Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also amends the Judges Act to provide that the Canadian Judicial Council should report on seminars offered for the continuing education of judges on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judges Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cee Strauss]

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

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

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

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

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

I will begin with our support for judicial education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Melissa Moor]

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

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, it does not end there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Ms. Illingworth.

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

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

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and related efforts by the Department of Justice.

Ensuring access to justice for victims of crime and giving them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system has been a long‑standing commitment of the federal government.

Federal policy and legislative and programmatic measures in support of this commitment have been coordinated through the federal victims strategy. Established in 2000, this horizontal strategy is led by Justice Canada and includes Public Safety Canada, Correctional Service Canada, the Parole Board of Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights is an important cornerstone for continuing federal efforts to support victims of crime. Enacted in 2015, the CVBR gives victims of crime four statutory rights: the rights to information, to protection, to participation and to seek restitution. These rights apply throughout the criminal justice process. The CVBR also requires, to the extent possible, that all federal statutes be interpreted in a manner consistent with victims' rights under the CVBR. It provides a mechanism for victims to file a complaint when these rights have been breached by a federal department or agency.

As the committee knows, responsibility for our criminal justice system is shared between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The federal government is responsible for criminal law and procedure, much of which is set out in the Criminal Code, as well as the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the administration of justice, which includes enforcing and prosecuting Criminal Code offences, delivery of victim services and enacting their own victim legislation.

Since 2015, significant individual and collaborative measures have been taken by all governments to advance and strengthen implementation of victims' rights. For example, at the federal level, early actions to support the right to information focused on creating a series of fact sheets about victims' rights and related Criminal Code provisions. These have recently been made available in 11 indigenous languages.

Federal funding was also made available to provincial and territorial victim services to create or update their public legal education and information materials for victims, victims' advocates and criminal justice professionals, in addition to training on the CVBR.

The right to information has also been supported through the design and delivery of new models of victim-centred services. The creation of family information liaison units across Canada in 2016 has ensured that family members of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls have all the available information they are seeking about their loved ones as well as access to community-based supports. Justice Canada has also supported the right to participation through funding to the provinces and territories for the provision of testimonial aids to facilitate victim testimony.

Victims' rights to information, protection and participation have also been supported by federal funding for independent legal advice and representation programs for victims and survivors of sexual assault. These are currently being piloted in a number of jurisdictions in Canada. Justice Canada has also worked closely with provincial and territorial victim services to fund their design and delivery of jurisdiction-specific restitution programs.

Law reform continues to be an important tool to affect change and to implement victims' rights. In addition to the criminal law reforms that accompanied the CVBR, some recent legislative reforms support victims' participation and protection rights. For example, the recently enacted Bill C-3 requires candidates seeking appointment to a provincial superior court to participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context. It also requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases.

The former Bill C-75 on criminal justice system delays enhanced victim safety, particularly for victims of intimate partner violence, including at bail and sentencing. It also re-enacted a new victim surcharge regime—an important source of revenue for provinces and territories—in response to the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Boudreault.

Following enactment of the CVBR, federal departments and agencies whose mandates involve working with victims of crime have implemented formal complaints mechanisms for victims. Justice Canada prepares an annual report on complaints and publishes it online. Provinces and territories also have their own complaint mechanisms.

Those are the items I'd like to highlight for Justice Canada.

Thank you.

Sexual Assault Awareness Month

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Sexual violence continues to be under recognized within the criminal justice system and has increased significantly during the pandemic. May is a month for us to bring awareness to the realities of sexual violence within our communities and to recognize that certain communities are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence, in particular indigenous women.

I would like to thank SAVIS of Halton for educating our community on the realities of sexual violence while providing direct support and resources to survivors in Halton.

Last week, I was pleased to see Bill C-3 receive royal assent, which will ensure education is provided for judges on sexual assault and social context. I would like to give special thanks to Conor Lewis from my office, who worked on this bill since 2017.

Today and everyday, I send my support to all survivors, as we continue to advocate for the end of sexual violence in all forms.

Justice

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Bill C-3 became law. It is an important step, but so much remains to be accomplished.

Whether the person was a member of the military or a victim of domestic violence, the evidence is unequivocal. The legal system is failing the vast majority of sexual assault survivors. Consultations have already taken place and experts have laid out a road map that includes establishing a specialized sexual assault and domestic violence court and ensuring consistency between criminal, family and youth protection court decisions.

Even if judges are now receiving training, they are still operating inside a broken system. Is the Minister of Justice ready to commit to doing more, to tabling legislation that would truly reform the system and ensure that all survivors of sexual assault could access justice?

Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to relevance. The member has been going off on a tangent that is nowhere near the concurrence report we are debating. He is talking about Bill C-3, Bill C-14, Bill C-19, all except the matter before the House right now. This is a concurrence report. We are supposed to be debating about Line 5. This is important.

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

Madam Speaker, to say whether I am surprised or disappointed, the short answer would be no. I am not surprised that the Conservatives would move a motion of concurrence on a particular report. They have demonstrated in the recent months that they have really lost focus on the pandemic. I am trying to be nice in my criticism here, but I do believe at times that I need to be bold and to say what I believe the Conservatives are actually doing, which is not focusing at all or giving the attention that should be there from the official opposition in dealing with what is a very important issue to all Canadians.

The Conservatives continue to want to play partisan politics, and that is why I am not surprised, because they have been doing this for a while now. I am disappointed. I am disappointed again, and ongoing, because as the Conservatives insist on playing games on the floor of the House of Commons, they are filibustering whenever they can in an attempt to encourage a dysfunctional House of Commons and discourage important legislation from being debated so they can ultimately say that the government cannot even get its legislation through. If we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party, it does not take a genius in a group of 12 to cause a lot of frustration on the floor of the House of Commons, and we get the official opposition choosing to do that.

Today is an excellent example. Earlier today, I was on a Zoom call with the Prime Minister, my Manitoba colleagues and a hundred nurses in the province of Manitoba. We were listening to what nurses in Manitoba had to say. That is the priority, and has been the priority, of this government from day one. I contrast that to what we have witnessed day in and day out over the last number of months coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The member for Chilliwack—Hope tries to give the impression that I do not care about Line 5 or the jobs and the other indirect and direct things related to Line 5 and that is why I do not support having us debate this motion we are debating today, the concurrence on the report. That is balderdash. It is just not true. Like all Liberals in the House of Commons, I am very much concerned about Line 5 and the impact it is having, not only on Canada, but also on the U.S. We understand and appreciate the importance of the issue. The Minister of Natural Resources, whether in question period or other debates, including the emergency debate, has been very clear on the issue.

The Conservative Party, surely to goodness, would recognize that we just had an emergency debate on the issue, just last Thursday. Members should listen and read in terms of what was actually said then. It started off with Conservatives just bashing Ottawa and saying how bad we are in regard to Alberta, to try to perpetuate more misinformation, as if this Prime Minister and this government do not care about the province of Alberta. Members can look and see what kind of ideas came from the Conservative Party in the emergency debate. There was not one Liberal who said “no” to having an emergency debate.

I had a chance to speak during that debate, and I am going to share some of the comments I made on Thursday night, but even with the emergency debate that took place, the Conservatives came up with this concurrence motion on a report that has absolutely nothing to do with Line 5 or a relationship between Canada and the U.S. For those who are listening or participating, or who care about what is taking place in the House, that is not the real motivation here. The Conservatives can say whatever they want and try to come across as meaningful as they want, but at the end of the day, it has more to do with frustrating the government's legislative agenda, the things we want to accomplish in the House of Commons.

They continue to push, saying that the House of Commons is dysfunctional. The Conservatives try to do two things. The first is character assassinations, and I understand I was one of them earlier today in an S.O. 31. The second is the ongoing filibustering taking place in the House of Commons so that important legislation cannot get through.

We should look at some of the debates and frustrations that have been sensed on the floor of the House of Commons because of the irresponsible official opposition. Those who might be sympathetic to their terrible behaviour should look at Bill C-3, as an example, and the hours and hours of debate on the education and training of judges in the future on sexual assault and so forth. It was a Conservative bill. It passed everything and is coming back. We introduced it as a government bill so we could put it in place. Everyone agreed to it, even in the Senate. It got royal assent very recently. The Conservatives debated that for hours and hours on the floor of the House of Commons. Was that really necessary? No.

What about Bill C-14? The economic statement was released in November, and the legislation was brought forward in December. No matter when we called it up, the Conservatives attempted to filibuster that through concurrence motions, too. In that legislation, there were important things to subsidize and support Canadians, individuals, families and small businesses. One would think the Conservative Party would have cared, but it had no problem filibustering that one, too.

We just had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-19. It is a minority government. We have to ensure, as much as possible, that Elections Canada is best prepared, enabling it to do a little more on a temporary basis. However, the political spinners within the Conservative Party do not want to go that way. They say they want to remain focused. Being focused to them is to push for a dysfunctional chamber and character assassination. That is what they are all about. It is—

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C‑3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Criminal Code

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question around prosecutorial and police discretion because I still have concerns about the lack of understanding that still exists in Canada.

I am wondering what other additional measures the member would like to see. I am thinking about Bill C-3, which made it mandatory for judges to have training around sexual assault. What about trauma-informed care? What about information around residential school experiences, or about Canadians who continue to be oppressed in our country? Are there additional measures that the member would like to see in this bill?

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was part of a wonderful Zoom discussion. It was a great recognition of the importance of some health care workers, while at the same time a celebration of Canada's diversity. We also had some special guests.

On the call we had our Prime Minister, health care professionals from coast to coast, and a number of other special guests, all there to recognize a couple of things. The first was the fabulous work that our health care providers are providing Canadians in all regions of our country, day in and day out. We also recognized something important to the people who were participating in that call, and in fact to many Canadians, and that is the celebration of Vaisakhi.

It was really quite nice to be a part of that discussion, where we recognized our diversity and, at the same time, the Prime Minister listened to first-hand experiences of what is taking place at the ground level of our health institutions dealing with the coronavirus.

Having said that, it is important to recognize that from day one this Liberal government has been listening to Canadians. It has not been making political discussions as much as it has been listening to what health experts have had to say and following that advice, so Canadians would in fact be protected. From day one, the Prime Minister has been there to assure Canadians that, as a government, we will have their backs. We have done that in so many tangible ways.

Nothing has changed. We continue day in and day out to look at ways to support Canadians, the people and their businesses, get through this pandemic. We have seen a lot of highs and lot of lows. We could talk about the wonderful people who have made life that much easier for us during this pandemic and the difficulties we have had to overcome, which at times can be very hard on a person, whether mentally or physically. Through this pandemic, we have seen life and death.

It is so encouraging that we could finally see, in the not-too-distant future, things coming back to a new normal. I suspect I speak on behalf of all members of Parliament when I say that we want things back to that new normal as soon as possible.

I want to provide some thoughts, and some of them are a little critical of my Conservative friends. I have been listening to what they have had to say today. I must say that I am not surprised. I am a little disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

I gave a little tease when I asked a member about the deficit. The Conservatives are once again becoming preoccupied with Canada's deficit at a time when Canadians in parts of the country are in lockdown situations and are looking for the government to demonstrate ongoing leadership. What we have clearly demonstrated is that we are working day in, day out with Canadians. From a national perspective, we are there for Canadians in tangible ways.

However, before I get into that, I want to hold the Conservative opposition to task for some of the things they have said, this whole preoccupation of theirs. On the one hand, Conservatives say they like the CERB program, the rent subsidy program and the wage subsidy program, which account for billions and billions of dollars in spending. That is, in good part, borrowed money. They are telling us that this is good stuff and we need it. Then, on the other hand, they are talking about the debt and saying there is too much spending from the government.

I can envision two or three years from now, the Conservatives will forget about the pandemic, even the fact that it occurred, and focus 100% of their attention on the deficit. I would like to suggest to my Conservative friends that, had we listened to the Conservative Party of Canada and its leadership within the House of Commons, Canada would not be doing anywhere near as well as it is today in its position to recover from the pandemic. I genuinely believe that to be the case.

If we asked people to reflect on what has taken place over the last number of months, I believe we would find a fairly even consensus among Canadians about their fear for the manner in which the Conservative Party would have managed us through this process. This is based on the types of questions Conservatives have been asking and the type of support they have been providing to legislation. I argue that in the last seven months, they have been more of a destructive force inside the House of Commons, rather than providing a proactive, constructive critique of the government and the policies we were making.

The member for Kildonan—St. Paul made reference to the Liberal Party and the Liberal government doing a terrible job pre-pandemic on the deficit and that we had a sluggish economy. If one wants to get a sense of the Conservative spin out there, all one needs to do is read the member's speech and listen to some of the other points that have been made. In many ways, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the first four years of our mandate, going into the fifth year, we had record highs in employment rates. We very much had a manageable deficit situation. We had created well over a million jobs. It took Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, nine years to accomplish what we were able to accomplish in four and a half years. We did a much better job on the financing of Canada than Stephen Harper did.

The programs, initiatives and impact we were having by working with our partners, whether they were Canadians, businesses or members at the provincial level, were having a profoundly positive impact on our economy. The numbers clearly demonstrated that.

Prior to the pandemic, Canada was doing exceptionally well. Then when we were hit by the pandemic, we took specific actions to protect Canadians. As we have gone through the pandemic, we have brought in important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-14. I find it truly amazing that Bill C-14 still has not passed the House of Commons, whether it is because of the Conservatives and their filibustering tactics or even other opposition parties that are at times preventing this legislation from ultimately being able to receive royal assent.

The economic statement was presented by the minister of finance back in November of last year. The bill was introduced in December so that members would be able to go over the bill during the late December-early January break. There was plenty of time for Conservative members to have discussions and raise it with ministers or whomever they chose to have a dialogue with. They come up with so many ways to prevent the legislation from even getting to a vote. They did not even want it to get out of second reading. They had to be shamed into doing it.

I remember the day the Conservatives put forward a concurrence motion that I believe was on human trafficking, something that could have passed by a unanimous vote. Who in the chamber did not support it? There are so many reports, but they used that report and that issue to filibuster, preventing Bill C-14 from passing. Here we are, in mid-April, still debating a bill that was based on the Deputy Prime Minister's speech back at the end of November. It is not because we have not attempted to put it on the agenda. We do not have the same sort of luxury as opposition parties in terms of opposition days where, at the end of the day, there is a vote because there is a process that enables a vote to occur.

In a minority situation, we have to give a lot more attention to what the opposition is doing, and it only takes one opposition party to prevent something from passing. I remember well how the Conservatives resisted the bill passing. Today, as I listen to my Conservative friends speak, they say they do not like the debt and so forth. Is that going to be their excuse for not wanting to pass it today or tomorrow? Are they going to say it is a whole lot of money and they want hours and hours of debate?

Do members remember Bill C-3, a non-controversial piece of legislation? It was actually a Conservative bill. There were hours and hours of debate on that bill and we debated it for a number of days, when we could have been debating other legislation. It would have freed up more time, so that when Bill C-14 came up for debate, there could have been more time to debate it. How about the MAID legislation? My colleague from Ontario asked for leave on several occasions to extend the debate in the evening so we could, in essence, free up more time for other government legislation that had to get debated. The MAID legislation was life-and-death legislation. It was a Superior Court decision that had to be dealt with.

The government has a number of pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with, yet the opposition continues to want to play games. Conservatives tell Canadians they are being a responsible opposition because, after all, it is worth billions of dollars. They are right that it is worth billions of dollars, but they are not recognizing the urgency. We have provided opportunities to get this bill through much earlier, and the Conservatives find one way or another not to, to the point that here we are debating it on April 12.

This legislation was brought in months ago, and the bill is finally in a position where it could pass. It has taken a long time to get this far, and I encourage Conservatives to pass it, as I did at second reading. It was not until the Conservatives started to feel embarrassed that they allowed the bill to pass. I think they need to be shamed into passing it at third reading or they will not do it. If they are not told to wise up and recognize that this bill is going to have a positive impact on the lives of Canadians during this pandemic, they are not going to pass it. They need to be held accountable for not recognizing how important this legislation is to Canadians.

We have indicated that our government will do whatever it takes. We are going to invest wherever it is necessary. We want to be helpful, and we will support Canadian families and businesses. This is very important legislation, and it would do all of that.

For example, this legislation introduces a temporary and immediate support for low- and middle-income families that are entitled to the Canada child benefit, over $1,000 in 2021 for each child under the age of six. It would ease the financial burden of student debt. It would provide for over half a billion dollars as part of a new strategy to deal with safe long-term care, funding to support long-term care facilities, including funding to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection, outbreaks and deaths in supportive care facilities. The vaccines have really helped, but these are the types of measures.

There is no reason this House could not have passed this bill back in February. It is not that the government did not want it passed, but every time the government would bring it up, the Conservatives would give some indication that it was not going to pass and would continue to be debated.

There is other legislation as well. I am the parliamentary secretary who is ultimately there to support the passage of Bill C-19, which is on the Canada Elections Act and the impact of the pandemic on elections, to ensure Canadians would be healthy. This is a minority government, and we never know when there is going to be an election. Bill C-19 is the responsible thing to do, but it is incredibly difficult to get legislation passed with the official opposition taking the approach it has during the pandemic, and it is unfortunate.

We understand and appreciate how difficult it has been for Canadians from coast to coast to coast over the last 12 months. The federal government, by working with Canadians and health care experts and listening to what is taking place, has done what is necessary in order to ensure that Canadians can have hope.

Contrary to the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, who was trying to marginalize it in terms of the number of doses earlier in her speech, we should listen to what the Minister of Public Services and Procurement stated earlier today in question period: “Canada now stands eighth in the G20 in terms of doses administered per 100 people. We have received 10.5 million doses in this country to date. We are on track to receive 44 million doses by the end of June”. We are a country of 37.5 million people.

The Conservatives love to twist the facts and give misinformation to Canadians. However, we have been consistent. Members can go back to December, when we were saying that we have targets and a portfolio to ensure that we will get the vaccinations. We have compensated as much as possible for not having that immediate manufacturing capability here in Canada. We understand the importance of the issue, and we will continue to have Canadians' backs throughout this process.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Deschamps, for appearing today and for your report. It's so refreshing. You speak my language.

As you know, Bill C-3 was passed in Parliament because we see a need to counter culture and systems that victimize women and promote toxic masculinity. Your report is important and our discussions today are important to help bring this cultural shift within the Canadian Armed Forces, but I believe it will also, as it gets resolved, bring change in other sectors of society.

The other day when I was questioning the minister, because I felt he wasn't getting the big picture, I pointed out that the purpose of processes and systems is not to exist for themselves but to help us bring justice and not hinder it. Processes and systems are there ideally to provide an environment that safeguards and maximizes the potential for accountability, integrity and safety to draw out truth and an outcome of justice.

However, if top authorities and leaders like the Minister of Defence are acting in a way or making decisions that are questionable, negligent or insensitive to reality—as the minister is, in my opinion—is there a process whereby those who are in more junior positions can file an appeal against those in higher authority about their decisions?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison, for your collaboration on this bill and a variety of others.

You have my personal commitment to working with my colleagues around the table and with other parliamentarians to make sure we have those supports in place. One thing I can already cite is that in Bill C-3, part of the training of judges is precisely aimed at the kinds of questions we need to rectify in working with victims of conversion therapy. That will be part of the training that is part of that bill.

I'll continue to work with you and I'll continue to work with my colleagues to make sure we have the support. I agree with you that the criminal law power is a heavy-handed power, and we need to work on the other levers that we have in society in order to make sure conversion therapy doesn't happen.

International Women's Day

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House of Commons. The magnitude of this reality is not lost on me, especially today on International Women's Day, a day when we celebrate and advocate for women's rights around the world. I wish I could simply deliver pleasantries, highlight the work of some incredible women and wish all present a happy International Women's Day, but based on the real experiences of women across the country and around the globe that would not be enough.

I would like to begin by exploring some of the history of the women's rights movement. It is rooted in struggle and conflict, intertwined with colonialism and racism. Before the suffragettes, colonists arrived in North America and deliberately tore apart the fabric of the matriarchal leadership of the first peoples of this land. The intergenerational trauma of these acts continues to ripple through indigenous communities today.

International Women's Day can be traced back to 1908, when thousands of working women in New York City marched to protest their working conditions. These women worked at low wages with no protection and regularly experienced sexual harassment and abuse. This uprising continued for more than a year, leading to National Woman's Day in the U.S. in 1909.

At an international conference of working women in 1910, the idea for an international movement advocating universal suffrage was born. The day took on a truly revolutionary form in Russia in 1917, in a country exhausted by war, widespread food shortages and escalating popular protests. Russian women demanded and gained the right to vote in 1917 as a direct consequence of the March protest.

Suffragettes in the U.K., and their counterparts in the U.S. and Canada, looked to Russia as an example. White women in Canada were enfranchised in 1918, but this right would not be extended to women of colour or indigenous women until decades later.

We have yet to fully embrace the layers of intersectionality in feminism and tear down the many ways women continue to be oppressed. The pandemic has plainly demonstrated how race, gender, class, disability and immigration status intersect and compound risk, resulting in worse health outcomes, increased rates of domestic violence and greater economic struggle.

International Women's Day remains steeped in the fight for all women's rights. I think about the women facing violence in their homes. I addressed the House regarding gender-based violence on February 25. That same day, a woman from my home province was murdered by her intimate partner. In Quebec, five women were killed by their partners in just one month.

The government has put money into supporting shelters and services for women fleeing domestic violence, but it is not enough. I think about the survivors of sexual assault being retraumatized and stigmatized, again and again, by a court system that was designed to protect property. Bill C-3 will finally require judges to receive sensitivity training on sexual assault, which is a step forward, but our judicial system is so deeply flawed that this is not enough.

I think of Chantel Moore and of Joyce Echaquan. These women's final moments on earth were spent facing down racism and misogyny. Our policing and health systems let them down. We let them down.

