cases are investigated properly. These young indigenous women who have been murdered, mothers, daughters, sisters, have not had their cases taken seriously.

We need to do a lot more than educate judges. We need to deal with bringing justice to our justice system for all, because it is not justice for all right now. This is a system that prioritizes people who count in the eyes of the justice system. If Lisa Marie Young had been a white woman and a daughter of a prominent business person in this community, that case would have been investigated properly.

I am challenging the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to get this process going with this task force to look into these cases of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. I invite them to come and talk to me. I will bring this family forward, and they can tell them their story. They can give them all of the information that they know, and the names of people involved in this case. This is an outrageous case, and I know that there other cases like this across Canada.

I am thankful for this time to be able to speak about this.