The government has initiated an anti-racism secretariat, but it seems to be operating quietly behind closed doors. This is not enough. I am discouraged by the failings of our systems, reinforced by almost every statistic and by almost every headline. I am discouraged that I hold a seat of power, yet I often feel powerless to right what remains so very wrong.

I look to what brings me hope. I think of my sisters, my friends and the women I work with. Through their trauma, I see their strength. I see their resilience. This year they have given birth without their loved ones present. They have loved and supported family members in mental health crises. They have taken in their adult children who could no longer support themselves financially. They have bravely served, overrepresented on the front lines of this pandemic. They have left abusive jobs, they have left abusive relationships and they stand strong but not unscathed. What I need from the government is leadership that sees their resilience and meets it with equal force.

International Women's Day has always been as much about struggle and solidarity as it is about celebration. Today, for women across the country, the struggle is real. With some direct action perhaps next year we will have more to celebrate.

Opposition Motion—Religious Minorities in China

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

Madam Speaker, it has been less than a month since I saw photo presentations of emaciated women and children lined up in the Auschwitz death camp and listened to Holocaust survivors talk about their scars from forced separation from family members, torture, the death of loved ones, gas chambers and the exploitation of their bodies for science experiments.

January 27 was International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and the phrase “never again” is solemnly spoken as a reminder to be vigilant and a call to action to prevent and stop genocide.

Today my Conservative colleagues and I are calling on the government and members to acknowledge that the Government of the People's Republic of China is subjecting Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims to genocide.

Numerous entities have drawn the conclusion that the Government of China is committing acts of genocide that include mass detention, systematic population control and sexual violence. The reports provide elaborate details on the depth of the abuses perpetrated by the government against this minority group.

The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development released a statement October 21, 2020 that reads:

The Subcommittee unequivocally condemns the persecution of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang by the Government of China. Based on the evidence put forward during the Subcommittee hearings, both in 2018 and 2020, the Subcommittee is persuaded that the actions of the Chinese Communist Party constitute genocide as laid out in the Genocide Convention.

I just want to note here that this is a statement by a committee of members across all aisles. CBC News reported a statement by Bob Rae that there are aspects of what the Chinese government is doing that fit the definition of genocide in the genocide convention. I would also like to note that Bob Rae is Canada's ambassador to the UN. Genocide is defined by the genocide convention with respect to three constitutive elements.

First, the victims form part of a protected group of national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Second, the perpetrators committed one or more enumerated acts against members of the group, killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Third, the perpetrators acted with the intent to destroy the protected group in whole or in part.

All three elements are present a genocide in the heinous acts of persecution against the Uighur people.

On January 19, 2021, outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo said:

After careful examination of the available facts, I have determined that since at least March 2017, the People’s Republic of China, under the direction and control of the Chinese Communist Party, has committed crimes against humanity against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other members of ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.

The current U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has stated numerous times that he also believes genocide is being committed against the Uighurs. American officials acknowledge this as genocide. They are our neighbours and closest allies.

The existence of detention camps holding a million Uighurs has been confirmed through government documents, witness testimony and satellite imagery. Most people in the camps are innocent. They have not committed any crimes. They have no means to defend themselves. Human rights groups say their crime is being Muslim. They are being persecuted and killed because of their religion. This is unacceptable and it is not a time to be silent.

Between 2017 and 2019, approximately more than 80,000 Uighurs were forced from their homes to work in factories across China and in detention camps. The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote in a letter of “People being forcibly loaded onto trains, beards of religious men being trimmed, women being sterilised, and the grim spectre of concentration camps”.

This bears similarities to what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago. Indeed, Jonathan Sacks, the U.K.'s former chief rabbi, tweeted on July 22:

As a Jew, knowing our history, the sight of people being shaven headed, lined up, boarded onto trains, and sent to concentration camps is particularly harrowing.

Jewish leaders acknowledge the eerie familiarities of what is happening to Uighurs with what the Nazis did during World War II. These are serious statements coming from a community that experienced severe genocide.

In a BBC article earlier this month, according to independent testimonies, more than a million people have been detained in the internment camps. Former detainees have testified to having experienced or witnessed a system of organized mass rape, sexual abuse and torture. Women were also forcibly sterilized or fitted with IUDs. Many women turn to alcohol to cope with the trauma. One woman who fled Xinjiang says, of a victim who is now an addict, she was “like someone who simply existed, otherwise she was dead, completely finished by the rapes.... Their goal is to destroy everyone”, she said, “And everybody knows it.”

This is absolutely abhorrent. These women are experiencing trauma that will probably take a lifetime to overcome, if they survive: nightmares, anxiety, fear, depression, self-esteem issues, challenges in intimate relationships and the grief of forcibly losing one's ability to bear children.

When asked by reporters why the government has not yet acknowledged the actions of China's government against the Uighur Muslim minority as genocide, the Prime Minister said that the word “genocide” is “extremely loaded” and something that we should be looking at to determine if we can label it as genocide. The fact that leaders and members of his own party, Canada's ambassador to the UN and international communities are calling this genocide makes the Prime Minister's failure to acknowledge it as such disturbing.

On February 3, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asked the Prime Minister if he believed the testimony of female Uighur victims of systemic sexual violence in Chinese state-run concentration camps where sexual violence is sometimes paired with electrocution. The Prime Minister's response was:

For years now we have been advocating directly with Chinese leadership for transparency and better treatment of the Uighurs in western China...We need to have international investigators, including from the UN, accessing the Xinjiang province to be able to keep people safe there and everywhere around the world.

We know that the Government of China will not allow UN investigators access to its torture facilities. I wonder if the Prime Minister really understands the full ramifications of what is going on, because underneath his diplomatic response, it seem to me, as a woman, that the PM is saying, “I'll try to get the perpetrator's permission to check out the crime scene. If we can go there and see if what you're claiming is actually happening, well then we'll take it from there.”

Does he have more faith in the Chinese government to allow an investigation to take place or does he believe the victims? This is the same government that continues to disregard human rights and international law with regard to Hong Kong, Tibetans, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and other minority groups. We also have the two Michaels still detained in China.

Going back to the Prime Minister's insensitivity, we just debated Bill C-3, and passed it unanimously. This piece of legislation had to be passed, because rape victims are often treated unfairly and often revictimized by judges who condemn the women and not the perpetrators, and their testimony is dismissed. The women relive their trauma and end up further victimized. Therefore, I would like to ask: Is it the Prime Minister's intention to gaslight the Uighur women who had the courage to step forward with their stories? By saying that he is consulting directly with the Government of China on these issues to seek investigations shows that he does not acknowledge the plight of these women.

My Conservative colleagues and I call on the Liberal government to join our allies in the U.S. to officially recognize the Uighur genocide, to take coordinated action with other countries internationally in response to this genocide and impose Magnitsky sanctions against those who are responsible for the heinous crimes being committed against the Uighurs.

I am sitting here in my constituency office today with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms behind me. This is our Canadian legacy. We stand for it at home. That is why we come to the House of Commons as parliamentarians: To uphold the dignity of every human being and do our best to allow each one to prosper uniquely in their own way. When we see our fellow humanity abroad suffering, as the Uighur and Turkic Muslims are in China, it is time to stand up and acknowledge the atrocity for what it is—genocide—and take realistic, practical steps with our international allies to hold the Government of China to account.

We have a moment of decision today on our values, the identity of Canada and what freedom and human rights are really about. There is no room for hypocrisy in this hour. I understand that there are complex economic and social layers in our relationship with China. However, genocide is genocide, human rights are human rights, and I implore the government and ask my colleagues across all aisles to adopt the position my Conservative colleagues and I are addressing today.

As we consider this motion, I would ask this: What is the legacy that my colleagues would like to leave behind? Is it one of fear or moral courage? We have come so far as a nation, and we still have a ways to go to really act with true freedom and moral courage, but in this hour there is an opportunity, and I fear that being indecisive about whether this is genocide is making us go backwards. Canada has a role—

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your insight and all of the work and the advocacy that you're doing. It goes without saying that this is a really important study.

I just want to put in a comment and then ask two questions, possibly three.

First, I think there have been some steps made in the right direction towards the training piece with Bill C-3 on the judicial sensitization towards sexual assault law. All of us know that the definition of “family violence” in the Divorce Act has been coupled with training that's being put out by the Department of Justice for public legal education and information materials, and for legal advisers. Those are important steps in the right direction. The message I am getting is that we need a lot more of that.

I have a couple of questions, and I am going to start with Ms. Illingworth.

Thank you for your letter to Minister Lametti asking for this to be addressed. The question I have relates to what we heard in the last hour, and you heard the people. Your testimony just now and your letter talk a lot about intimate partner violence and no doubt that is at the crux of what we're talking about here. Some of the testimony we heard just in the previous hour also talked about women who are often on the blunt end of this kind of control, but who aren't necessarily in an intimate relationship. It might be an aunt, a mother, a grandmother or a niece. They're having relationships that are controlling, but don't have that nexus of intimacy.

I am wondering how we can ensure that whatever we do is comprehensive enough to ensure that it's dealing with coercive control that deals with intimate relationships, but not to the exclusion of some of those other relationships.

Ms. Illingworth, could you try to tackle that maybe in about 90 seconds? Thanks.

Criminal Code

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise yet again to oppose this deeply flawed and dangerous legislation, Bill C-7. The Liberals have been complaining in the media that they think the Conservatives are holding up the legislation and that they are going to miss their court-imposed deadline of December 18, but they really have no one but themselves to blame. Conservatives are doing our constitutionally mandated job to hold the Liberal government accountable on its legislation.

Looking at the record over these past eight months, it is clear that my party has bent over backwards to give the Liberals the breathing room to implement emergency economic aid and other COVID-related measures. We have been very co-operative. We have also seen a great deal of government legislation move fairly quickly through the House just this fall, and in a minority Parliament at that.

Let us look at the Liberal record on moving the legislation forward. From the very beginning, the government really made its own bed on this one when it refused to defend its own legislation, Bill C-14, which was just passed in the last Parliament. Even some of its own members said on Twitter that the legislation was unconstitutional, admitting they felt it was unconstitutional even when they were voting for it, but they did not use the opportunity to appeal the legislation to the Supreme Court. That shows me that it was the government's intent to use the courts to circumvent Parliament.

Parliament was mandated, under Bill C-14, to conduct a thorough review of medical assistance in dying and that review was to occur next year. It is important to have these sorts of reviews built into legislation because when we talk about something as serious as medical assistance in dying, which is a novel legislation, a new innovation in our social fabric, Canadian people really have not had adequate time to digest how they feel about the legislation and to examine their lived experiences.

A five-year review was a very adequate provision to give Canadians a bit of time to assess the bill and then have Parliament make recommendations and possibly changes to the legislation so that we could fix the bill, whether that meant tightening up some things that were prone to abuse or maybe loosening up the legislation in cases where it was needed. However, with the Liberal government's desire to short-circuit the legislative process and the will of the previous Parliament, it chose to fast-track the legislation by not choosing to appeal it to the Supreme Court. I believe this was done very purposely to ensure the legislation would pass before a review took place.

If the review had gone forward, as we have seen from the Council of Canadian Academies, there are a lot of questions about the practice of the legislation and how it has been carried out over the past few years. Abuses have been raised in committee and in the House repeatedly, yet in the legislation the government has taken no efforts to take those experiences and make this a safer piece of legislation for vulnerable people.

Going to the next example of why the government's problem is one it made itself, with the COVID-19 pandemic, which I agree was not the government's fault, it was required to request several extensions of the bill. The courts were willing to approve those extensions and, in late summer, Liberals chose to prorogue Parliament. By proroguing Parliament, they made the choice to clear the decks of all of their legislation, start from the beginning and send us back to the drawing board. By doing that, they delayed the legislation further. For the Liberal government to claim that Conservatives are holding up the bill when what we are doing is our constitutionally mandated job, especially on an issue as important as life and death, it does not ring true.

Another example is that if the bill was so important for the government to get passed so quickly, why was it not the first justice bill it put forward? Bill C-3 was passed in a very expeditious manner with all parties' support in the House. It was passed, largely, with the support of committee and minimal amendments. Even in that expedited manner, that delayed the government's legislation by weeks. The Liberals are talking and complaining about how Conservatives are allegedly delaying the legislation, but it was their own choices that resulted in the delay of the legislation.

We are left today with the government complaining that the Conservatives are doing their job. We are doing our job by criticizing the Liberals' legislation. We are holding them to account. We are championing the rights of vulnerable people. We will never apologize for doing what our constituents have sent us here to do, which is to stand up for their deeply held beliefs, to stand up for their concerns and to stand up for vulnerable people.

Vulnerable Canadians made their desires known and their concerns known very loudly and clearly at the committee. I am pleased to see that the other place has had more time to hear from witnesses. I believe it has heard from over 80 witnesses, the vast majority of whom are opposed to the legislation. Frankly, in the House, we only had four committee meetings for this very important legislation, so I am pleased that the Senate is taking its responsibility seriously and thoroughly examining the bill and hearing from vulnerable people and others who are concerned about the legislation.

The members of these communities were afraid of Bill C-14. They were assured by the government that they would be protected and that there were protections for people with mental illnesses from accessing it. There were protections for children. There was the reasonably foreseeable death requirement, which was touted as a great protection for the disabled community. I can tell members that what they are saying is that they are terrified by what they see in this bill from the Liberal government.

I read today on CBC that the Minister of Justice appears to be in a showdown with disabled groups who are demanding a halt to the bill. The idea that the Minister of Justice, whose role is to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canadians, is fighting and ignoring the pleas of disabled and other vulnerable Canadians is just plain wrong.

Conservatives have been listening and we have been fighting for these vulnerable Canadians. It appears that nobody else is willing to fight for them. That is what we will do. We are fighting for these vulnerable Canadians. We are not being intransigent about this bill. Conservatives have a wide range of perspectives on this issue. We have put forward, as a party, some very common-sense amendments that do not undermine the legality of medical assistance in dying as a general practice but will do a lot to assuage the fears of vulnerable Canadians.

Some of these common-sense amendments proposed at committee included protecting patients from undue coercion. By coercion, people immediately draw up images of doctors in deeply immoral situations pushing medical assistance in dying on vulnerable people who are isolated from loved ones and family members. I am not trying to say that is happening. Frankly, I think what we have seen is that it is a lot more benign than that. It is not doctors aggressively pushing medical assistance in dying on people.

Someone may be in a situation where there is a power imbalance, and as a disabled person, other vulnerable person or a person who is older, they might not have family members or access to supports like social workers and psychologists. In this situation, they trust their doctors and that is a good thing because our doctors work very hard and they are very professional. However, if someone has that trust relationship with their doctor and the doctor comes and asks if they have considered medical assistance in dying, that could seem very benign for an average person. If I was in a situation like that and the doctor came to me, I would say no thanks, but we never know what someone else is going through and what challenges they are facing.

If they do not have someone to turn to, they can feel like the doctor is looking out for their best interests and the doctor is suggesting that they consider medical assistance in dying, so maybe the doctor is right and maybe that person should consider it. In this case, we recognize there is a power imbalance. At committee, we suggested putting forward some very strong protections to say that health care professionals should in no way be presenting medical assistance in dying as an option to patients. This is a basic protection.

This is something we talked about with the last bill. I was actually very disturbed, during debate at second reading, when a Liberal member stood up and talked about a couple they knew who had not ever considered medical assistance in dying. It was a very touching story. The member nonchalantly said that the doctor came in, passed them a brochure and asked if they had ever considered medical assistance in dying. The member, I think, thought that this was an innocuous and benign situation, but for me and for people in disabled and vulnerable communities, it was very scary that they could be put into this situation without adequate supports. They might feel like they were being coerced into a decision.

We also wanted to put in some stronger protections around a period of reflection. I think the period of reflection is key because, even in the government's own reports on medical assistance in dying, there were many cases in which people did not receive disability supports, and they received MAID while still not receiving disability supports. There were people waiting to get palliative care who had not received access to palliative care who also received medical assistance in dying.

It clearly illustrates that the government is not putting the resources in to help disabled Canadians, or to help Canadians who need palliative care. If we shorten the timeline or eliminate the timeline all together, we are really losing an opportunity for people to access these wonderful services that can make the end of life much more peaceful.

One of the sad things about debating this bill today is that I feel like I am being forced to defend the status quo, implemented in the last Parliament under Bill C-14. I was not a big fan of Bill C-14, and as legislation it has proved time and again to fail to protect vulnerable people. It certainly did not protect the prisoners who underwent medical assistance in dying.

This issue was raised by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, and it has deep moral and ethical problems. Prisoners really have no power. He raised a case in which a prisoner was coming close to the end of life and wanted to die peacefully in the community with access to palliative care. They were denied the opportunity to do so, and then chose MAID instead. I think the correctional investigator was very astute in bringing that up. In situations where somebody does not have a right to determine their own manner of death or the manner that leads up to their death, how can they be given a choice to access medical assistance in dying? That raises some big issues.

In numerous cases, people were largely not sick with anything. In one case in the Globe and Mail a number of years ago, an elderly couple in their nineties wanted to die together. According to the article, they were not suffering from any pre-existing conditions, except arthritis, but it was ruled that because they were so old their deaths were reasonably foreseeable. That is really troubling. Medical professionals have raised the point that a reasonably foreseeable death is not actually defined in any medical journal. There is no definition of “reasonably foreseeable.” It is so subjective. One thing that I would have liked to see with this legislation was for the government to come forward with an actual medical definition of “reasonably foreseeable.” Instead, it has chosen to eliminate this language altogether, which waters down the protections.

Bill C-14 did not save people who were suffering from mental illness from receiving medical assistance in dying. There was a case in Chilliwack where somebody who had a history of depression was able to access medical assistance in dying in an expedited manner. Their family was not informed until very late into the process and they were not able to intervene and explain that this person, while they did have a reasonably foreseeable condition, also suffered from depression and other challenges and that maybe, with a social worker or a psychologist, those things could have been worked out and medical assistance in dying could have been avoided.

It is clear to me that we are removing even the barest of protections. We are removing this adequate reflection period and making this legislation, which is already prone to abuses, even more open with this new legislation.

The government claims this new bill is safe because it is explicitly denying people who are suffering exclusively from a mental illness from receiving MAID. When the previous legislation was brought in, even though I was not a member of the House at the time, I sat in on a lot of meetings. It is interesting that, in committee appearances and at the joint special committee, Dr. Sonu Gaind from the Canadian Psychiatric Association was very hesitant to endorse medical assistance in dying for people suffering from mental illnesses, especially exclusively mental illnesses. Their testimony said that they do not treat any mental illness as if it is untreatable. There is always a treatment. Sometimes it is a very difficult treatment or an ongoing treatment, but society must never accept that there is not a way to treat mental illness. The alternative is that we stop helping people and that they seek medical assistance in dying.

It is tricky when the government talks about excluding MAID for people with exclusively mental illness, but we are seeing that too many people who might qualify for medical assistance in dying because they have a physical condition and a reasonably foreseeable death also have a mental illness.

Where doctors are involved, they are very well educated but they are not necessarily educated in all aspects of health. Not every doctor is a psychologist or qualified to make mental illness determinations. How do we know that somebody who might have a reasonably foreseeable death, and who might have a previous condition, is not depressed and seeking medical assistance in dying for the purpose of their mental illness?

Under this legislation, there is no protection for those people seeking medical assistance in dying. While the government may say they qualify because they have a grievous and irremediable condition, we need to have more protections to ensure that people with mental illnesses are not seeking medical assistance in dying in the heat of the moment. Maybe they have had an incident that has led them to want it, and given more time to reflect maybe they could be dissuaded from seeking it.

There are no mechanisms, as I said. I am not going to just criticize, I am going to put forward actual, concrete ways I think we could make this legislation better. Unfortunately, it does not seem the government is in the mood to accept too many amendments from the Conservative side, but I will go ahead and say them anyway. We should require social workers and psychologists to be involved with decisions where underlying mental health issues, or issues related to access to income supports or to poverty, might be identified.

I was very disturbed to read in Maclean's magazine that some people are seeking medical assistance in dying because they are living in poverty. That was never written in the legislation. That was never intended as a purpose for medical assistance in dying. By including these important medical professionals, we could make it much more difficult for people to get medical assistance in dying who might not make that decision if it was between them and a doctor.

That leads me to one of my final points. The government is removing some of the witness requirements. Under the previous legislation, an independent witness who was apart from the medical process was required to be involved. That would provide accountability to ensure that doctors and health care professionals were crossing all their t's and dotting all their i's to make sure that this was a completely kosher procedure. By removing the independent witness requirement, it is leaving the decision up to a doctor and the patient.

I am going to be opposing this legislation. I look forward to the other place coming back with some very strong amendments. I look forward to debating those amendments again, and getting the best possible legislation that will protect vulnerable people in this country.

École Polytechnique in Montreal

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for allowing me to speak today.

The first words I spoke in the House were on December 6, 2019, in remembrance of the massacre at École Polytechnique. Today I think of the victims and the families of those lost, and indeed I think about Canada and what this day means for us as a nation.

I reflected then, as I do now, on the frame of mind of the individual who carried out the heinous act, and what could have possibly motivated a person to tear down the pillars of a community and snuff out bright lights.

Then, and now, I will say it was anti-feminism and misogyny. Violence against women and 2SLGBTQiA+ peoples continues to steal from us as a society. We lose aunties, sisters, friends, teachers and students. These words we share are important, our remembrance is essential and our actions must be immediate.

Since last December, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated the realities for women at risk, particularly marginalized women including trans women, girls, femme-identified and non-binary people, racialized women and women of colour, indigenous women and immigrant women.

We see article after article about record numbers of calls to women's shelters for those fleeing violence. We see survey after survey describing the increasing severity and frequency of the violence and torment women are facing in their own homes during lockdowns. We see the oozing growth of online vitriol and hatred.

In April, we saw another terrible massacre in Nova Scotia that began with intimate-partner violence. That day 22 people lost their lives, 13 of them women. I am also haunted by Chantel Moore's story. This young indigenous woman was shot in her home, alone, by municipal police in my home province in June, without an explanation.

Two weeks ago, the final report on the implementation of the Merlo Davidson settlement agreement shocked many of us, with revelations of systemic and horrific misogyny and violence within the ranks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Hon. Michel Bastarache, independent assessor, describes Canada's national police force as having a toxic culture, and recommends nothing short of an independent external review to reform policing in Canada. We absolutely must undertake this work immediately.

When indigenous women disappear from their communities, their families cannot trust that their lives will be valued. As long as our policing institutions are fraught with misogyny and racism, police cannot possibly hold citizens accountable for their gender-based hate and violence.

Today we remember the women whose lives were taken on December 6, 1989, at École Polytechnique by a man who hated the women who dared to study. We must also remember Chantel Moore and those lost in Nova Scotia.

As each week passes we lose more. In 2018, there were nearly 100,000 victims of intimate-partner violence. Four out of every five were women. That year, 87 people were murdered by their intimate partners.

Amid this pandemic, we have come together in the name of health. The year 2020 has proved that when we are united with a common goal, and when we tackle a societal crisis with intensity, albeit desperation, we can move mountains. We know change is hard, but we have seen progress. Bill C-3 is a testament to moving the needle by legislating training on sexual assault for judges.

I challenge my colleagues in the House and I challenge Canadians. What will it take for us to come together and to recognize gender-based violence as the crisis it is? We need to move this mountain. May we always remember this day.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you.

Ms. Martin, you'll be delighted to know that we have made changes in the judicial training bill. It was passed unanimously in the House. We call it Bill C-3. It was brought to the floor by the Honourable Rona Ambrose, who did some phenomenal work on this issue. You'll be pleased to know that it's now in the Senate and progressing.

Ms. Martin, you spoke about connectivity, and we all agree that's such an issue. Can you just tell us how important connectivity is in rural communities, especially with women looking to escape violence at home?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much. That's another very important question, Jack.

Let me simply remind you that earlier this year, we introduced Bill C-3, which actually had attached to it $24 million in additional resources for the CRCC and introduced legislation as well. That legislation also requires, in my opinion, very clear and mandatory timelines for speedy resolution. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the important function of oversight and accountability for the RCMP, and as well for the CBSA, needs to be strong in legislation and properly funded to ensure that the independent reviewers we task with this important work have the resources, the tools and the authorities they need to do the important job. I think public trust is absolutely contingent upon both that legislation and those investments. We'll be reintroducing strong legislation in that regard.

I can also inform you that I know that the CRCC chair and the RCMP commissioner have been working together to significantly improve those timelines and to address the backlogs that existed. I'm prepared as well, in the interim, until we get this legislation passed, to take additional measures as required to ensure that those timelines are in fact met and that the resources are available to the CRCC to do their important work.

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 to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-3.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her story. It was so impactful. When a woman can stand in the House of Commons to share her story, we know we are doing our jobs.

One of the concerns I have right now relates to the discussions on COVID delays. This has to do with women as well. With COVID delays, is there a concern that some of these cases may be thrown out? I am not just looking at Bill C-3. What will happen if some people are outside of the normal time frame of 18 months? What does the member think the government can do, and what should we all be doing, to make sure that women find justice?

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, at third reading. Bill C-3 should receive all-party support since it is a vital step forward in achieving justice and equity for women and girls who are still too often affected by rape and sexual assault in our society today. It is still very much misunderstood, and it is an affront to all women.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require candidates seeking an appointment to a provincial superior court to commit to participating in training related to sexual assault law and social context. This is a critical piece of legislation that is necessary to ensure that judges understand the context in which offending occurs. Thanks to amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, candidates must also commit to participate in training on systemic racism and systemic discrimination. This is an idea, and a bill, whose time has come.

The bill would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that those knowledgeable in the field, potentially including sexual assault survivor organizations, are consulted in the development of this new training.

The bill would also assist in assuring transparency in judicial decision-making by amending the Criminal Code's sexual assault provisions to include a requirement that judges provide reasons for their decisions either in writing or in the record of the proceedings. This requirement complements existing legal requirements for reasons, including specific obligations for judges to provide reasons in sexual history evidence. These amendments are critical to a fair and effective response to sexual assault, which we know disproportionately impacts women and girls.

Canada has come a long way in this regard. We have one of the most robust sexual assault legal frameworks in the world, but we must not forget the misogynistic myths and stereotypes to which Canada's existing legal and, I would say, largely patriarchal regime responds, nor the fact that those very same misogynistic myths and stereotypes persist to this day.

For example, pre-1983, sexual offending laws were repealed and replaced with the affirmative consent model that we now have in place. The previous laws accepted as fact, first of all, that a complainant who fails to resist is in fact consenting and, second, that a complainant who consented to sexual activity with the accused before an alleged sexual assault likely also consented to any subsequent sexual activity. We now know that these are false. They are misogynistic myths and stereotypes that distort the court's ability to seek the truth.

We also now know that they have a detrimental impact on victims who, as I have said, are overwhelmingly women and girls. Their impact is compounded when they intersect with other discriminatory stereotypes. In particular, they deter women and girls from coming forward to denounce their assailants, which means that those assailants cannot be held accountable.

While I was in the legislature in Nova Scotia for 10 years as an MLA, a bill came before us. I rose in the House as the status of women critic to discuss these issues and the fact that too many women and girls were part of the #MeToo movement because we have been sexually assaulted or raped in our lives, if not once, possibly twice. We never know. Sadly, this is a major crime and should be considered a major crime in Canada. We need help to make sure that assailants are taken to task and that this does not continue to happen.

In Nova Scotia, there was a case where a young woman was raped in a taxi and the reason given in court was that she was drunk and, therefore, the judge said even drunk people can consent. She was passed out. I do not think a woman who is passed out in the back of a taxi, expecting to be driven home after she has given her address, should be held accountable for the male driver stopping the taxi and raping her in the back seat.

As a staunch feminist, and as somebody who has been sexually assaulted and raped in her lifetime, I can say that these kinds of laws need to be changed and amended. Otherwise, more women and girls will not be able to come forward, just as I did not 30 years ago.

When a law is misapplied, appeals follow. Perhaps even a new trial will be ordered. This can significantly lengthen the criminal justice process and continue to harm victims.

Victims tell us that their interactions with the criminal justice system are often experienced as revictimization. It is therefore critically important that sexual assault matters be resolved as quickly, efficiently, effectively and compassionately as possible. Otherwise, victims will not want to come forward to denounce their assailants. They will not have confidence in the system that is supposedly there to protect them.

What can we do about this problem? How can we help our criminal justice system function fairly when addressing one of the most complex and, I would say, abhorrent human behaviours, a behaviour that is based on dominance, aggression, violence and power? It is not a sexual act in the sense of what some people may call sexy. It is violence and it is about power. It must be stopped, with zero tolerance.

I believe that all members of the House should support Bill C-3, which would assist in ensuring that judges have the education they need to understand sexual assault law, what misogyny is and systemic racism and to make the right decisions so that the right decision is made in each case. The people who are most impacted by the sexual offending and the social context in which the sexual offending occurs need to have justice and need to believe in our legal system.

With that, I will add that in Cumberland—Colchester we have many incredible feminists who are fighting for justice for women and girls. I would like to mention Linda MacDonald and Jeanne Sarson in particular, who have been very vocal and very active with regard to laws about non-state torture and human trafficking and about our need to crack down on the awful actions of the people who are profiting from human trafficking and sex trafficking. It is our intent to bring Canada into the 21st century so that we have people who understand what feminism is really all about and its importance. It is important to understand where the woman is coming from in these cases.

As an actor, I did a scene where I was being raped at knifepoint. The director and producer, on the spur of the moment, wanted me to show my breasts. They wanted to show a knife cutting into my shirt to show my breasts, and I said I was not going to do that. I was a young actor but I stood up for myself. They said, “Well, what are we going to do, then?” They wanted the scene to be impactful. I said they could just pan up to my face and show how I feel, how the victim feels, instead of trying to titillate an audience with this act of violence and aggression. That is, in fact, what we did.

That is the kind of thinking that Canada needs, and more creative people need as well, so that we can stamp out this awful behaviour.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This bill is very important to me as a lawyer, as a woman, but also as the shadow minister for women and gender quality. As such, I am pleased to stand in this place and debate the bill.

However, I am disappointed that because of the Prime Minister's continual lapse in ethical judgment, instead of facing scrutiny for his decisions, he chose to prorogue Parliament and the casualty was having to reintroduce the bill, meaning victims of sexual assaults still cannot get due justice. It is shameful.

Bill C-3 would add new eligibilities for lawyers seeking appointment to the judiciary to require the completion of a recent and comprehensive education in sexual assault law as well as social context education. It would require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament regarding the details on seminars offered on matters relating to sexual assault law and the number of judges attending. It would do this while still maintaining the balance between judiciary independence and a fair criminal justice system, which is very important to me and to all Canadians.

The rational for the need for the bill is all too familiar, given the recent spotlight on the treatment of sexual assault victims during trial. Sadly, this certainly is not something that is new.

Let us explore the current state as it stands now.

There is piecemeal training and education available in certain jurisdictions but it is not mandatory. In 2016, a judge was found to have relied on myths about the expected behaviour of a victim of sexual abuse. That case was overturned on appeal for obvious reasons.

We have heard instances of judges using insensitive language. For example, in 2014, Justice Camp made a comment to a sexual assault victim in my home city of Calgary, asking her why she could not keep her knees closed together. Comments like Justice Camp's are all too familiar and further lead to the stigma that the courts are not there to protect the victims.

In 2019, nearly a dozen cases were going through Canada's court system that shed light on how some judges continued to rely on myths and stereotypes when informing their decisions on sexual assault cases.

We are still hearing similar misinformation about the experience of sexual assault victims or victims of abuse, which can lead to poor decisions and, as we have seen, possible miscarriages of justice sometimes resulting in new trials. Retrials can be incredibly painful for complainants, potentially further revictimizing them as they have to relive the trauma by constantly retelling lawyers and judges their horrific experiences, in some cases, preventing them from being able to mentally heal.

The way victims are treated during their court proceedings as well as in the public eye is a major hindrance to reporting the crime in the first place, particularly if the person who committed the assault is someone in a position of authority or if it is someone they know, such as a father, brother or uncle.

Other victims witness how other sexual assault victims are treated in the justice system and are terrified that if they come forward, they will be treated the same way. It is well-documented that sexual assault cases are one of the most under-reported crimes in Canada. Of reported cases, only 12% result in a criminal conviction within six years compared to 23% of physical assaults, as reported by Statistics Canada.

We know the reasons for under-reporting include shame, guilt and stigma of sexual victimization. Because of this, many victims do not believe they will see a positive outcome in the justice system, which is why they do not come forward. This simply cannot stand.

What can we do? The best way to prevent this type of sentiment is through education and training. The path forward that this legislation sets out would allow for more confidence in the criminal justice system by ensuring lawyers who are appointed to the bench are trained and educated in this very specific type of case.

The hope is that once this bill passed, and with education and training, the future state will be that the stories we once heard of victims being made to feel less than will not be repeated. This legislation is intended to help reduce the stigma of coming forward to report the crime and to see justice prevail for the victims.

The hope is that with education and training, victims of sexual assault will be treated with respect to avoid at all costs revictimizing them, which can be incredibly traumatizing for the individual. This will let other victims know they can be confident in our justice system and feel safe in coming forward.

Ms. Ambrose, as she provided her testimony before the status of women committee, said, “Really, to be honest, for me it's about building confidence. Women do not have confidence in our justice system when it comes to sexual assault law.”

This has to change if we are ever going to see an increase in sexual assault being reported and convicted. This piece of legislation will bring us one step closer to eliminating barriers and giving victims of sexual assault more confidence to come forward.

I hope this bill passes quickly as this will only move us forward as a society and help grow confidence in our justice system.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of WSÁNEC peoples. I raise my hands to them. Hych'ka Siem. All honour to my colleagues gathered here.

I want to specifically thank the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and the Conservative caucus for organizing this morning's speeches so as to allow me an opportunity to speak to the bill. It highlights what I think will be a theme for what I want to say about Bill C-3in that, right from the beginning, this bill started from a vantage point of non-partisanship. It was generous of the official opposition to grant me a speaking slot this morning as we are coming together to support good legislation.

We, of course, have referenced many times, that the origin of this legislation is entirely non-partisan in that, as we all know, it was put forward by Rona Ambrose. It is an extremely important piece of legislation. She put it forward when she was interim leader of the Conservative Party. It did pass Parliament. As we all know, it got bogged down in the Senate.

To see it come back here now as a Liberal government piece of legislation is extremely heartening. It is important legislation. I want to emphasize a couple of things in today's presentation to let the Canadian public know the ways in which the bill has been improved from when it was first tabled, and improved again in a spirit of non-partisanship.

The essence of the bill, of course, is found in many decisions that enraged citizens of Canada. Men, women and non-binary people looked at this issue and asked, “What on earth?” How can we have judges make pronunciations from the bench, and I have already spoken to this in the House, such as that of the judge who famously asked why the victim did not keep her knees together?

Judges make assumptions against the interests of victims, assumptions that a woman who had been sexually assaulted would not have responded in a certain way, or that she would do the following things. Judges without any training imagine what they might do in similar circumstances, and then they hold that as evidence against the veracity of a victim's claims. These things are what gave rise to this bill.

However, I can say now, and the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre just made this point, that much of what is in this legislation could have been taken from a report that was not yet written when Rona Ambrose presented this bill as a private member's bill. It was not written yet, because the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry had not been reported.

I would point out to members themes 16, 17 and18, and part 3 of the report of the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, which point to these very factors that judges and the judicial system do not understand and do not recognize. They do not take the sexual assault and high levels of violence against indigenous women seriously. They do not take it seriously, and they do not understand that they need to learn more. That is spoken to in this bill.

At the point the bill came forward, we have been very occupied as a society with questions of violence against racialized people, now the acronym BIPOC for Black, indigenous, people of colour. They are more at risk of violence and more at risk, in disproportionate numbers, of being jailed for crimes.

Again, this is a non-partisan observation, but the bill is improved through the work that was done in committee. Whereas I initially, and I apologize to the people who I took by surprise, thought that we all agreed on this bill and that it should move along a little faster, the time in committee was well spent.

The existence of a Black parliamentary caucus is relatively new, and it was formed as the world responded to the horrors racism and violence by police. That response was crystallized with the murder of George Floyd. There is now a Black parliamentary caucus.

That caucus is multi-party, and it took it upon itself to say that while the bill is to train judges to understand how women experience sexual violence, as well as how evidence should be received and how women are re-traumatized by that experience, could we not also use this training opportunity to broaden what judges learn.

For Canadians watching this, the bill now includes language that the continuing education for judges on matters related to sexual assault and social context now include the specific language “which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”. Again, it was a multi-party response and a way to improve the legislation.

I am particularly so proud of the work of the hon. member for Fredericton, who is a member of the Green caucus. Her amendment was accepted. Many Canadians would not know that as a party with fewer than 12 members of Parliament, Green Party MPs are not allowed to sit on committees. However, we do have a process, which is new since Stephen Harper. We can look at this new process as an opportunity, or we can look at it as being compelled to be at clause-by-clause in committee, but it is quite worthwhile when an amendment gets passed.

In this case, for her work, the hon. member for Fredericton is responsible for the amendment in the law, which, in reference to the group of people who advise on the content of the training judges are to receive, now includes the language, “Indigenous leaders and representatives of Indigenous communities”. That is a quote from the legislation with the new amendment thanks to the hon. member for Fredericton.

This legislation shows what we can do when we rise to our best selves, decide that an issue is not partisan, and embrace what my mother raised me to believe, which is that we can accomplish anything we want if we do not care who gets the credit. In this process, credit goes to everyone involved.

I thank again the Hon. Rona Ambrose for bringing this forward. I thank the hon. Minister of Justice and the current government for bringing it back to us as government legislation. I send thanks to everyone who laid a single hand. There are many fingerprints on this legislation, and they are all helpful. They are healing; they are feminist; they are racialized. However, we understand that we must do better.

This legislation is a first step. We must do more to ensure proper services for women who have been victims of sexual violence. For members who are looking for a model for their own community, in Victoria, B.C., the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and Clinic is an absolute model for how to aid victims of sexual assault and violence. We must do more in our communities, and we must do more as parliamentarians.

I appreciate the time allowed this morning to speak to the bill. I look forward to its passage. I hope it will be unanimous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said, “A penguin?”

She replied, “A pangolin.”

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

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

I said, “Wow.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will speak quickly about training.

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

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

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A moment of silence observed]

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

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for the extremely important and very useful question he repeats every week on the status of parliamentary business.

This afternoon we will continue debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Tomorrow we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act. Monday of next week will be devoted to the study of Bill C-8, on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 94. On Tuesday, we will begin our study of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which was introduced earlier this week by my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, November 24 for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Thursday, November 26 for the Department of Health.

Lastly, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That a take-note debate on the status of the French language in Montreal be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, November 25, 2020, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yesterday it was very interesting in the House. We were debating Bill C-3, the bill that will require judges to take training when it comes to sexual assault. During that debate, Mr. Genuis was also very interested in the assistance that Canada could provide to developing countries to help women there to be able to access justice and protections for themselves when it comes to some of these terrifying atrocities that are committed against mostly women.

Can you describe any programs that may be assisting in that area?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I would challenge the chair's ruling on this. When I think back to the testimony—which we didn't have enough of, frankly—palliative care was at the centre of much of the testimony we heard. With respect to Bill C-3, the social context was given as the reason to include a much broader range of discussion.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I am a little confused, to be honest. I am just trying to understand this.

This amendment speaks to palliative care. We heard a lot of testimony on that. In the section that the amendment is sought for, it does speak to being eligible for health services funded by any government in Canada. The law as it is already speaks to the type of health care available. This is just being a little more specific.

I realize I am a new member of this committee since prorogation, but when we considered Bill C-3 as a committee, concepts were added on systemic racism based on committee testimony, some of which I had not heard as a present member of the committee. People kept referring to testimony of last February. It certainly wasn't in the original text and you didn't rule that inadmissible.

I am really confused here. This seems to me to be an amendment within the scope of health services funded by a government in Canada. We went way further, in my opinion, when we not only entertained, but adopted changes in Bill C-3.

I wonder if the clerk, or you as well, could comment on that.

Judges Act

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

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

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

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

One of my constituents, Lia, wrote a very thoughtful email to me, and I will highlight a couple of sentences from it. She said, “For far too long, survivors of sexual assault have had to deal with a justice system that does not treat them with the dignity they deserve. Many victims of sexual assault decide not to file a complaint because they are afraid of being mistreated and humiliated. That is why most sexual assaults committed in Canada are not reported to the police.... This must change. Survivors of sexual assault have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.” Sadly, that has not always been the case in the Canadian court system. I agree with Lia that this must change.

What has gone wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, the training is not mandatory—

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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, there have been some discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find the unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, report stage motions nos. 1 and 2 in amendment to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted and that the House proceed immediately to the putting of the question on the motion for concurrence at report stage, provided that if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred and the bill may be debated at third reading stage during the same sitting.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

This afternoon, as planned, we are continuing with the NDP opposition day debate.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the parties for their collaboration and co-operation on this very important bill for all Canadians.

Tomorrow we will take up and complete the report stage and third reading of this bill.

Next week, as my colleague said, we will not be on vacation, but rather working hard in our ridings across Canada.

When we return on November 16, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill C‑3, which deals with training for judges.

The Wednesday and Thursday of that week will be devoted to Bill C‑10, the important broadcasting bill that we really like.

Lastly, my colleague will be pleased to know that Tuesday, November 17, 2020, will be an opposition day.

Justice and Human Rights

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House of Commons, with amendments.

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

James, thank you for your question, and thank you for your work on Bill C-3 and for your committee work.

The short answer to the question is “Yes, continually”. There's always back-and-forth between the federal government and the provincial governments with respect to the number of judges. These are the federally appointed judges at the superior court level across Canada. You're right to say that there is a shared cost with the provinces, because provinces have the responsibility for the administration of justice. Requests come and get evaluated, and that's pretty much a continual process, year over year.

However, I agree that we need to address delays in the justice system and I share your observation that because of Jordan, the criminal stuff goes first and the civil stuff gets relegated. We've worked hard in my ministry, as did Minister Wilson-Raybould before me, to try to address the Jordan decision and make the system more efficient and effective through Bill C-75 and other provisions.

You're right that it would mainly be for the provinces to try to figure out a way to make sure that civil cases move forward more quickly. That falls within their jurisdiction, but we need to continue looking at solutions on all fronts, because you're right to identify the waiting times as being too long.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

Minister, thank you for taking time out of what we all know is a very busy schedule in order to answer our questions.

I have a couple of questions. My first question relates to access to justice and to judges in particular. As everybody knows, we just completed our discussion on Bill C-3 earlier this week. One takeaway from it is that I believe we are all united in our view that we have the greatest court system in the world, and nobody questions the integrity of our court system.

As an aside, I was glad to hear your answer with respect to the process for appointing judges, because I believe the same applies with respect to our appointment process. Everybody believes in the integrity of the process, and when people do question it publicly, it is likely done only as a political jab meant to get some headlines and it's not a genuinely held belief. That's just my perspective.

In any event, on the access to justice front, which is important to all of us, we need access to a fair and equitable justice system, as has been mentioned today, and you've mentioned it in your opening remarks. In my view, one of the greatest barriers to access to justice is the number of judges we have available. Access to justice has different challenges in different parts of the country, but in Ontario, where I'm from, and in Toronto in particular, the wait time to get a case heard is extraordinary.

We're familiar with the Jordan case and the impact it has had. Family law matters are delayed. Civil matters are a third cousin in this issue. In Toronto or other jurisdictions nearby, you could be waiting up to two years to get a trial date, after you've listed it for trial and the case was already a few years old, and then you'd get close to the date only to find out that we don't have enough judges or enough courtrooms.

Has there been consideration given to increasing the complement of superior court judges across the country? I realize there's a coinciding cost to that, which is partially a provincial responsibility because court services and courthouses are matters that the province deals with.

I have a follow-up question related to that too. Sorry for the long introduction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

We have limited time left as we go into the last bits of the clauses. I ask the committee if it's okay with everybody that we carry on a little bit further so we can get through the complete clause-by-clause review for Bill C-3.

I see thumbs up. Thank you. I appreciate that.

(On clause 4)

Going into clause 4, NDP-2 is being proposed.

Mr. MacGregor, would you like to speak to that? Anybody else who would like to speak to it can raise their hands also.

Mr. MacGregor, go ahead.

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

Earlier this summer, Megan Walker, from the London Abused Women's Centre, testified that “Trafficking and sexual exploitation did not suddenly disappear or slow down during COVID. It increased. Men who believe”—now this is very disturbing—“they have a right to pay to rape women and girls increased their demand for underage and young women and girls.”

We also know that with this appalling kind of insight, despite growing awareness, we are still seeing insignificant sentences in human trafficking convictions, with judges deferring to the minimum rather than meaningful penalties that convey the seriousness of this offence.

As you know, in Parliament, we've been reading Bill C-3. Do you feel that something like Bill C-3 could also be applied to human trafficking to increase sentencing for that? What are your thoughts on the kinds of Criminal Code legislation that could help send the message that this is wrong?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll start off by saying that this amendment is very similar to the amendment raised by my colleague Greg Fergus in his advocacy on behalf of the Black caucus. I very much appreciate in our deliberations between the Black caucus and the indigenous caucus that there's an opportunity here with this amendment. Canadians expect that judges have the necessary training to understand the complex nature of unconscious bias and how intercultural competency can impact judicial rulings, much like they expect judges to understand how myths around sexual assault and consent can impact their rulings. While we all understand that justice is blind, it's no secret that racialized Canadians face systemic racism in our judicial system.

We need equally systemic solutions to change that. Education is key in combatting unconscious bias. It's something that was spoken to in the TRC calls to action, as well as the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls group.

Just a few days ago, The Globe and Mail published an in-depth investigation on Black and indigenous Canadians in the justice system, where according to the most recent census, indigenous and Black people accounted for 4.8% and 3.5% of the Canadian population, but according to Statistics Canada, they made up 25% and 8.7% of those in federal prisons. Ensuring that judges have training related to systemic racism and discrimination is important, and I think Bill C-3 provides us with an opportunity for jurisdictions to do their part in our country's effort to respond to those studies.

When we talked about social context, this is what I felt was Mr. Fergus' intervention, and the amendment gave clarity to what that social context is. We have an opportunity in this committee to take those important steps on reconciliation and on our commitment to addressing systemic racism as well, and while respecting the original intent of the bill, to make it clear what is meant by social context.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

My amendment concerns subsection 2(2) of Bill C-3, which amends section 60 of the Judges Act.

Here's what the bill proposes to add to the legislation:

(3) The Council shall ensure that seminars on matters related to sexual assault law ...

I propose that “shall ensure” be replaced by “should ensure”.

All the amendments that I proposed stem from the testimony of the two judges who appeared before the committee and whose names I can't find. One judge is a former chief justice of Nova Scotia. These judges urged us to be careful when wording proposals and to not be overly directive with regard to the judges and the Canadian Judicial Council. Instead, they encouraged us to include in the text an invitation to the council to consider certain items regarding the content of the seminars. I think that it makes sense to show restraint. That's why I'm proposing these changes.

Here, “The Council shall ensure that” would be replaced by “The Council should ensure that”.

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

I'd even urge caution. If we want to be credible as a committee, we must be careful about what we do.

Everyone likes apple pie. That isn't the issue. However, this isn't what Bill C-3 is about.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-3.

This is a bill that is obviously getting an enthusiastic response from all those who take the time to read and appreciate it. Why? It is because it was drafted with common sense. Even better, it sends a message to women, especially those who are victims of crime. It tells them that they will be taken seriously and treated with dignity. Above all, it tells them that judges will be well trained.

If the bill is passed unanimously, and it seems that it will, new judges will be required to undergo training on how to handle sexual assault cases.

It is very sad that we have to address this issue, but it is the reality. What we have seen these last years is that sometimes judges do not have the skills necessary to address some difficult issues, such when a woman has been assaulted by other people. That is why the hon. Rona Ambrose tabled this fantastic piece of legislation, not last year, nor two years ago, but in 2017.

On February 25, 2017, the hon. Rona Ambrose, at that time the leader of the official opposition in the House of Commons, tabled that important piece of legislation as a private bill.

The bill introduced in 2017 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the official opposition, requires judges to receive training so they are properly equipped to rule on sexual assault cases.

Judges will be required to participate in training and to be familiar with the issues surrounding sexual assault from the victim's perspective, in order to fully appreciate the consequences it can have on the lives of young women who are assaulted.

This bill also seeks to ensure that victims are treated with dignity and respect. Judges will be required to provide rulings in writing and make decisions in writing to fully explain the reasons for their final verdict and, above all, to ensure greater transparency.

In addition, the bill requires that an annual report be produced to assess the effects of this policy and to provide a record of rulings made in sexual assault cases.

This is a human piece of legislation. This address has no partisanship. We are not on the right or the left. We are not separatists or federalists. We are no more or less Canadian. We are all Canadian, but first and foremost, we are human beings. When we see that someone has been the victim of a sexual aggression, the least we can hope for is for them to have a fair treatment by our judiciary system.

Unfortunately, some people have a major lack of confidence in the justice system when it comes to sexual assault. Eighty-three percent of sexual assault victims will not report what happened to the police. That is one of the most heartbreaking statistics there is in terms of justice, fairness and respect for human beings.

Anyone who has experienced the horror of a sexual assault will be scarred for life. The very least we can expect and hope for is that the victim will be treated with the dignity all human beings deserve. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Members will remember the movie Mourir à tue-tête, which was filmed in the late 1970s or early 1980s. It is extremely painful to watch because it tells the sad story of a woman who was the victim of sexual assault and all of the problems that she had to deal with. Some will say that that is how it was in the 1970s and that things have changed since then. Unfortunately, that is not true.

The Hon. Rona Ambrose introduced this bill so that, at that very least, victims would feel safe when it comes time to testify in court. That is the very minimum.

When we think about this, we think about our mothers, our sisters and our daughters. This bill is focused on women, and that is why it is so important. In the last decade we have seen so many women who were afraid to talk about it and who did not have the courage to talk about it. However, it was not their fault. It was because they did not have confidence in the judicial system. This piece of legislation is for those women. It is there to make sure our judicial system can be trusted.

We are very proud to point out that this bill was originally introduced by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in 2017. I had the pleasure of serving in the House for more than three years under the leadership of Ms. Ambrose, who, members will know, had quite an impressive political career.

Ms. Ambrose was elected as member of Parliament for Edmonton—Spruce Grove in the mid-2000s. She immediately put her talents to work for Canadians. I have some notes here to help me remember the main responsibilities she held within successive Harper governments.

Ms. Ambrose started as Minister of the Environment. She then became Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Minister of Labour, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and Minister of Health. She led six departments, and no man can top all that Ms. Ambrose managed to achieve during the nine years of Conservative governments, which, as my colleagues would agree, were great and wonderful years for Canada. Canada was lucky to have had Rona Ambrose serving the people of Edmonton—Spruce Grove and leading some major departments within the government.

I had the fortune of working alongside her every day while she was the leader of our party and our parliamentary leader here, in the House of Commons. I have a little anecdote to share. After Ms. Ambrose was chosen by our peers as interim leader of the Conservative Party, I ran into her not far from here, just on the other side of the door at the Confederation Building, where my office was located. I obviously expressed my best wishes and congratulations to her.

I said, “Madam Ambrose, I am very pleased to...”.

She interrupted me and told me to speak to her in French. I then told her that I would speak French from then on. I took my leader's correction very seriously. This shows that this woman from Alberta cared about Canada, in all of its diversity, and about our two official languages, English and French.

It has been a real honour and privilege to serve under the strong, fantastic and very impressive leadership of the Hon. Rona Ambrose when she was our leader and the opposition leader in the House of Commons for almost three years. Ms. Ambrose is still very involved in Canada's future. She is involved in some companies, yes, but she is always involved in seeking the best future for this country.

We are very proud to tell the House that even though she is no longer an MP, the individual who introduced this bill, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, is still working for the good of Canadians, in service of the Canadian government, and is putting all of her talent and experience to work for Canada. All members who wish to do so will have an opportunity to speak to this bill. We are very proud to support such an important bill that will give women a justice system they can trust.

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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the clarification. Indeed, we will be in our ridings, not on vacation.

This afternoon, we shall continue debate on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to medical assistance in dying.

When we return after our constituency week, we will resume debate on Bill C-7. We hope we can begin the debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation. This bill has to do with Orange Shirt Day.

Lastly, I wish to inform the House that Tuesday, October 20 and Thursday, October 22 will be allotted days.

I wish all members a pleasant week in their ridings. I hope members will take care of themselves and their loved ones and come back in good health.

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, the only problem with trust in this Parliament is the one the current government caused when it prorogued Parliament. We were unable to continue studying the bill as a result.

As I mentioned in my speech, which the hon. member should have listened to carefully, Canadians deserve to hear debate on Bill C-3. We deserve to talk about this. Women in this Parliament deserve their right to speak to express their position. That is how it is. The more we talk about it, the more we will manage to effect change.

We are not the ones playing politics, they are. The members across the way should learn their lesson.

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

Madam Speaker, one in three Canadian women will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime. What an awful statistic for women and fathers to contemplate.

I have three children, two daughters and a son. To think or imagine that one of my daughters could one day be a victim of sexual assault, or that maybe she has been already but kept silent, or has been a victim of sexual harassment and kept it to herself, is simply awful. It is awful to think that in our society, one in three women will experience sexual assault in her lifetime.

Sunday is International Day of the Girl. I think many parents will take the opportunity to ask questions. I hope we can take that day to reflect on the fact that one in three girls, one in three women, will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime.

Sunday will be a day to think about this issue as a family and to reflect on and discuss it with our children to find out what is going on, to make our boys and girls aware, to show openness in order to encourage people to talk, to try and ensure that nothing gets bottled up and that this is something that can be talked about more openly. Unfortunately, if we do not talk about it and it remains hidden, it will continue, and the statistics will not get any better.

For one in three women to be a victim of assault shows that there is a problem with trust in our society. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton said it so well yesterday.

“Because of a studied lack of trust in our criminal justice system, many women feel unable to even report the assaults they suffered to the police out of fear they will not be taken seriously. They will continue to suffer re-traumatization, and if their cases do advance, their attackers will not face serious repercussions.”

More than two-thirds of women say they are not confident in the police, the court process, or justice itself. As a result, 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. Of the remaining 17% of cases, one in five just gets dropped. The other four are subjected to intense scrutiny. The victims are caught in the middle of a difficult and stressful process that unfortunately has small chance of success. Of these remaining cases, just one in five will go to court. Just one in 10 cases ends in a conviction resulting in a fine or jail time. That means if we start with 100 cases, that number gradually gets whittled down.

We understand that women are afraid to go to court and that they struggle to trust the criminal justice system. That is exactly what the bill before us is meant to address.

Three versions of this bill have been introduced in the House. It was first introduced as a private member's bill by our former interim opposition leader, Rona Ambrose, as Bill C-337. It was reintroduced as Bill C-5, and it has now been introduced as Bill C-3.

Every chance we get to debate the bill is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to educate Canadians, judges and everyone about the reality that women face in this country.

It is important that we talk about it. It is important to talk about it tomorrow, next week and as often as possible. The culture of secrecy, the fear of speaking up, the fear of being ridiculed and the fear of not being believed are all reasons why women choose not to report their assailants.

This is what we are trying to stop. This is what we are trying to do with Bill C-3. Progress may be slow, but we are taking logical, meaningful action.

Madam Speaker, the government rightly reintroduced the Hon. Rona Ambrose's bill, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, also known as the “just act”. This bill includes the amendments that were passed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs before the last election, which delayed the passage of the bill.

What will this bill do if it is passed? As I said, it will help by requiring new judges to take continuing legal education on sexual assault law.

We have been talking about this bill since the beginning of the day, but those who are watching at home may not be aware of its content. They may not know exactly what this bill is about. I will therefore read part of the preamble to give a good overview of the bill.

The preamble states that “survivors of sexual assault in Canada must have faith in the criminal justice system”. It also states that “Parliament recognizes the importance of an independent judiciary”. Parliament does not want to get involved in cases that are before the courts because Parliament's role and duty are to ensure that people can have confidence in the justice system.

The preamble also indicates that “parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that Canada’s democratic institutions reflect the values and principles of Canadians and respond to their needs and concerns”. In the past, we have seen too many cases where judges have rendered decisions based on myths or false precepts. That is not what today's society demands of judges. We, as parliamentarians, are the voice of Canadians across the country and we therefore have a duty to remind judges of these new principles. That is what we are doing right now with Bill C-3.

The preamble also says, “...sexual assault proceedings have a profound effect on the reputations and lives of the persons affected and present a high possibility of revictimizing survivors of sexual assault.” Having to go through the judicial process and relive everything that happened, in front of many people, and strangers at that, can deter women from seeking justice.

The preamble also states that “...Parliament recognizes the value and importance of judges participating in continuing education.” With this additional training, our judges will be better equipped to do their jobs, which could result in greater access to justice for women.

The preamble of Bill C-3 also states, “...it is imperative that persons seeking to be appointed to the judiciary undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.” That all makes perfect sense.

I was impressed, and actually very touched, by the speech given by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, even as we go about proposing changes and trying to improve things. Here is some of what she had to say:

...there is something about this bill that really makes me angry. It is absurd to me that we have to spend time figuring out how to train the men in Canada's systemically misogynistic justice system to be sensitive to sexual assault. In so many ways, it is blindly the wrong approach because it is so paternalistic in its design. ... If men want to be honoured with a judicial appointment, why can the hiring criteria not be what they have done in their career to remove the systemic barriers women face? Why do we have to train the idiots in society, and why could we not just hire the allies?

Those are harsh words, but they are the words of a woman who, like many of our colleagues here and many women I know, has herself gone through all kinds of ordeals. We need to take this seriously. That is the point we are at. I applaud the women who have had the courage to speak up in the House in support of Bill C-3.

Personally, I fully support this bill. I hope that more and more of our colleagues will talk about it and seize every available opportunity to do so because the more we talk about it, the closer we get to a solution.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, today it is a great pleasure for me to speak virtually to Bill C-3 for the first time. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to the interpreters and thank them for doing a really incredible job.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-3, especially since I am a feminist. Defending women's rights and social justice are important priorities for me, and these issues are at the heart of this bill.

Members will have heard my Bloc Québécois colleagues say that passing this bill is in the interest of both the judiciary and the public, especially victims of sexual assault. I believe that parliamentarians must act quickly to implement it, but it nonetheless deserves to be studied in committee, particularly since the Quebec bar association has raised certain concerns that I will discuss later.

I want to address my female colleagues and constituents, in particular. Unfortunately, we have all been the victims of disgraceful comments at least once in our lives, whether they were about our physical appearance, our age, our clothes, our way of working or other things. We have also all heard this sort of comment being made about our female friends, colleagues, sisters or mothers.

Unfortunately, this practice is widespread and just as common in our society as in our justice system. Many times, judges have made inappropriate comments during sexual assault trials. Some have even rendered decisions without taking into account the victim and her difficult reality. Although we have a lot of work to do to eliminate this problem in our society, this bill will at least do away with this practice in our courts. That is a big step in the right direction.

There are also many myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault that may lead some judges to believe that the victims were actually consenting. For example, a judge could find an aggressor innocent because that judge does not really understand the concept of consent.

Let us talk about consent. I want to take a moment to do a quick review, since it never hurts to go back over the basics. All members would agree that in any kind of relationship, the partners' intentions must be clear, free and informed. To give consent is to give permission or authorization. It means saying “yes”. In 2016, the Ghomeshi trial, the Bill Cosby case and the #MeToo movement ignited a complicated and wide-ranging debate over the definition of consent.

Although our society is governed by laws, the Criminal Code is far removed from the bedroom. One situation where we see a nuance in the concept of consent is when a person feels obligated to consent. According to Julie Roussin, a clinical psychologist, consent must be viewed as “an informed decision free from coercion or threat”, which is too often the case in a sexual assault. Therefore, the concept of consent can be considered from both a legal perspective and a psychological one.

I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the appalling examples my colleagues have probably already heard. One judge said out loud during a trial that the victim, who was a minor at the time of the assault, had a pretty face and should feel flattered to have attracted the attention of an older man. An Alberta judge was fired after making sexist and racist remarks about indigenous people, battered women and victims of sexual assault. Another judge said that, because nobody had noticed any signs of assault, the girl, who was between the ages of 6 and 12, was not credible. Victims have been discredited for wearing pyjamas without a bra and underwear, for not immediately leaving when a sexual assault began, for not saying no to some of the things the accused did during the assault, and for not reporting the assault immediately.

Consent has nothing to do with the victim's credibility, looks, age, appearance or social condition. That is why I feel it is not only appropriate but necessary for all judges to receive ongoing training about issues related to sexual assault law and social context.

Although we are well into 2020 and nearly 20 years have passed since the Supreme Court's L'Heureux-Dubé decision, we do not seem to be much further ahead when it comes to the biases associated with sexual assault. Researchers from the Institute of Research on Public Policy recently published a series of articles entitled “Improving Canada's Response to Sexualized Violence”, which seeks to shine a light on the gaps that policy-makers, legislators and the courts need to address.

Fortunately, the federal government has recognized the damage that gender-based violence continues to cause in Canadian society and is committed to developing an action plan to combat this problem that affects all spheres of society. Bill C-3 is part of that commitment and I commend it. It is even an improved version of the previous bill. This bill addresses the criticisms made about the previous Bill C-337, namely that by registering for this type of course, lawyers would be announcing their interest in becoming a judge, which would breach their anonymity. Bill C-3 instead asks lawyers to undertake to participate in the course, which makes sense to me.

I understand that the Conservatives voted against the NDP motion to pass the bill and send it directly to the Senate as they believe that the bill should apply to parole officers and members of the Parole Board of Canada in the wake of the murder of Marylène Levesque.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which began a study of the circumstances of this murder before Parliament was closed and then prorogued.

To refresh everyone's memory, Marylène Levesque is a young, 22-year-old woman who was killed last winter by Eustachio Gallese. This man was on day parole after being incarcerated for about 15 years for the murder of his wife in 2006. Despite his history of violence against women, his parole officers deemed that it was appropriate for Mr. Gallese to go to erotic massage parlours, where he met Marylène Levesque. My colleagues know the rest of the story.

I completely agree that parole officers and members of the Parole Board of Canada should also take mandatory training on the subject. I would go even further and include a broad range of professions. Of course, certain professions do not fall under federal jurisdiction, including police officers and lawyers. However, this kind of training is essential for all professions under federal jurisdiction that are likely to interact with sexual assault victims, such as corrections officers, border services officers and RCMP members.

As the Quebec bar association has pointed out, this bill applies exclusively to federally appointed judges, in other words, those sitting on superior courts, appeal courts, the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, as well as the Tax Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada. However, experience shows that the vast majority of criminal offences are handled in provincial courts, so I hope this bill will inspire Quebec, the provinces and the territories to pass their own legislation to make this kind of training mandatory for judges.

I therefore encourage all my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the other parties to introduce legislation regarding similar training for parole officers, members of the Parole Board of Canada and any other professionals deemed relevant.

We have an opportunity to quickly pass Bill C-3, as was almost the case with Bill C-337. I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to work towards this.

We can always do better, and I hope that our study of this bill will address the call from the Quebec bar to ensure that this bill does not encroach on provincial jurisdictions.

The bar association has also raised concerns that the amendments to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code proposed in this bill could undermine the independence of the judiciary. However, as my colleague from Saint-Jean pointed out last week, judges already receive training on many different topics. Judges receive training throughout their careers, and it makes complete sense that their rulings should be better documented. I sincerely doubt that this training could bring about any biases that would undermine the independence of the judiciary.

As a parliamentarian and as a member of a distinct society, I want to conclude by saying that we must do more to eliminate rape culture. This system of thought that explains, excuses or even encourages rape is everywhere in our society: in our homes, our courts, our children's schools, our workplaces and our streets.

We therefore need to do better and do more. We need to stop trivializing. We need to stop making off-colour jokes about women's bodies. We still hear these sorts of jokes all too often and we encourage them instead of speaking out. Often, without realizing it, we put the responsibility for the assault on the victim and call into question the woman's word. We treat women's bodies as though they were there to service the needs of men. Where then should we start?

I want to quote Pascale Parent, a worker at the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel de Rimouski, who said that we could start “by talking about equality between men and women and also between women, including those with disabilities and indigenous women. Of course, we know that not all men are abusers. Men can decide to fight against this culture and speak out against it with us. They can speak out against sexist jokes and inappropriate behaviour. They can help women who need it and support the women who trust them and tell them about their experiences.”

That would be a good start, just like this bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-3.

To begin with, I want to thank the government for reintroducing this important piece of legislation in this new session of the 43rd Parliament. Members will recall that the original architect of this bill, when it was presented as a private member's bill, Bill C-337, was the former Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose. I want to thank her for her tireless efforts to support and protect survivors of sexual assault.

In short, this bill proposes to require judges to participate in continuing legal education with respect to sexual assault law. It requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery of and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by it. It requires judges to provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault cases.

That is what the bill does, but what is the bill about? It is about ensuring that trust is maintained in the judicial system. Trust is a very important thing. It takes a long time, often a lifetime, to establish trust, but it only takes a moment to destroy it. It is about ensuring survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity, respect and compassion by the judicial system when they have the courage to come forward.

Sharing about what led her to introduce the previous version of the bill, also called the just act, Ms. Ambrose spoke about her time volunteering at a rape crisis centre while in university. She also shared about a research project that she participated in, a court watch program, and said, “This project basically had student volunteers like me sitting in courtrooms during sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, taking notes about how victims and complainants were treated. It was shocking.”

She went on to share during her speech one of the troubling scenarios she witnessed. She said, “I remember sitting in a courtroom taking notes when a prosecutor was questioning a little girl—when I say little girl, I mean under the age of 12—about how she sat on a defendant's lap. The insinuation was that she was flirting with this man who was in his fifties.”

I am the father of two daughters and the grandfather of six granddaughters. I cannot imagine how I would feel or how I would react if I were to watch one of my daughters or grandchildren, had they been a victim, being treated like that in a court of law. This is not an impressive experience that any Canadian should have in our judicial system.

Tragically, it is young women aged 15 to 24 who have the highest rate of sexual assaults. It is also more likely for victims of self-reported incidents of sexual assaults than it is for victims of robberies and physical assaults for the offender to be known to them. These realities perhaps contribute to another troubling fact, which is that, according to the justice department, the majority of sexual assaults, 83% of them, go unreported to the police.

By requiring judges to stay current with respect to sexual assault laws, Bill C-3 will make sure that sexual assault survivors are treated with dignity, respect and compassion by our justice system.

In addition to the education component, Bill C-3 will also require judges to provide written reasoning for decisions in sexual assault proceedings. This provision offers those engaged with the justice system, and all Canadians, more transparency. More transparency will build trust, and with more trust will come a greater willingness to seek justice when one has been wronged. Only by restoring that trust and confidence in our justice system can we ensure these young women will have access to the justice they deserve.

In our 2019 platform, the Conservative Party committed to requiring all judicial appointees to take sexual assault sensitivity training prior to taking the bench. This bill requires them to commit to taking training prior to taking the bench and is therefore consistent with our party's commitment to defend victims of crime.

I was pleased to support Rona Ambrose's just act in the last Parliament, because there are still instances where the justice system fails to respect the experiences of sexual assault survivors. We owe it to them to address these failings, and Bill C-3 does that.

I want to take a step back from this specific bill for a moment, because in an ideal world we would not need the just act and we would not need Bill C-3. What we need is to be appointing judges who are people of integrity in the first place, judges who recognize the dignity and value of each person before them, and judges who are sensitive to the tragic circumstances that often lead to individuals attending their courtroom.

I am reminded of the story of two wolves, a popular legend often attributed to the Cherokee people. As the story goes, an old Cherokee man was teaching his grandson about life, and he said, “Grandson, a fight is going on inside of me, and it is a terrible fight between two wolves. One is evil. He is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego."

The grandfather continued, “The other wolf is good. He is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy generosity, truth, compassion and faith. The same fight is going on in you, grandson, and in every other person as well.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute. He then asked his grandfather, “Grandfather, which wolf will win?”

The grandfather used that opportunity very wisely. He said, “The one we feed.”

The point is that each one of us is feeding those metaphorical wolves every day. We choose which one grows in strength, character and stature. We choose which one wins. Many of us will be familiar with the disturbing comments of one Canadian judge, who asked the sexual assault complainant why she could not just keep her knees together.

This goes to show that our judges are not immune to this kind of struggle, and that is why appointing judges of integrity is critical. Appointing judges of good character and proven track record is essential. Appointing judges who have proven themselves to be good, decent and honourable people is the best starting point that we can have, and from there we keep investing in good people with further training and, in this instance, further training on sexual assault law.

Some might ask why we should train. We have heard the arguments that we train them only for them to leave, and that it is a waste of time and a waste of money. The answer to that is, “What if we do not train them, and they stay?” That, of course, is a worse situation. Training is important, and part of what this bill seeks to accomplish is ongoing training and improvement of our justices.

My Christian faith offers a similar sentiment. Jesus, sharing with a group of people, says that no good tree bears bad fruit and no bad tree bears good fruit, for each tree is known by its fruit. Figs are not gathered from bushes, nor are grapes gathered from a bramble bush. The good person that treasures good in his heart produces good, and an evil person that treasures evil produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart, their mouth speaks. We need to start with good people, and from there continue to invest in good people and good judges through training them to disseminate the justice and to do it with compassion.

At this moment, at the very least, this bill will help judges to feed the right wolf. Furthering education around sexual assault law can help develop a judge's humility, empathy and compassion when dealing with sexual assault survivors. Pulling back the curtain on the rationale behind a judge's decision also encourages a fulsome presentation of truth and can empower victims on their journey to find peace. This is what it looks like, at least in part, to feed the good wolf.

On this side of the House we will always look for ways to stand up for survivors of sexual assault. We will always strive to ensure victims of crime are treated with dignity, respect and compassion. I am thankful today for this opportunity for us to come together to discuss this very important bill, and I am thankful that, across all the party lines in the House, we can come together with the common sense of purpose and unity on this bill.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-3.

This was originally introduced as Bill C-337 in 2017 by Rona Ambrose, who was the leader of the Conservative Party at that time, and who has doggedly pursued it even though she is no longer in the House of Commons. We have to give her all the credit in the world for that, because this is a very important bill.

The bill comes to us for the third time, and that is a shame. The reason it is here again is because this government, which initially put it through the paces of the justice committee in the last Parliament, decided to end that Parliament without really good reason. I am not sure, when we end a Parliament, how we decide to keep the good things and throw out the bad things, but we throw out everything. There was a process here that we were going through, and this government decided to end that process on so many good things that had to happen with this country, and this is one of those bills. Now we are starting over, and that is a shame considering how important the legislation is.

As I said, I was on the justice committee in the last session. I am not on the justice committee any more; however, we heard many good reasons for the bill before us from many interested parties that appeared before the committee. I will go through some of the wonderful organizations that presented us with compelling evidence on why we need to proceed with the legislation. We heard from the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, the DisAbled Women's Network of Canada, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Colchester Sexual Assault Centre, the Kawartha Sexual Assault Centre and the Canadian Judicial Council.

These groups were almost unanimous. I am not somebody who buys into group think. I do not think that any of us are: we have to do our own analysis on what comes before us, but there was only one dissenting voice in that group of presenters about how important the legislation was for advancing the needs of women who had been through sexual assault hearings in front of our judiciary. That one dissenting voice was the Canadian Judicial Council, representing lawyers there, saying that it did not think that the government should put its hands in their business, because they had their own process and were smart enough to take care of their own laundry. However, I can tell members that, no, that is not true.

This is our only venue to actually have some influence on how we appoint judges, on what is important in their job and on how to get their job done. We know that, upon becoming judges, they no longer have the influence of Parliament. Having an independent judicial system is a separate part of our democracy, and we want and need to maintain that. Having a separate judiciary means that we have to have a good judiciary. To appoint judges through a certain process, when we have heard the evidence from all the statistics on what happens in sexual assault cases that come before the judiciary, is not something that can keep going on. Imposing an actual education system for the people we are appointing to the bench is our main instrument to try to influence them in how they view victims when they come before them to give testimony. That is what our role here is. With the legislation before us, we need to make sure that the people we are appointing are well educated on what they have to do, that they understand the needs of the victims and that they consider their rights as well.

I appreciate the legal system as much as anybody else. I am not trained in legalities, but in my previous employment I had many dealings with the legal system. Seeing the legal system work, almost like Parliament here, is like watching sausages getting made: It is never pretty. Sometimes, when one goes through the legal system, one recognizes that what is happening is not perfect. It might be one of the best systems in the world, as far as judicial hearings go, but at the same time there are faulty outcomes, and when we look at some decisions judges have made, we sit back and scratch our heads, wondering how on earth that person made that decision given everything they had heard in a hearing.

That is troubling to a rational person. Nevertheless, it is reality. We are all human. In the House of Commons we are all human and not supposed to be perfect. Judges are the same. We appoint judges. We do not expect them to be perfect, but expect them to do the best job they can with the information that is presented to them. Hopefully, we have the best outcome for society at the end of the day. The statistics we have heard clearly show that we are not getting the best outcome for society with what is going on now, so change is important. That is why we are here. We are here to make sure that the changes we impose on the appointment of judges happen very well.

The justice committee was one thing, but let me tell colleagues about the hearings themselves. We heard about women who were not represented. In those cases they went before the judges and felt belittled in the process.

This bill would bring about an important change for society: to make sure that victims of crimes have the ability to be heard effectively. Justice needs to be understood by the public for it to be an enforceable system. If we do not have a system that is open to everyone who feels that they are a victim of a crime, if people feel marginalized and like they should not come forward to present a crime to society, then we have failed as a society. Again, that is our job here: to make sure that we build on that going forward and get this better in the next iteration.

Shutting down Parliament obviously had the effect of stopping the process that we are now starting again. How long is it going to take before we actually get some legislation that matters to Canadians?

We all know there will be small advances. There has been so much going on here, yet much has been thrown out, like the baby with the bath water, as we have gone through this. It is the result of the government having no regard for what we are doing here as far as process goes.

Process means examining legislation and making sure that we get it right, as much as possible. Getting it right means putting the right bills in front of us and getting those bills heard through a process that has been developed over years and years. Then we get to analyze what is right or wrong with it, hear the expert opinions and come to a conclusion about the best path forward. That is not here right now. By shutting Parliament down in the middle of the pandemic, the government effectively said it does not respect this process and that it wants its own process without dealing with others. Therefore, we have to make sure that it is held to account.

I am dismayed that this is before us again. I wish this was not here. I wish it had already received its third reading from the House and been over to the other house and debated there, so that we could move it to royal assent once and for all. It has been held up too many times and prorogued and left to die on the Order Paper with Parliament being closed.

Can we finally get some work done and get Parliament working again?

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

Madam Speaker, I obviously thank my colleague for his speech.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-3. Some people think we should cut the debate short and act faster. I personally think we have talked about this enough today. We will, however, continue with the debate.

Does my colleague think any other professions should be subject to this kind of legislation, to make our world a fairer place to live?

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-5. I suspect he meant Bill C-3, the bill we are debating today. Bill C-5 is a very interesting bill about reconciliation. I look forward to that debate and the position the Conservatives will have on it.

Listening to what members of the Conservative Party have to say, I would assume that the bill will pass unanimously in the House. That is what I am expecting. However, there is this desire to have not only the content of this bill debated, but the broader issue of sexual assault debated in the House.

The opposition has a good opportunity when we come back, with two opposition days coming. Would the member not support having a debate on the broader issue, maybe even with a Conservative motion that would then allow for an expansion on some of their thoughts? Would the member not think that would be a good thing?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-3. While important and something I was happy to support in the 42nd Parliament, I am afraid it is just a drop in the bucket in what we as a society must do to fight sexual violence against women.

Bill C-3 will, I hope, like its predecessors Bill C-5 and Bill C-337, find unanimous support as this legislation is a rare product of bipartisan support.

I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for sponsoring this reintroduction of the bill that found its genesis in a private member's bill created by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, former member of Parliament for Sturgeon River—Parkland and also former leader of Canada's Conservatives and the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

This legislation is about ensuring that trust is maintained in the judicial system, that survivors of sexual assault are respected by the judicial system when they step forward. The bill, when passed, will require federal judges and those seeking the office to participate in continuing legal education with regard to sexual assault law. It also strives to combat the myths and stereotypes that often cause victims of sexual assault to hesitate to come forward.

Federal judges will also be required to provide written reasoning for their decisions in sexual assault cases in order to promote transparency in the reasons that lead to their decisions. The bill would require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by it.

In my mind, to be truly effective, provincial court judges should be required to take this training. I encourage those provinces to take a serious look at the work that has been done by parliamentary committees and listen to the words spoken in the House with respect to this issue and to strongly consider passing complementary legislation in their respective jurisdictions.

It is a shame, though, we find ourselves in this place at this time where we must pass legislation to train arguably the highest educated group of individuals in the country on sexual sexual assault awareness. Where we should be focusing our energy is educating the next generation of men and women to be advocates, especially men, for ending sexual violence and not perpetuating the myths and stereotypes that enable others to think it is acceptable.

Yesterday, the member for Calgary Nose Hill made one of the most impassioned and important speeches I have heard in this Parliament. Our colleague stood here and challenged men to stand up and be a voice for women and men who are victims of sexual violence. Far too often it is women who are forced to stand on their own and shout enough is enough.

Statistically, women constitute the overwhelming numbers of victims of sexual assaults. Adding to the personal trauma, they must often rely solely on their own strength to report these heinous crimes. As men, we have historically dismissed women's voices on these issues or left it to them to demand action. It is time for men to recognize their role in preventing sexual violence in all its forms. Let me be clear: It is not enough for a man to say, “Well, I would never do that so I've done my part.”

We need to do more. We all need to do more. We need to stand with those incredibly brave survivors who are taking a stand to end sexual violence, and not just for women. Men are victims of sexual assault as well and it needs to end for all victims. Men need to challenge the myths and stereotypes about how survivors of sexual assault are expected to behave.

As a father of a young boy, I have a responsibility to guide him in his journey to become a man. There are many things I must teach him, and for him to learn from me and I from him. However, in order for him to take his place as a productive member of society, I need to be that role model. I need to be putting forward the messages and encouraging him to be better.

One of the most fundamental things I need to impress upon him is to respect others. He needs to understand that men should not feel entitled to sexually harass people or perpetuate sexual violence, that every person has power over his or her own body and how to give and receive consent. He needs to understand that men and boys must never obtain power through violence and that the notion that sex is a right of his gender is false. Sexual violence ends when all of us understand the fundamental truth that no one is permitted to sexually harass or invade another individual's body or personal boundaries.

Girls and women are given advice about rape prevention, and we heard this from many members in this place in the ongoing debate today and the debate yesterday, such as not letting their drink out of sight, not wearing revealing outfits or high heels and not walking alone at night.

As a society, we must go beyond what girls can do to prevent being victims. We need to focus on the attitudes that boys have about women and their own masculinity. The next generation of men needs to promote mutual respect for women and embrace equality for all people, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Working toward ending sexual violence is a constant collective effort and, as men, we all need to do our part.

While Bill C-5 is just a ripple, it is my sincere hope that it will eliminate victim blaming, an attitude that suggests a victim rather than a perpetrator bears responsibility for an assault, that victims' sobriety, or the clothes they were wearing or their sexuality become irrelevant in the courtroom. To end sexual violence, perpetrators must be held accountable. By trying sexual violence cases, we recognize these acts as crimes and send a strong message of zero tolerance.

Canada's Conservatives were proud to support Bill C-337 and Bill C-5 in previous Parliaments. We recognize that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

The Canadian bench must be held accountable and ensure that judges have the updated training that Canadians expect them to have. That is why we committed in the last election to ensure that all judicial appointees take sexual assault sensitivity training prior to taking the bench. We will always look for ways to stand up for survivors of sexual assault and ensure they are treated with dignity.

I would like to thank Rona Ambrose for being such a passionate advocate for victims of sexual assault and for her work on this very important file. This bill addresses the simple fact that victims going to trial should expect that judges are educated in the law, yet what it does not address is the absolute necessity that all of us, every single person has the same responsibility to be educated in what it means to be human and protect and respect the dignity of our fellow citizens.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3. The original legislation was first introduced in February 2017 as Bill C-337 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of our party as well as the official opposition. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for the passionate advocacy that she has taken on this important legislation.

I am also pleased to see that the legislation adopted by the Liberal government earlier this year was reintroduced again now as Bill C-3. In 2017, it received unanimous support from the House of Commons and passed quickly to committee. I guess it should come as no surprise then that it would take over two years for it to move through the legislative process despite having all-party support and it would die on the floor of the Senate in June 2019. Despite finishing the legislative process at about the same time as 15-plus other bills that June, it was held back by the Liberal majority government from receiving Royal Assent. Why, people may ask? Some may suggest it is to play the same Liberal games that many Canadians despise and disapprove of, and that is so it can be renamed and called their own.

This is important legislation as it is a step forward toward actually improving our criminal justice system, something that the Liberal government has done little or nothing on for the last five years. This legislation is about ensuring trust is maintained in the justice system and that survivors of sexual assault are respected by the justice system when they do come forward. The bill requires that to be appointed a judge of a Superior Court, an individual must now commit to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This would ensure that Superior Court judges are equipped with the knowledge and skills required to address sexual assault trials and ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and respect. It also provides training to not feed into the myths and stereotypes that often cause women to hesitate to come forward. Personally, I would have preferred that, in addition to the new appointments to the bench, all current judges sitting at every level of court that adjudicates sexual offences in this country be required to participate in continuing education on these matters as well, in the same way that this legislation proposes for new Superior Court appointments.

The bill would also require judges to provide reasons for decisions on sexual assault cases. This is good, as it will give more information to victims and improve transparency for the justice system and the public who watch it.

As a former police officer who has given testimony in a wide variety of criminal cases, including numerous sexual assault cases, I have the utmost respect for the significant challenge and burden placed on our judges. Every day they are tasked with appropriately applying the law to determine guilt or innocence as they adjudicate criminal cases. While Canadians enjoy the best justice system in the world, it is not without its flaws. Judges, after all, are human like all of us and are given the incredible responsibility of applying laws written by other humans, namely parliamentarians in the House. We know that sometimes those laws can also be flawed.

We put a great deal of authority and trust in our judges and so ensuring that people who take up this challenging post are properly equipped, we must ensure that they have the necessary training and knowledge to fulfill those responsibilities to the best of their ability and to the expectations of the Canadian public. This training would eliminate misconceptions, myths and stereotypes that often prevent victims of sexual assault, almost always women, from coming forward and pressing charges against their attackers. This is not a minor issue. The number of sexual assaults that occur in Canada and are never reported is staggering.

Statistics Canada reported that only 5% of women who are sexually assaulted come to the attention of police. I suspect that one of the many reasons is because of the women's lack of confidence in our justice system. Far too few of these crimes are reported, and of the 5% that are reported, only 21% have led to a court case. There are many factors in this, including what evidence might be available, how it might be prosecuted, witnesses who are available, any corroborating evidence, attitude of the justice participants, how judges approach the issue, and maybe many others.

Of the 21% that actually get to court, of the 5% who actually reported being assaulted, only 12% of those cases result in conviction. That is 12% of 21% of 5%. In other words, there is a better than 98% chance of not being convicted of sexually assaulting another person in this country. That is unacceptable. Finally, of all those convicted of sexual assault only 7% result in a prison term. These are terrible crimes and they have lasting, lifelong impacts. Getting a conviction on a sexual assault, let alone having someone sentenced, is far too rare. Most victims of crimes of violent sexual assault will usually prefer not to relive the experience over and over again in our courts, living through the trauma multiple times.

Like I said previously, I have investigated many sexual assault crimes. The heartbreaking experiences of victims are further exacerbated by our justice system. The victims feel they are not being believed. The intrusive nature of the evidence-collection process; retelling their experiences, over and over again; sometimes limited victim supports; and lack of convictions reduce the victims' willingness to come forward. If the assailants are convicted, many victims do not feel that the sentence that is given out fits what happened to them.

This bill is the kind of thing that governments should be doing: working to improve our justice system, working to support victims with better services and working so that criminals who assault others are held accountable and put in jail. Support for victims has been sorely lacking in the last few years. There has been lots of support for criminals, including reduced sentences for some serious and violent crimes, but limited support for victims.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police noted in its brief to Parliament on Bill C-75 that for some criminals, if given reduced sentences, it would mean eliminating certain information being entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre system, including DNA. When the conviction is considered a secondary offence, it eliminates critical information that then limits the ability for police to track and catch that criminal if they commit other crimes. As the CACP put it, this would “have a direct and negative impact on police investigations.” I would add, “and on public safety”.

Canadians should not live in fear. Young women should not live in fear. Victims and their families should not be living in fear. They should have trust and confidence in our justice system. Victims and their rights should always be put ahead of the rights of criminals. Canada's Conservatives recognize that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

It is time that we end comments and attitudes like that of our Prime Minister, where he said that she “experienced it differently”. Those kinds of excuses allow sexual assaults and sexual harassment to be normalized. Calling it out is a duty of all of us. Acting to stop that kind of behaviour is a responsibility of this House.

My hope is that this bill will be the first step in improving the treatment of victims, increasing the conviction of sexual offenders, improving public safety, and developing the trust and confidence of Canadians in our justice system.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that is what this bill seeks to address. Clearly, the justice system is not welcoming to victims right now. Women do not feel safe, as I mentioned. It is like a mountain. Sexual assault victims must repeat their stories to a police officer, a lawyer, a judge. They have to recount a very painful experience. As a result, women end up getting discouraged.

We have the statistics, but I think that the real figures are likely even worse. Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction; we are taking a small step forward so that women will want to report an assault, but we are not there yet. We will have to continue working.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity in the House to thank and congratulate folks in Quebec and across Canada who are working on the front lines of this pandemic in hospitals and long-term care homes. I am talking about health care workers, nurses, doctors and orderlies. We are now in the midst of a ferocious and very complex second wave, and these people have not had a break since the first wave this summer. They were not even able to take vacation. That is not easy. I commend them and honour them for the essential work they are doing.

It is a huge honour for me to speak to this bill. I stand here humbly, hoping to make a modest contribution, to play a small part in making sure that our justice system treats everyone the same.

As I stand here, I am thinking of all the women I have known in my lifetime who experienced the trauma of sexual or other types of assault. I am thinking of all the women who even today hesitate to file a report because the process is too long, too gruelling, too overwhelming. I am thinking of the women who worry that they will have to relive their painful moments and trauma over and over again, retell their stories over and over, and find the words, words that can often hurt just as much as the actions. I am thinking of the women who know or believe that, at the end of the day, justice will not be served.

Obviously, I am also thinking of my 17-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son. It is also important to me as a man. I believe this is a rather sensitive debate. There have been some good questions and considerations that have been touched on in recent days with regard to this matter. If my sex, my being a man, is part of the problem, then I hope that, as a parliamentarian, I can be part of the solution.

The statistics on sexual assault are shocking. Only 5% of women who are assaulted report it. That is shocking. According to the Regroupement québécois des centres d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, Quebec's association of sexual assault centres, believe it or not, only three of every 1,000 reports of sexual assault result in a conviction. Apparently, the vast majority of victims never report their assault, and the few who do never get justice. The justice system scares them.

Yesterday and today, my colleagues gave several examples of judges whose comments exposed their poor understanding of issues related to sexual assault and who have therefore done justice a disservice. Bill C-3 will fix that. I do not think it is a panacea or the definitive solution, but it is a big step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill, which everyone seems to agree on, so let's adopt it quickly and not let it drag on. It is a step in the right direction, but we need to do more.

I would like to invite this assembly to consider the social and cultural changes that are needed when it comes to sexual consent. We see that these changes are happening slowly in society. We have seen it in recent years, but I think we need to go even further.

Let us talk about rape culture. To make sure that we understand what that means, the United Nations defines rape culture as the social environment that allows sexual violence to be normalized and justified, fuelled by the persistent gender inequalities and attitudes about gender and sexuality. Naming it is the first step to dismantling rape culture.

Rape culture exists in Quebec and Canada. Of course, we can agree that no one would publicly and voluntarily endorse sexual assault. However, by perpetuating myths surrounding sexual assault, some individuals often contribute, quite unconsciously, to trivializing sexual assault and invalidating victims' experiences. Rape culture and, more broadly, the trivialization of sexual assault are deeply rooted in our society.

How many men have learned from watching movies that kissing someone out of the blue is romantic? However, in many cases, that can constitute sexual assault. It is imprinted in our brains. These are behaviours that are difficult to change. Take, for example, the number of movies in which a suitor relentlessly pursues the woman of his dreams until she finally gives in and agrees to go out with him, even though she initially refused. It is presented as romantic and sweet.

An example of this is a film I am sure everyone is familiar with that grossed $100 million at the box office. The Notebook is a 2004 film starring Ryan Gosling. In it, his character forces his future wife to agree to a date with him after harassing her at a carnival and threatening to commit suicide if she does not give in to his blackmail. That is really something. It seems so cute and sweet: the girl sees the guy hanging off a merry-go-round, and he threatens to throw himself under it. He tells her that if she does not agree to go out with him, he will kill himself. The girl wants nothing to do with the guy, and in fact, she was there with her boyfriend, but she eventually gives in. Everyone loved the film, and it took in millions of dollars at the box office. Men and women saw that as romantic.

Rape culture is perpetuated by collective myths. It is also perpetuated by individual actions that reinforce prejudices and stereotypes. Certain comments and questions can unintentionally make victims feel worthless. Sometimes these comments can even come from the victim's own family or loved ones.

Think about what happens to victims of sexual assault when they report the crime to the police or someone else. They get asked why they did not leave, why they did not fight off their attacker, why they drank that night, and how they were dressed. Sometimes the victim's account is questioned because she had multiple partners, because that shows promiscuity, which is viewed negatively. All these questions and comments do harm.

We must not only understand rape culture, but also destroy it. Many collective and individual changes are needed. We must also denounce macho culture, where a man who gets rejected is humiliated and judged because he did not get what he was hoping for. We have to develop positive and healthy masculinity. It has be okay for a man to be told no. It does not make him any less of a man or take anything away from his masculinity. No must always mean no. Being told no is not a signal to ask 50 more times in the hope of being told yes. Accepting no for an answer is not less manly.

Naturally, we must do more than just say no means no. Change is happening. In Quebec, for example, there is an interesting campaign called “Sans oui, c'est non!” or “If It's Not a Yes, It's a No!”. This campaign has helped raise awareness significantly on university campuses. I commend their contribution and their efforts.

More and more people understand that having sexual contact with a person who did not say no because they were unable to also counts as sexual assault. I am thinking in particular of TV host Julie Snyder. Last week, on her show, she responded to Gilbert Rozon, who had claimed that he had never slept with anyone who said no. Julie Snyder said that a person cannot say no if they are sleeping, and they cannot say no if they are not asked. That, too, contributes to rape culture.

More and more people understand that a timid, embarrassed or fearful no may not be a true yes and that it is vital to get true and enthusiastic consent. When in doubt, stop and check. It is very important that people understand this. We must destroy rape culture. This also means questioning our role as men and as individuals.

I do not have much time left, but I think my colleagues know where I was going with that.

This is a very important and worthwhile bill. It is a step in the right direction. The justice system can play a part, but as a society, and as men, we can all go a little further and start thinking about these issues. As someone rightly mentioned earlier, we are currently talking about training for judges already on the bench, but we also need to ensure that future judges will have taken the training beforehand.

If we knew that judicial candidates already had that training and that open-mindedness, we would be able to help move society forward.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today on this very important topic: the introduction of Bill C-3, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act.

It is important that the Canadian public have confidence in our criminal justice system; therefore, it is critical that our courts and judges are perceived as being fair, objective and respectful of all parties: the accused, the complainant and all witnesses.

Canada's criminal justice system, as we know it today, builds on many centuries of common-law tradition and statutory law development dating back to the early days of England's history. It is a legal structure built around an adversarial system in which the Crown advances rigorous prosecution and the accused an equally rigorous defence.

The accused always has the benefit of the presumption of innocence and the Crown must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a very high standard of proof that the Crown needs to meet. Under the accepted rules of natural justice, the accused has the right to meet their accuser in court and to subject the accuser's evidence to a rigorous cross-examination, which often involves drawing that person's integrity into question and impugning their credibility.

If after that cross-examination the trier of facts, whether a judge or a jury, determines that the victim's evidence does not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, the presumption of innocence survives right through the trial and the accused goes free. The Crown has to meet this very high standard and sometimes, despite the prosecution's best efforts, guilty people walk free and victims' reputations are left in tatters.

That is a risk associated with the criminal law system. As a society we have determined, rightly or wrongly, that this risk is better than the opposite: that innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not commit. The result too often is that sexual assault victims are revictimized through the process and that, I submit, is not acceptable.

It is in this context that I want to address the topic of the day, the introduction of Bill C-3. This bill, if approved, would require all federally appointed judges working in our criminal justice system to undergo continuing legal education in the form of sexual assault law and social context education. I agree with that, and I think that we all do after listening to the earlier speeches. It is important that the Canadian public have confidence that our courts and judges are fair, objective and respectful of all parties, including survivors of sexual assault.

For our criminal justice system to succeed in doing what it should do, convicting sexual assault criminals and keeping our streets, cities, workplaces and even our homes safe, victims need to be encouraged to step forward, but they will not if the courts are perceived as unfair, disrespectful and damaging to their dignity and reputation. As it stands, the vast majority of sexual assault cases go unreported because women and girls do not have the confidence that they will be treated fairly. That is not acceptable. That is not justice.

The preamble in the introduction of Bill C-3 states:

...sexual assault proceedings have a profound effect on the reputations and lives of the persons affected and present a high possibility of revictimizing survivors of sexual assault...

Sadly, that is true. What can Parliament do? Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction to rebalance the interests of the accused to a fair trial and of the complainant to respect and dignity.

As a Conservative, I am proud to say that this bill originated in our party under the initiative of our former party leader, Ms. Rona Ambrose. I would like to thank the Hon. Rona Ambrose for her work on this important file. Ms. Ambrose said:

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

As a lawyer, I have to undergo continuing professional development every year in order to maintain my practice licence. I submit that the same rule should apply to judges, maybe even more so. Judges have such a big impact not only on the lives of those who appear before them, but on all of society. They are influencers of our society, so it is appropriate, I would submit, that judges understand the societal contexts within which they work and within which those who appear before them find themselves.

It has been suggested by some academics that by legislating judges to undergo such training and mandating them to give written reasons for their decisions, Parliament would be interfering with the judicial independence that is fundamental to our justice system. It has also been said that such training, which focuses on the needs of victims, would undermine the right of the accused to a fair trial, and that these rules would cause judges to apply a different standard in sexual assault trials than they would in other types of criminal proceedings, thus running the risk of more wrongful convictions. I disagree with that.

This bill, mandating ongoing continuing professional development for judges, would not take away judicial discretion from judges, nor would it undermine the accused's rights to the presumption of innocence. It would just assure that judges would have a better understanding of the societal context within which they work. Importantly, it would go a long way to ensuring that those victims brave enough to step forward and subject themselves to the rigour and intimidation of a courtroom setting would be treated fairly, and with respect and dignity.

I have confidence that our judiciary, in consultation with stakeholders' groups, would develop an effective and responsible continuing education program for judges, and that judges would respond favourably to that training. We need to make Canada a safer place, where women can enjoy the freedoms that men have. It is about safety, and it also about equality.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to talk about Bill C-3, a bill that is going to make a small difference in what is really a larger system failure in dealing with sexual violence and sexual assault in Canada. It is certainly important. As members of Parliament we come to the House with very different experiences and exposures to violence or assault in our professional and personal lives. This really frames our understanding of the issue. It also is important in terms of the debate that is happening.

In reflecting about the bill today and about the broader issues, I went into my memory banks and thought about things that have happened throughout my life. I thought I would share some examples, first of all, to look at the larger systemic issues that are not addressed and then to look at the issue of the bill in particular.

I want to first talk about the emergency responses by our police officers. I can remember, as a young nurse with very limited experience, working in a small first nations community. One day I arrived at the little clinic office. Across the road from it was a baseball field. When I arrived at the clinic at about seven o'clock in the morning, there was a woman in the baseball field. She was completely nude and had a number of bruises. Obviously, she was a victim of a sexual assault and an assault in general. No one else was around so we covered her up. She was intoxicated. We called emergency services to transport her to something more than what we had available, and we also called the RCMP. I remember, again as someone who was young and new to this business, that they made it about her being drunk and “Who knows what happened?” They were very dismissive of that horrific crisis.

There was some work done by Robyn Doolittle in 2015 that was called “Unfounded”. What she said was that police would find the complaints as baseless and there would often be no investigation, so the example I just gave certainly fits into my initial experience. The numbers in 2015 were quite incredible, where 25,000 incidents were reported to the police with only 1,400 convictions. Clearly, we have an issue with the emergency response system.

The next experience I would like to share is my move from the small community to a larger health centre that had an emergency room and an emergency response. It was still rural. Typically there was a nurse and doctor who were available during that time. Nurses in rural communities have to respond to everything that comes through the door. It might be a three-person motor vehicle accident, the delivery of a baby or a victim of rape.

One night we were called in. There was a very shaken woman who indicated that she had been very violently sexually assaulted. We had to do an examination. If anyone is not aware of what those examinations are like, it is very, very intrusive in terms of taking swabs and plucking samples from the pubic area. It is very detailed and very intrusive. I had never used a rape kit before. I had never been trained in using a rape kit. We had to read the instructions. We tried to hopefully be compassionate and kind, but we certainly were not proficient in what we needed to do to put this case together.

I talked about the police response and now I am talking about the health care response in a rural community and the ability of nurses and doctors to have the expertise that is needed.

The next experience is not a professional one, but an experience within the judicial system. It is the only time I have ever been close to the court system in my entire life. I had never been in a court. I was a support system for two young girls who had been sexually assaulted, and my support role was to be in the courtroom to listen.

I remember the morning of the trial. This is going back in my memory, but this is what stands out. There was an overworked Crown counsel who went to these young girls and asked them if they could get hold of the witnesses from when the preliminary interviews were done and bring them to the court. I was stunned that the Crown counsel did not have the witnesses planned out in terms of the people who would corroborate the stories of these two young women. These two very young women gave compelling and heartbreaking testimony. There was no question in my mind that it was very real testimony. The person who was accused, his only response was that it did not happen. He denied it.

I looked at the bravery of these two girls who had decided to pursue this case in spite of all the challenges to get to that point. They had to hear the person they knew had done exactly what they said he had done deny it, and then the Crown counsel, without an appropriate case ready to present, talked about their bruises. It was absolutely awful. The result that came out of that particular court case was a finding of not guilty. The judge at that time said that, although the testimony of the girls was very compelling, they did not feel there was enough proof so they found the person not guilty.

That is the experience we have. We have system failures throughout. I talked about the rape kits. We did learn a little bit more over time, but I was never called to be a witness for the Crown in terms of the mental state or in terms of what happened. Other than the rape kits, the notes we kept were never brought into the court system when dealing with it. We have so many flaws, more than what are in this bill, that are still happening today. We still have so much to do.

As many people have indicated, this bill has a history. The history starts with the passion of our former leader, Rona Ambrose, who introduced it as a private member's bill. We all know it is very difficult for private member's bills to meet the finish line. There are many people in here who probably have never had an opportunity to even introduce a private member's bill. She did get it fairly far along the system, which took four years. As I said, there are very few private member's bills that make it to the finish line, and I know she was very delighted when the government decided to take up the bill, as it appears were most members in the House.

It speaks also to the process, which becomes important, because there were amendments that had been suggested to the private member's bill, which have now been incorporated into the version we see in front of us. We talk about this as maybe a simple bill that we could skip all the process with, and I know that two weeks ago we spent $50 billion without having a committee process. However, what it shows is that, even with the simplest of bills that seem like they should just receive unanimous consent and move through the process, Parliament is there for a reason. It is there to scrutinize. It is there to make things better. The fact that we have some process for these measures, and of course I still profoundly—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to again debate the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Bill C-3 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 require that the Canadian Judicial Council report on seminars dealing with matters related to sexual assault law. The purpose of these seminars is to ensure that this theme is addressed in the continuing education of judges. Finally, the bill amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

This bill would have been passed two months ago if not for the prorogation by the Prime Minister, which was totally useless given the empty throne speech and Prime Minister's address to the nation. This has delayed our work and obviously upended our schedule and parliamentary agenda. We have lost two months because the government wanted to flee Parliament and politics in general to avoid the ire of the opposition over yet another Liberal scandal. How cynical, some might say.

We were elected as legislators to provide solutions and make the changes expected and desired by Quebeckers. There needs to be more co-operation and less partisanship, less squabbling and more collaborating. That is what everyone says they want, but every day we often see that is not the case despite the good will of some.

Sexual assault trials resonate strongly with ordinary people. In fact, they obviously have a serious impact on the reputation and life of those involved and they also revictimize the survivors of sexual assault. Unfortunately, this type of trial sometimes gives rise to problematic interpretations of the law. It is in this spirit that the bill proposes that candidates seeking to be appointed as judges must agree to participate in ongoing training on matters related to sexual assault law and social context.

In almost all these cases, a judge must assess the credibility of the witnesses, the victim and the accused. The judge's assessment can be influenced by preconceived notions that do not stem from malice, but from their lived experience, perceptions and culture.

The topic of training is something I relate to. I was a school principal for more than 20 years, and this was a topic and a problem that I had to work on and deal with almost every day. We had to work hard to get past the mindset that once someone got a degree they had mastered the subject. Times have changed, obviously, and we have come a long way. We have paid the price in recent years for that whole period of time when there was no continuing education. Now, graduating from university means the beginning of continuing education, which continues right up until retirement, for any field you can imagine.

It is all well and good for a teacher in the school system to have gotten a good education, but young people change and the way they learn changes. Boys need a different kind of stimulation than girls do, the curriculum changes at lightning speed and evaluation systems also go through drastic changes. A teacher cannot teach the same way today that they taught five, 10 or 15 years ago.

It goes without saying that we need to adapt our approach to the current context. Nevertheless, many people think that changes to training often fail to keep pace with society's needs, and I completely agree.

Ongoing training is top priority in every sector. There is an old saying: Adapt or die. In this case, with this bill, we might say, “Adapt or lose your credibility”.

People in our riding who know that we are debating this bill tell us this is fundamental. It just makes sense. I am hearing the same thing in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles as other MPs are elsewhere. Constituents are asking us to move forward, to stop stalling and to pass this bill quickly.

Making sure that judges get adequate ongoing sexual assault training will enable them to dig into cases differently, to ask questions the right way and to better understand witnesses' reality. Let us not forget that witnesses must testify in front of their attackers. Training will undoubtedly improve their rulings too. This bill will also make rulings more consistent, give our judges more credibility, and, most importantly, boost our justice system's credibility with respect to victims of sexual assault.

I am the father of a beautiful and amazing grown-up 30-year-old daughter. I protected her, coddled her and taught her as best I could. However, I often felt like I had to fight to protect her against a rather macho world, a world of men who all too often tend to denigrate women. These old tendencies remain in our society. I tried to shelter my daughter from the mean-spirited influence of certain uniquely male perspectives, certain stereotypes, myths and prejudices. At the very least, I take comfort in the fact that my daughter did not have to go through the court system. That would have been very painful for both her and for me.

This bill is a step forward. It is a start, a beginning. It is high time we took action to restore women's confidence in the justice system. Obviously, any action we take must respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. Making sure that judges are informed, in touch with the evolution of our society and more understanding of complainants' circumstances can only have a positive impact on our Quebec society.

What we want is for judges to be more transparent and more accountable when rendering decisions in sexual assault cases. We want these decisions to be reasoned and justified.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill. We will vote in favour of victims, all victims. I encourage the House to pass this bill quickly as a sign of respect for all victims of sexual assault, whether they be male or female.

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

Madam Speaker, since we began our discussions this morning, I have noticed that some hon. members would rather that we not debate this type of topic. That amazes me because so far the testimonies have been heartfelt. I am very pleased to take part in this debate and to hear my hon. colleagues from all parties in the House on these very specific subjects.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have the following question for him. In addition to Bill C-3, what do you think the government should do to ensure that we live in a society with a justice system that is fair for everyone?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking everyone for their great interventions in this conversation that we have had. It is more of an apt description to call it a conversation as opposed to a debate.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say it was great to hear the words of the parliamentary secretary. I would also like to recommit to him, as we did the first time we went through this, to work with the Province of Ontario to make sure we can have this be more effective, perhaps expanding it to our province, as well. I am looking to working with him and the provincial government to hopefully have it also include something like this in its legislature.

Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. I believe that this bill is fundamentally a step in the right direction. The justice system is of course supposed to be a safe place for victims of sexual assault. However, as many have commented, as a member of the bar and as a member of the justice system, I have seen complainants revictimized by the system over and over again.

Sexual assault is the only violent crime in Canada that is not declining. Out of over 500,000 sexual assaults, only 3% are reported to the police. While one in three women and one in eight men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime, the majority of sexual assault crimes are not reported to police. In fact, of all the types of crime, sexual assault is the least reported to police. While the rate of self-reported sexual assaults has remained relatively stable, the percentage of offences reported to police has dropped from 12% in 2009 to 5% in 2014.

Why is it that victims of sexual assault just do not feel comfortable going to the justice system for support?

It is estimated, as some of my colleagues have commented, that fewer than 1% of sexual assault cases experienced by women lead to an offender being convicted. Believe it or not, this is even worse for vulnerable women in our society. Young women, women with disabilities, indigenous women, particularly those in the north and the territories, have a much more heightened risk of sexual assault.

To highlight this, to say that these are not just words, they are not just numbers, I would like to tell a story of the truth of a 12-year-old aboriginal girl who lived in Saskatchewan. This comes from Sexual Assault in Canada, edited by Elizabeth Sheehy. This young lady had a fight with her parents, as many teenagers have, and, as many teenagers have in the past, myself included, she went to blow off steam. She walked down the road. Unfortunately, she met up with three men who befriended her and gave her alcohol. Eventually, they got her intoxicated to the point of vomiting. At this point, they decided to hold her down and rape her. When they dropped her off at her friend's house, she was frantically crying and screaming.

Two of these three men were found not guilty, as the judge believed the testimony that they thought she was over 15 and had consented. This, despite the fact that she was 12, drunk, being held down and was vomiting at the time. One of the three men was convicted. He received a sentence of two years less a day, hardly having the book thrown at him.

To make it all worse, to make the trauma even worse for this young lady, the police officer, when questioned in court, said, of the intoxicated 12-year-old girl, “Well, she might have been the sexual aggressor.”

For this to go on in Canada is utterly and completely unacceptable. It is really incomprehensible that in this great country of Canada we have things like this going on. While I cannot begin to imagine what it is like for a victim of a sexual assault to have had this experience, I know there are many reasons why victims may not come forward. Victims might experience a range of psychological responses. They might feel grief, shame or denial, and these are reasons why they do not feel comfortable. To make it worse, they may not have faith in our criminal justice system.

It has been reported that women feel revictimized, over and over again. In the last 10 years, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, these are some of the statements from justices. One commented, “Well, why could she not just keep her knees together?” Another commented, “Why did the victim not scream?” One of the worst I have heard is, “Why did the victim not simply skew her pelvis to avoid penetration?”

I am paraphrasing because the actual language in these comments is unparliamentary. How anyone, particularly a justice, can think they are appropriate in a court of law is astonishing. Our government, our justice system and our society must do better.

According to the Canadian Women's Foundation, while 96% of Canadians believe all sexual activity should be consensual, only one in three Canadians actually understand the meaning of the word consent. We have to make sure judges are not part of that two out of three and they understand that unless there is a clear “yes”, it is a “no.” Coming forward and reporting assault to police is hard enough for women. We need to do everything we can to ensure victims of sexual assault are supported. The justice system is the last thing they should fear.

Women who have had the courage and perseverance to make it through years in the justice system, reliving their pain every step of the way, are often faced with yet another blow. The perpetrator, the one who has changed their lives forever and destroyed dreams, brought on addiction, poverty and a lifetime of mental illness, will be given an almost non-existent sentence.

According to StatsCan, from 2009 to 2014 only 21% of sexual assaults completed their court case within six years. Some 60% of those cases were pleaded down to a lesser offence, so the perpetrator avoids custody for the most part. For cases that made it to completion, approximately half, or 55%, will result in any time in prison for the perpetrator. Of the tiny percentage of sexual assault perpetrators who are actually sentenced, most will not receive a day in prison. What will they receive? Average probation for sexual assault is 730 days. A woman's life is destroyed and the price is a couple of years of checking in with one's parole officer. That is not good enough.

If there is anything we can do in the system for victims of sexual assault we should do it, and we should do it not tomorrow, not today, but yesterday. I will definitely be supporting this bill. In fact, I salute the government for bringing it forward and thank it for doing so. Perhaps by giving the judges the necessary training, we can avoid the outlandish comments in the future and give victims more confidence in our justice system so they know they will be treated with respect when they perform the act of bravery of confronting their perpetrator.

Fixing the criminal justice system is about helping our federal judges begin to understand the suffering of our victims and teaching our judges to be more compassionate toward victims. The bill is not simply about fixing our justice system, it is about making Canada a safer place for all women and children.

I am a son, a brother, a husband and a father. I worry about my loved ones. I worry about my five-year-old daughter. I find the history of our justice system appalling. We need to make Canada a safer place, a place where victims have faith in our justice system, where everyone knows the meaning of consent, where women can feel comfortable walking alone, walking with anyone and walking anywhere they want wearing whatever they want, knowing society will always be there to protect them.

Bill C-3 is a positive change, albeit a modest one, that will help Canada be a safer place for my daughter, my mother, my sisters and for all Canadians. I will be supporting it wholeheartedly.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I hope that in this Parliament it will not be blocked again in the Senate and that we can finally implement this important legislation.

Bill C-3 is important. It would ensure that provincial superior court justices would be trained in sexual assault law and in practice with respect to getting rid of the myths that exist in our society around sexual assault, particularly with women. However, this certainly impacts men and the LGBTQ2I community. It would ensure that our legal systems are safe places for victims to share their experiences, that predators are held accountable and that in the future victimization of people can be avoided.

I have been listening to this debate and a number of members have spoken about the statistics. I think most members in the House do so because the statistics are pretty stark. When 30% of women and 8% of men have been sexually assaulted at least once since the age of 15, what kind of society do we live in when this is okay?]

When we compare that to the conviction rate of something like 2%, how can we allow women, boys and others in our society to be assaulted from the time they are 15? If this were any other crime, there would be mass outrage in the country about how this was even possible. I suspect the conviction rate is even lower, because sexual assaults and sexually based assaults are so under-reported in this country and around the world, mainly because of the low conviction rates and because of the re-victimization of victims in the justice system and having to defend that they are not at fault for what happened to them. I would argue that these statistics do not paint the full picture.

As a young woman, I certainly know too many stories of other women being victimized and how often that is ignored or accepted. It is not worth it for them to share their stories, bring their family into it and have others hear about what happened to them. The shame is put on victims instead of on the assailants, where it should be.

In addition to why this training is important and why the conviction rates need to be dramatically increased, I want to share some of the comments that justices in Canada, as well as in the U.S., have made in sexual assault cases and why training and getting rid of the myths need to happen as quickly as possible.

Here are some quotes from justices about victims in cases that they were supposed to be adjudicating: “If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened”; the victim “wasn’t the victim she claimed to be”; “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?”; the victim was “probably as much in control of the situation“ as the assailant; the body can “shut the whole thing down”; and “It's open season” for intoxicated “women”.

These myths continue to victimize women, continue to keep sexual assault of all genders in the shadows and, more dangerous, continue to allow perpetrators to victimize more people and place fear in those whom they have already victimized.

Human trafficking is a huge issue in this country and around the world. I have often heard from survivors and about their experiences. When the process has gone to court, there has been very little protections with respect to being re-victimized. They have been questioned as to why they are there or how they got into the situation. The defendants in a lot of these cases are still able to contact these victims and pressure them. Therefore, many do not bother moving forward because they have to relive their stories, the assault and the trauma they have gone through in a public way and the re-victimizing.

This bill also talks about making changes to the court process. This was brought up in the earlier question and answer period of this debate, and I am very pleased about that.

It is also important that part of the bill relates not only to the training, but also to the written decisions that will be on the record. There needs to be some public naming and shaming of decisions that have been based on old stereotypes and myths to ensure we have a judicial process that protects victims, not puts them on trial. When it comes to sexual assault, we have seen this far too often.

A big myth in sexual assault cases is the notion of who the real victim is. There are very few other areas of law or criminality where the victim is questioned like in the quotes I read earlier, such as why she was there, or why she drank too much, or why she just could not stop it or she should not have been out so late. It is not a crime for women to wear what they want or be where they want to be. It is as if women have to protect themselves from sexual assault when they need to be protected from predators.

Victims need to be protected from sexual assault. This should be a basic principle in our country and our judiciary should respect that, understand that and should not put the lives of sexual assault victims on trial. Only those who have been accused should be put on trial. They have every right to put up a defence if they have been wrongly accused, but it is not the victims who should have to prove they did not deserve the sexual assault or “had it coming”, which is often attributed to sexual assault victims.

With Bill C-51, as my colleague also brought up in the last round of debate, some of the important changes to amend the Criminal Code have been spoken about in the House, but it is really important to raise such things as an unconscious person being incapable of consenting to sexual activity. This might seem like a basic legal principle. We would not have a valid contract if it had been signed by an unconscious person, yet there was a time in our country where an individual could agree or give consent to sexual activity.

Therefore, it is incredibly important that other changes be made to criminal law as well. This is why continual training is so important, so judges can be kept up to date on our most current laws, that we can ensure that these myths and stereotypes are not repeated, that they are formalized in law, that victims can stop being re-victimized and that people feel safe to come forward, to speak out and to stand up against these predators to help stop further victims from being victimized.

I am very appreciative that the former interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose brought forward a bill on this. I hope that after this second round of debate, we can pass it and have real and substantial change in our country.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Uxbridge.

I am pleased to contribute to today's second reading debate of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, which aims at ensuring all newly appointed provincial superior court judges participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context.

It would further require the Canadian Judicial Council to report the participation of all sitting superior court judges in sexual assault law education. Finally, the bill would also require judges to provide reasons, in writing or on the record, for decisions in sexual assault matters.

I would like to focus my remarks today on the challenges the criminal justice system is facing in responding to sexual assault in Canada. Further, I would like to discuss how Bill C-3 aims to address these issues by building on recent measures our government has undertaken.

Sexual assault is a gendered crime. Women are almost four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men. Statistics Canada has reported that 30% of women in Canada, compared with 8% of men, have been sexually assaulted at least once since the age of 15. That is 4.7 million women and 1.2 million men who have been victims of sexual assault.

It is estimated that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to police. In 2017, only 32% of sexual assault charges proceeded to trial and only 41% of those resulted in a conviction. In other words, less than 2% of sexual assaults in Canada resulted in a conviction in 2017. I would like to note that the number is likely much lower.

In 2018, it was estimated that only 35% of reported sexual assault cases resulted in charges being laid. If we apply this number to the 2017 data, the result is that only 0.23% of sexual assaults in Canada result in a conviction. The data paints a bleak picture and illustrates the challenges our criminal justice system is facing in responding to sexual assaults.

In recent years, this government has made important changes to sexual assault law. These reforms were aimed at enhancing the equality, privacy and security rights of complainants by countering the myths and stereotypes that have persisted in our criminal justice system, while also balancing the rights of the accused in a manner consistent with relevant Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. These myths include deeply rooted beliefs of how so-called real victims react to sexual assault and myths concerning the reliability of women's testimony when they make sexual assault complaints.

In June 2017, our government launched its action plan to combat gender-based violence. The plan is called “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”. It is a coordinated, multisectoral strategy based on the three pillars of prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promotion of responsive legal and justice systems. The government has invested substantial sums to support the implementation of this government-wide initiative, which aims to combat gender-based violence, coordinate existing programs and lay the foundation for a broader package of measures.

Additionally, through former Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, which received royal assent in 2018, we amended the Criminal Code to clarify and strengthen Canada's sexual assault laws.

For instance, these reforms clarified that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting to sexual activity; an accused cannot rely on the defence of mistaken belief in consent if there is no evidence that the complainant voluntarily and affirmatively expressed consent; sexual history evidence must never be adduced to infer one the twin myths, namely, that the complainant is more likely to have consented or is less worthy of belief based on the sexual nature of that evidence; and the admissibility of the complainant's private records that are in the possession of the accused, such as counselling records or private journals, is determined through a special procedure similar to what applies to the admissibility of sexual history evidence and the production of third party records.

In addition, our government has funded the creation of pilot programs in various provinces to provide independent legal advice, and in some cases, legal representation to survivors of sexual assault. The provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Ontario, as well as Yukon Territory, have reported that these programs have been beneficial to survivors of sexual assault. Our government has also provided funding to the National Judicial Institute to develop judicial education on gender-based violence, including sexual assault.

Finally, through former Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which received royal assent in June 2019, we restricted the availability of preliminary inquiries to offences punishable by 14 years or more imprisonment. This means that preliminary inquiries are no longer available for many sexual assault offences so that many complainants will not have to testify twice, once at the preliminary inquiry and again at trial. We know that testifying in court is often a harrowing experience because it requires victims to relive the trauma they have experienced.

As such, the criminal justice system has become more compassionate to survivors of sexual assault. Although we have made significant progress in recent years, we must continue our efforts to ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with respect and dignity in their interactions with the criminal justice system. It is imperative that judges have the necessary training regarding the complex nature of sexual assault law and the myths that too often surround it. Bill C-3 aims to ensure that decisions in sexual assault matters are not influenced by myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims and how they have behaved, which the Supreme Court of Canada has found distorts the truth-seeking function of the court.

Through this bill, we hope to enhance the confidence of the public and survivors in the handling of sexual assault matters by our criminal justice system. This is why the bill would require all candidates seeking appointment to a provincial superior court to agree to participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context, and to require judges to provide reasons in writing or on the record for decisions in sexual assault matters.

The proposal in Bill C-3 to require candidates to commit to continuing education after appointment would ensure that newly appointed provincial superior court judges fully understand the complex nature of sexual assault law. It would also require that the training created by the Canadian Judicial Council be developed in consultation with survivors of sexual assault, their support groups, and other individuals or groups the council considers appropriate.

The bill also provides for the introduction of a requirement that the Canadian Judicial Council report on the participation of all current superior court judges in sexual assault law education. This measure would increase accountability for sexual assault law education and act as an incentive to encourage the participation of current superior court judges in sexual assault law education.

Bill C-3's specific proposal to require judges to provide reasons in a determination of sexual assault matters would be included in part VIII of the Criminal Code with other sexual assault provisions to ensure that provisions relating to sexual offences are clear and accessible to those applying them. Essentially, this will create almost a mini sexual assault code within the Criminal Code and will help to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law. Further, it would help improve the transparency of sexual assault decisions because recorded and written decisions can be reviewed.

Improving the handling of sexual assault cases in our criminal justice system goes beyond partisan politics. This bill, originally a private member's bill introduced by the hon. Rona Ambrose, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, will help to increase the confidence of sexual assault survivors and the public in our criminal justice system. We must work together to transform the criminal justice system into a fair, more effective, accessible and efficient system for all Canadians. I urge members of the House to support the passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bulk of my remarks were shared yesterday when I spoke about the importance of Bill C-3, a bill which would introduce mandatory training with respect to sexual assault for people becoming judges, and also require them to provide written arguments in those cases. I will not repeat all of those arguments. I wanted to spend my remaining time today responding to some of the things that other members have said over the course of this debate.

Maybe I will remake one specific point that I made yesterday, which I think is important. When it comes to mandating training, we need to appreciate the benefits that come with training but also the limitations that come with training, such as training not replacing the importance of developing character and empathy. As C. S. Lewis once said, and I quoted him yesterday, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Therefore, we recognize the value in terms of education and training but also, at the same time, the importance of doing more.

The bill is particularly timely now. I was just reading a great column in the National Post by a friend of mine, Kathryn Marshall, who spoke about how there has really been an increase, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, of instances of domestic violence. While other instances of violent crime have been declining, we have seen an increase in reported instances of sexual and domestic violence, and it really calls on us to respond.

Unfortunately, in the course of this debate, most of what we have heard from the Liberal side is not arguments about the issue or the bill. They are more interested in debating the debate. They are advancing the argument that we really should not be talking about this, and that, given there is a general consensus on moving the bill forward, we should just let debate collapse and have as limited a discussion as possible.

I wanted to make five specific points in response to that rather bad argument from the Liberal side.

First of all, I think it is important to point out that the government controls the scheduling of debate. It is up to the government whether the bill is a priority, and we think it should be a priority. It is up to the Liberals to schedule the debate to occur as urgently as possible. They could have scheduled this debate on Monday or Tuesday of this week. They had earlier opportunities to schedule the debate. They chose to wait until Wednesday to schedule the first day of debate.

We want to see the bill moved forward, but it is up to the government, which controls the vast majority of the structure, to schedule the debate in a way that allows the bill to move forward while still giving members the opportunity to speak to it.

A second point that I think we need to underline is that the debate is important. Points could come to light about this issue through the debate that would maybe identify ways in which we could refine and strengthen the bill, as well as other areas that require our action. We have talked, for example, about the way in which young boys seeing violent sexual images online can contribute to sexualization and an increase in rape culture, and the need for the government to move on meaningful age verification. That is another issue that comes out of the debate and demonstrates why this debate is important.

The third point I want to make is that, unfortunately, because of the government's allergy to committee work, it has not yet struck the committee that would be studying the bill. Despite our efforts to have committees struck right away, the government put in place mechanisms to delay the striking of committees. The justice committee has not even met yet. Frankly, by having more debate and more discussion in this place, the bill is not in any way being slowed down, because what is required for the bill to move forward is the justice committee to be struck. That committee, thanks to the government not wanting committees to be struck early, is not yet meeting.

Fourth, I just wanted to observe that the current government shut down Parliament. It prorogued Parliament, which created the necessity for the bill to be started all over again. There were many issues we could have been debating in the summer. Of course, we could have been having the studies of the We scandal, the study of the public safety committee on systemic racism, as well as this bill continuing to be discussed and moved forward, but the Liberals made the choice to shut down the debate on this.

Finally, recognizing the urgency of action, I would call on the government, before this legislation is passed, to act by policy. The Liberals could put in place a policy whereby they would say that they will not appoint people who have not been through this training. In other words, as important as the bill is, many of the things that would be achieved through the bill can also be done in the short term by policy. As far as I know, the government has not enacted the policy to do that yet.

Recognizing these points, I think the government's desire to debate the debate, as opposed to actually talking about the issue, is missing the mark. I think this is a good opportunity for us to be talking about an important issue. We want to see the bill move forward, but this requires the government to take some action in terms of allowing the justice committee to be struck, not proroguing Parliament and scheduling when the debate would occur. All of those things would allow us to move forward with this issue and move the bill forward more quickly.

The House resumed from October 7 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-3.

Before getting elected, I had the opportunity to serve on the board of an organization in my riding called the Saffron Centre, and I want to recognize the great work it is doing in providing counselling and education on bullying, sexual violence, boundaries and related points. I served on the board of that organization prior to the #MeToo movement. At the time, the board would have conversations about the lack of social awareness around these issues and some of the challenges of fundraising and engaging people in supporting our organization in the context of where the awareness was at that time.

There is still a long way to go, but I think a lot has changed. As a result of the #MeToo movement, there has been a real growth, awareness and recognition. It was interesting for me to speak with some of the people involved in the organization after the start of the #MeToo movement. They shared with me that there was a significant increase in the demand for counselling. A lot of it was cases of historic trauma, that is, people who had experienced sexual harassment and violence, perhaps decades ago, and had never come forward or sought help. They were empowered to seek help based on what they were hearing about in the media or on social media when other people were stepping forward and sharing their experiences. We probably all have stories about community-based organizations in our riding. The way that public conversations around the #MeToo movement encouraged people to come forward to seek counselling and support for historic trauma really reminds us of the importance of these conversations.

Some time today has been spent debating the debate, with members across the way challenging why we are having this debate and asking why we cannot just give unanimous consent at all stages of the bill. We have seen cases in which bills that maybe have one objective do not fulfill that objective or could be strengthened in other ways at committee, so the parliamentary process is important. We have also seen, even today, how the conversations around these issues can be important and inspiring for people. It is therefore important for us, as members of Parliament, to discuss these issues as we support Bill C-3 and work to move it forward.

In 2017, our former Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, introduced the just act, a bill that would have required lawyers seeking a judicial appointment to undergo training about sexual assault. It would also have required courts to provide written reasons in sexual assault rulings. The House of Commons passed the bill unanimously, but it was delayed in the Senate, and as a result the just act was never passed.

In Canada, an estimated one in three women and one in eight men are victims of sexual violence at some time in their lives. That means approximately 5.73 million women and 2.3 million men will be victims. We can all agree that those numbers are too high. Statistics Canada reported in 2014 that, sadly, only 5% of sexual assaults were reported to the police. That means that fewer than 5% of sexual predators get the justice they deserve for their despicable acts.

The low number of reported cases is due to the fact that victims of sexual assault no longer have confidence in our justice system. A report published by the Department of Justice entitled “A Survey of Survivors of Sexual Violence in Three Canadian Cities” found that two out of three women had little or no confidence in the justice process. This is because the judges presiding over sexual assault cases had no knowledge of Canada's sexual assault laws. This led to incidents where judges unfairly questioned the character of the victims and completely ignored our sexual assault laws.

The just act would have improved this situation. Last Monday the Liberals decided to re-introduce this bill. Like the just act, Bill C-3 would require all newly appointed provincial superior court judges to participate in training on sexual assault and would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide written reasons or provide reasons in the record when making a decision in a sexual assault case.

Let us put politics aside. I am pleased that this bill has been brought forward again to protect the vulnerable victims of sexual assault. However, I think that we should take this opportunity to go even further. In February, I told the House that it would be useful to include sexual assault training for parole officers as well. I would like the government to add that to this bill.

We know that there have been problems in the past with the Parole Board of Canada. Dangerous criminals have committed more crimes after being released on parole. One example is the case of Eustachio Gallese, a convicted murderer who stabbed a woman after being released on parole. This incident could have been completely avoided had the Parole Board of Canada demonstrated good judgment. I am worried that this sort of thing could happen again when predators are released on parole. That is why it is essential that we give parole officers training on sexual assault and sexual predators. Victims must be protected.

I know that the current Liberal government likes to boast about being feminist. Here is a perfect opportunity to show Canadians that its feminist approach is legitimate and not just a political talking point. Going above and beyond the previous proposal by adding other measures to protect victims of sexual assault would be a worthwhile initiative. I know that we all want to ensure that Canadian women and men are protected from predators.

As legislators in this minority Parliament, I think it is important that we work together to ensure that we pass good, comprehensive legislation. I look forward to discussing the need for sexual assault training for our judges and our parole officers with my colleagues from all parties.

Having discussed now the substance and history of this particular bill and some related issues, I would like to add a few additional general comments about the vital work of combatting sexual assault and then respond to some of the other comments that have been made thus far in this debate.

While recognizing the value of educational initiatives, we also need to recognize their inherent limits. Criminal behaviour by some and callousness or indifference by others can, indeed, result from ignorance. Ignorance can be resolved through education, but ignorance is not the only cause of bad behaviour. Some people who are fully informed about what is right and wrong will still go on to commit heinous crimes or show indifference to the suffering of others. For such people, the problem is not awareness; rather, it is inclinations or patterns of behaviour that they have not brought under control.

It also might be a lack of empathy. For those who lack a requisite degree of empathy, no amount of information will change their behaviour. As author C.S. Lewis once observed, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Lewis's point deserves reflection as we consider the importance, but also the limitations, of prescribing education and training in response to sexual assault and harassment. We need to ask ourselves what actions we can take and what actions other institutions can take to support the development of positive, as opposed to negative, patterns of behaviour, as well as the development of empathy. Without this necessary development of character and virtue, more education in terms of legal lines and processes will be ineffective.

Another way to consider this issue is through the lens of the old debate between virtue ethics and rule-based ethics. Rule-based ethics frames ethical actions being about adherence to rules. In the present case, a rule like, “Don't assault or harass another person” is the one being applied.

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, frames ethics in terms of the need to develop positive qualities of character that allow individuals both to know what is right and to be able to apply that knowledge in specific situations. Virtue ethics would emphasize the need to develop the virtues of justice and self-control. A person who has developed the virtues of justice and self-control will necessarily not engage in behaviour that hurts or threatens other people, justice being the virtue of giving to others what is due to them and self-control being the virtue of controlling one's own appetites or inclinations.

These two ethical frameworks, rule-based and virtue ethics, are not mutually exclusive, but there is a question of emphasis. Personally, I believe the virtue ethics framework is more important because it seeks to not only attend to questions of what we ought to do, but also attend to questions of how to develop the capacity to consistently do what we ought to do.

Efforts to combat sexual assault should not just involve education in the form of passing on information about standards of conduct and legal frameworks but should also involve the positive promotion of qualities of character like justice and self-control. Growing up, I do not specifically recall ever being directly told not to sexually harass or assault people. Instead, I was taught to recognize the innate dignity of all people and to exercise control over my impulses. When justice and self-control are fully absorbed, the specific rule in this case seems very obvious.

As a father, I obviously think a lot about how to raise my own children to be good people and good citizens. My own children are too young for discussions about sexual violence, but I already try to work to encourage the development of the virtues of justice and self-control as well as a sense of solidarity and empathy. The development of these intellectual and practical virtues will hopefully make it obvious how to behave in situations they may encounter in the future.

Much is said today about the idea of toxic masculinity. In my opinion, it is important for us to seek to replace toxic masculinity with a redefined masculinity. Toxic masculinity involves seeking power over others, but a redefined concept of masculinity means power and control over oneself and one's own appetites and the courage to work to protect vulnerable people and advance justice.

Winston Churchill once observed that the power of man has grown in every sphere except over himself. Here, Churchill puts his finger on one of the biggest problems we face today: People who may know what is right and have been fully educated in terms of what is right still do not always have the will or virtues required to exercise the necessary power over their whims and appetites. The exercise of that power over self is vitally important in order to be a good person and a good citizen. A person without the virtues of justice and self-control can never be truly happy or resilient.

A redefined masculinity would emphasize justice and control of self, not personal gratification and the domination of others. I worry that in so many domains modern governments emphasize rules but not virtues, training but not the development of character. We need to give more considerations to the lessons virtue ethics can provide for combatting evils like sexual harassment and assault. I hope those who are developing these training programs for judges as well as for young people, educators, former offenders, etc., will take into consideration the important insights of the virtue tradition.

I want to take the remainder of my speech today to just respond to some of the points made. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton spoke very eloquently about many different issues. She spoke about the importance of jurisdictions. This bill is an action in federal jurisdiction but it reminds us as well that there is other action that needs to be taken in other levels of government. The debate we are having today can hopefully be an impetus for further conversations.

My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton also spoke about the issue of rape culture. It is worth revisiting the important work done in the last Parliament that was initiated by my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, on understanding the impact violent sexual images can have on especially young boys who see those images. We need policy changes that specifically combat rape culture, such as having requirements for meaningful age verification on the Internet. We should not be allowing young boys to access violent sexual images on the Internet. By instituting mechanisms for meaningful age verification, we could provide greater protections to ensure there are not those aspects of rape culture shaping the early sexualization of young boys.

I want to salute the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Peace River—Westlock for the work they have done on those issues. I hope we will see, in the spirit of meaningful action on these issues, things like meaningful age verification. I will be picking up my remarks when we return.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will elaborate on my colleague's comments.

We are here to debate Bill C-3, an important bill that will help victims of sexual assault. My colleague just said that prorogation made it possible to turn the page and focus on the economy. Let us talk about the economic victims: women.

This summer, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We met on an emergency basis to study the impact of the pandemic on women in particular. The Liberal government decided to prorogue Parliament and our work was stopped. We had an important report to give to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, but we were unable to complete it. We have to start from scratch.

Does that really help the victims of COVID-19?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, that was an unfortunate display we just saw from the hon. member as we are discussing a bill as important as Bill C-3. He spent virtually no time on the bill and spoke only about delay.

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member. Maybe he could answer a question for me. Prorogation of Parliament, according to Marleau and Montpetit, results in the termination of a session. Prorogation is taken on the advice of the prime minister, and the effect of it is to terminate all business, including the work of committees.

My question for the hon. member is this: Who is the prime minister whose advice it was to prorogue Parliament, thereby requiring a restart on all business in this House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is contribute to an ongoing debate, when I know the Conservatives are anxious to see this bill ultimately pass.

I will leave it at this. I would ask my Conservative friends to support what is a very good idea, something that has been debated not only inside this House, but the House of Commons on Parliament Hill. There has been a great deal of debate. Everyone is in support of it. We have seen legislation pass relatively quickly inside this House. We even saw it with reference to this piece of legislation in another session with another bill number. Therefore, I implore my Conservative friends across the way to give serious consideration to allowing Bill C-3 to go through so that we can debate Bill C-5, as I am very much interested in hearing where the Conservatives might fall on the important issue of reconciliation.

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

We will resume with the member's speech, and I would remind the parliamentary secretary to focus on Bill C-3.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member might not necessarily like it, but there is a direct link that I have made between Bill C-5, which in all likelihood is going to be the next item for debate, when I focus my attention on the importance of Bill C-3 and getting it passed. There is a direct link between the two issues, and that is what I have been referencing.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is making repeated reference to Bill C-5. I wonder if, even though the rules of relevance are loosely applied in this place, we ought to speak to the bill that we are debating. We are talking about Bill C-3. We have heard a lot about Bill C-5, so if the member does not want other members to speak to it, perhaps he could actually speak to Bill C-3.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take a different approach on this debate.

Looking at Bill C-3, I anticipate unanimous support from the House. I believe that every member, all 336 of them, actually supports this proposed legislation, and justifiably so. After all, it is not the first time that we have had this legislation before us. In fact, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party brought the idea forward.

The Prime Minister has inferred in the past that no one owns a good idea, and if it is something that is for the betterment of Canadians, let us do it. Back then, the government of the day said that it supported the bill, and when that did not work, we ended up bringing in a government bill. The previous bill not only passed in the House, but it also went through the committee stage and on to the Senate. There was plenty of opportunity for good, healthy debate.

Sex assault is a very serious issue. Again, I suspect that all 336 members have something to say about this very important issue and the impact it has on our society. All of us, I am sure, have something to share with the House. However, if we look at all the private member's bills and all of the government's proposed legislation, we see that, mathematically, it would be impossible for every member to talk about every piece of legislation.

It was not possible even when we sat during the summer in a different forum in the House. At the end of the day, there is a limited amount of time, and the official opposition knows that. Those members understand that, last Friday, if they wanted to, they could have passed the bill. This is a very important issue, which all members of Parliament are very passionate about, and it could have actually passed last Friday.

What would have happened had that taken place? Well, we would be debating Bill C-5, the national day for truth and reconciliation. I have heard from some that the Conservatives might not support that piece of legislation. I am hopeful that the majority will, but I suspect that there will be huge demands from the Conservative Party that we debate that piece of legislation. When it comes to legislation inside this chamber, the only way we get the Conservatives to pass it is to either bring in time allocation or shame them into doing the right thing.

At the end of the day, when we look at what we have before us, I challenge any member to indicate their opposition to this legislation. As I pointed out, the very essence of the issue is of the utmost importance to all Canadians. I am sure that there is not a member in the House who would speak about this legislation not passing, and we recognized that years ago when the interim leader of the Conservative Party brought it forward.

I would like to challenge my friends across the way. I have been affiliated with House leadership teams for a while now, and I can tell members that, at times, we need to allow bills that have unanimous support to go through the process.

I know a member of the opposition can stand up in a righteous way and say that every member should be able to speak to this legislation, I am not going to deny that. If members want to speak to this piece of legislation, let them speak to it, but we must remember that not every member can speak to every piece of legislation; it is not possible. We cannot do that and the Conservatives know that. It does not take much to put off any piece of legislation, because after we debate it, with all 100 members speaking between questions and answers, and the speeches themselves, which are a half hour for the first five hours, then 15 minutes afterward, we could be speaking for weeks on this legislation, and all because the Conservative Party does not want legislation to pass so it can criticize the government in the future for not passing legislation. If we try to pass legislation, the Conservatives ask why we have to bring in time allocation.

The opposition members need to come to the realization that if they do not want time allocation, if they want to see a consensus, and if they behave like this, that is what they will get. I am focusing on the Conservatives, At the end of the day, what I would like to see, and I did it when I was in the third party, is support for the government of the day with respect to certain time allocations, because I believe that unfortunately at times we need to bring in time allocation. I would like to think that on this piece of legislation we do not need to bring in time allocation; rather, what we could do is recognize the fine work that has been done to date on this legislation.

Maybe it is because I am eager to get on to Bill C-5, which is about truth and reconciliation and one of the calls for action. I understand the Conservatives will be demanding a lot of time for debate on that legislation. I would think that call for action is something there is a great deal of interest in with respect to finding out where the Conservative Party is at. We know where MPs are at with respect to this piece of legislation. I would suggest the members opposite in the Conservative Party will no doubt want to continue to talk about this debate. I will no doubt be one of the first to remind them in the future why it is we did not get as much time to debate Bill C-5, because I suspect they will not provide us the opportunity—

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton on her speech.

Obviously, it is hard to have a perfect bill. We can see some improvements, but there could have been more. I, too, think that Bill C-3 is not perfect.

I have a question about interference in provincial jurisdictions. The Quebec bar association has its own expertise and has conducted an analysis of former Bill C-337, which passed unanimously. According to the association, the administration of justice is a provincial jurisdiction and the proposed changes, both to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, are likely to encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

I would like to know if my colleague is opposed to any interference in these areas of jurisdiction.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her very eloquent speech. Indeed, I am one of the newer members in this chamber that the member referred to.

As a litigator and as a woman, Bill C-3 is something that interests me very much. I have looked at what has happened in the past. I appreciate the fact that the member says she is a woman of action, but the truth of the matter is that, with one-third of Canadian women going to experience sexual assault, we need to move very quickly at this stage.

I hope we can count on the Conservatives' support to get this through committee very quickly. Also, if I understand correctly, I believe it was members of the Conservative senators' caucus who previously blocked the passage of the bill. I hope to count on Conservatives' support in order to get this very important bill through.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. I have a lot to say about this bill, so I hope I do not run out of time.

First I want to thank my friend, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. I was with her from the inception of this bill. She did me the honour of making me the chair of the status of women committee. Watching her lead this bill through the House was a real learning experience for me. We know that she is an accomplished businesswoman and accomplished politician. She was also our interim leader and a cabinet minister. I heard she is writing a book, so I look forward to that. I would like to thank her again for recognizing the importance of this issue and bringing it forward.

I want to talk a bit about the history of the bill. We have heard in some of the speeches that this is the third time it has been before the House. It received unanimous consent when I was here, and went to the Senate. Although I cannot explain what happened there, I was told that at the last moment the government woke up and realized it had passed no legislation and loaded up government legislation into the queue. That was the responsibility there for that failure.

Then we had Bill C-5. It was reintroduced, and I was happy to see that. Then the government decided not to sit all summer, so that was a wasted opportunity, and then on top of that it prorogued Parliament and delayed another six weeks. Everything fell off and had to be restarted, so here we are again.

It is disconcerting when we think about the statistics that we have heard. I know that many people have quoted them in their speeches, but I want to add a few comments to them. It is astounding when we hear that 83% of women who have been sexually assaulted do not even report it. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

We heard some testimony at the status of women committee. We were studying violence against women and girls at the time this bill came forward. The Ottawa Police reported that, of the women who show up at the police station to claim that they have been sexually assaulted, the police do not even write a report for 40% of them. Think about the humiliation for women, of being sexually assaulted and having the courage to go to the police knowing that, if they show up, only one in five cases is even reported, which then may go to trial. A very small percentage of those ever come with a conviction.

Once they come up with a conviction, it is astounding to see the small sentences that people receive in this country for sexual assault. When we look at it on paper, we can see that there are supposed to be minimum sentences of 10 and 14 years for these kinds of offences, but the reality is that it is up to the judge of the day to determine whether he wants to go with a summary conviction, probation or a fine. In fact, in many cases, even for the very small percentage convicted, the punishment for the crime is measured in months, or people are allowed to be on probation or they pay a fine for sexually assaulting a woman.

When one in three women in this country is going to be sexually assaulted in her life, this is totally unacceptable. We know, and it has been pointed out, that indigenous women and members of the LGBTQ community are even more at risk for this kind of sexual violence. It is all the more reason why we need to have training in place that could address parts of this.

I liked many of the recommendations I heard today that said that we have the purview, here in the House, over federal judges. However, that is not the whole story. There are provincial judges. This bill was brought forward and shared with all of the provinces. The report on violence against women and girls in Canada, which brought 45 specific recommendations to address this issue, was shared as well across the provinces. I am sad to say there has been very little uptake of that. Therefore, I was encouraged to hear my colleagues from Quebec tell me that they are starting to look at this and address the issue, because that will be very important.

Police sensitivity has been pointed out as a factor in the murdered and missing aboriginal women and girls recommendations, as well as 40 other reports that went before them on similar terms.

We heard testimony as well that training is needed there, but the reality is we have limited sway. This bill would address training for lawyers who want to become judges. We really wanted to have it address all the justices who were going to hear sexual assault cases, but unfortunately, that was not something we were able to make happen.

Justice Kent showed up at committee. As soon as Rona had tabled this bill, she was very enthusiastic and implemented training for lawyers who wanted to be judges in the federal judiciary, and recommended training to all those who were existing justices. She was unable to force them to take it, but at least there was immediate action taken. While there has been lamenting about the amount of time to pass the bill in full, people have stepped up to the plate and have been able to address some of the needs without even seeing the legislation.

Some of the statistics I find really troubling have to do with young people. Young people aged 15 to 24 are twice as likely to be sexually assaulted. When we were at committee, we heard testimony that 30% of women who attend Canadian universities would be sexually assaulted in the first eight weeks. This is unacceptable and unbelievable. Imagine these young girls in that state of trauma, not understanding the judicial system and having no guidance of any kind to help them manoeuvre through the police, and of course the peer pressure that exists on campus. We can see why we really need to have sensitivity.

The study we did came up with a lot of recommendations, and I am disappointed to see the government did not end up doing much with those. If I look at the importance it placed on addressing this issue, $100 million was put into one of the budgets to address violence against women and girls. If we think about the four million women, plus or minus, who have experienced sexual assault, it works out to 25 bucks for each one. That is not very much when compared, for example, with the government's response to the COVID pandemic, where some $240 billion has been rolled out to date for about 106,000 cases. That is $2.2 million per case of COVID compared with 25 bucks per sexual assault. I just wanted to put that into perspective. Sometimes the math tells us a lot.

Obviously, with this legislation we are trying to address some of the really egregious comments that have been made by judges in sexual assault trials. We know the most infamous one: Robin Camp's comments asking a survivor if she could not just keep her knees together. That was totally unacceptable. We know there was another case in the Atlantic provinces. A woman who had been drinking was assaulted, and the comment from the judge was that she was drunk, as if somehow that justified her being sexually assaulted. Maybe the most egregious to me personally were the comments made about Cindy Gladue, who was sexually assaulted and murdered, and when she was not even there to defend herself, the judge referred to her continually as the aboriginal prostitute. That is unacceptable in the extreme. We absolutely need to see change.

I have pointed out why the bill is needed. I want to spend a few minutes talking about what the bill would do and some the things that have changed over the evolution of the bill. The bill's purpose is to improve the interaction between sexual assault complainants and the justice system, specifically the judiciary. It would restrict the eligibility of who could be appointed to become a judge in Superior Court by requiring them to commit to undertaking and participating in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault and social context, including attending seminars.

It requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery of and participation in the sexual assault information seminars established by it, and it requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. It is really important that we understand why written decisions were necessary. When the decisions were not written, there was some evidence that perhaps they were less well thought out, or less likely to be appealed because the wording was not on record. Therefore, that was important.

In the bill itself there is more robust language about the consulting that needs to be done with other organizations for the training. We want to make sure that the training gets at the things it needs to address, so it needs to be “developed after consultation with persons, groups or organizations that the Council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and groups and organizations that support them; and include instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as education regarding myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complainants.”

Earlier we heard the member for Oakville North—Burlington recite the history of the legislation that went into place in 1983, which was the rape shield provision. That prohibits someone from bringing up someone's past sexual history as any kind of information that would be relevant to a sexual assault trial. In addition to that, the principle of consent is important and is something that does not just belong in training for judges. I agree also with an earlier member who talked about how it is important to educate children from the time they are young about consent.

If anyone has not seen a very short clip on YouTube called “Tea Consent”, I would encourage members to look at it, because it uses a cup of tea as an example of when we could expect sexual advances to be acceptable or not. We do not give someone tea if they are unconscious. We do not give someone tea if they say they do not want tea. I really think that is an excellent short video, but the education needs to be ongoing.

I am happy to see the consultation here and my hope is that they would consult as well intersectionally to make sure that concerns from the LGBTQ community as well as indigenous communities are heard, who as I already pointed out are more likely to experience assault. The training can be sensitive in all ways.

One of the things I do not like about the current revision is the metrics for tracking how well this is going. Originally, the tracking was going to be the number of sexual assault cases that were heard and the number of cases that had judges who had the training, so we could get a sense if it was working. Do we have judges, 100% being the goal, who have had the training actually presiding over cases?

Instead, the metric has been changed to the number of judges who attended each seminar. It is important to measure the number of people taking the training, but I am more interested in something very specific, which is that the people who are presiding over sexual assault trials have had the training. That is one of the things that brought this forward. The other justices who were somewhat insensitive did not have the training. I do not know if that metric is really where it ought to be, but I am sure that will get hashed out as well when it gets to committee.

I want to talk about some of the other issues that contribute to the whole problem of sexual assault and the ramifications of it. If we think about the victims who have been raped, there is a range of sexual assault that goes from the extreme on down. However, in every case there is trauma.

Many of the women and men who have been assaulted and experience this trauma have mental health issues as a result. Many turn to addictions of various sorts. The opioid crisis and the methamphetamine crisis we studied at health committee, if we look to the root cause of these things, it comes back to sexual assault in many cases. The cost to society is huge and it cannot be overlooked when we look at the importance of getting the legislation in place.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is rape culture. We were studying this whole issue of violence against women and girls and how we get to all of the different solutions. Rape culture is actually a pyramid where at the top we have sexual assault as the most heinous act. However, at varying levels below, there are behaviours that will walk somebody in that direction, starting with the catcalling, heckling and harassing of women and people on buses, for example.

There was an organization locally that came and did a very good presentation on the different behaviours and all the steps that would be needed to make sure people understand these small behaviours become more and more egregious and can, if not interrupted, lead somebody to cross the line and commit sexual assault. That is one thing that definitely needs to be looked at.

The other thing I want to talk about is the length of time all of this takes. We have talked about this particular bill being introduced for the third time, but that is not the only thing. I get very frustrated when I look at the work done at committees, which is very valuable and produces very detailed recommendations on what the government needs to do with violence against women and girls. Members should read the report.

There are 45 recommendations, some of them specific to those young women on university campuses and what we need to do to prevent sexual assault, help these women and guide them through the process. Each university should have a protocol in place to make sure they follow up correctly on the incident without shaming the victim, and to make sure the victim has support as they go through the police and judicial system. There are a lot of good points in there. It takes a long time to get anything to happen and I have not seen much happen with that.

The same is true for many issues affecting women, such as human trafficking, pay equity, corporate boards and systemic discrimination of women during the COVID pandemic. We have had a lot of discussions about how women are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and how many of the programs rolled out did not really hit the mark there.

We need to be more nimble and agile. I heard that word in the throne speech. I am a fan of agility. Some folks in my past have said that I ram things through, but that is not true. I am a person of action and I like to see things done quickly.

In this case, it is something that is very serious. I am definitely going to support Bill C-3 and I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to many of the new members who may not have known the history of the bill as it came through the House, or who may not have been familiar with all of the statistics as to how bad the situation is in our own country.

I do not want to get away from the theme that one of the members talked about in terms of the government's approach of prevention, support and justice. I do think those are the right pillars to move forward with some action. We talked about education and some of the supports, but justice is something I would like to talk about for one minute.

We met with women from other countries that were parliamentary representatives. I remember sitting with a woman from another country and I asked what the sexual assault frequency was in her country. She told me that it is not really an issue for them. When I asked her why that was, she said that there is a mandatory 10-year sentence with no exceptions. That is the take-away.

We need to do something in our judicial system in addition to this bill that actually puts a punishment in place and does not leave it to the discretion of the judges who are preferentially choosing to go with punishments measured in months for the sexual assault of teenagers, people who may have trauma for the rest of their lives.

I thank members for listening and I thank Rona Ambrose for bringing the bill forward. I look forward to questions.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in person. I want to say hello to my colleagues on video conference.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute to my father, who died from ALS three years ago and whose birthday was October 7. I mention this because there is a lot of talk about these issues and about how to support caregivers.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to Bill C-3. We have been talking about this bill for a long time, but we are finally coming to the end. This is reassuring, because now we will able to move forward. There are more steps to come.

No one here will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. Our party supported the original version of the bill that was introduced by Ms. Ambrose, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord was eager to support the bill and sought leave of the House to move a motion calling on the Senate to promptly adopt the bill, since the parliamentary session was coming to a close.

Unfortunately, what we feared came to pass. Our colleague's bill died on the Order Paper. That was not the first time. I also saw this when I was a political staffer about 10 years ago. We hope that Bill C-5 will not suffer the same fate. I would hope that we will get there in this session of Parliament with Bill C-3, and that after two failures, the third time will be the charm. I am speaking to all members. This is what I hope for us, so let's hurry up and support it.

Bill C-3 is important. It is a short bill, only a few pages long, and we all seem to agree on it. Despite its apparent simplicity, this bill is of paramount importance, because it has to do with the confidence the general public has in the justice system. As everybody here knows, the justice system is the backbone of any society. If people can no longer trust the justice system, what will they do? The excesses we see from time to time, including right now, the excesses that turn our stomachs, would only multiply. That is why we must act.

As legislators, experienced or newly elected, it is on us to ensure that the justice system in place is credible and that it has the approval and support of the entire, or the majority, of the population.

In the interest of justice, those dealing with the system and the rule of law that we are tasked to protect, we must in my opinion pass this bill as soon as possible. What are the effects? The answer is simple. We are talking here about training judges. Bill C-3 specifically addresses sexual assault, which we have been especially ill-equipped and ill-informed to deal with, not to mention that our judgments on this issue are often biased.

It is up to us as legislators to bolster this trust by rectifying the situation. We must give our judges as many tools as possible, so that they may do their job with the professionalism they already bring to it and want to continue to bring to it.

In almost all cases, a judge must assess the credibility of witnesses, that of both the victim and the accused. This is often where a judge can be influenced by preconceived notions that do not stem from malice, but from our lived experience and culture.

Bill C-3 seeks to address this situation by providing better training for judges and making everyone aware, including legislators, of the reality of sexual assault. We must understand how a victim may react in a given situation and why the victim may not recall the events surrounding the sexual assault. This is reiterated in practically every speech.

If we want the justice system to work, we need to ensure that the courts have a firm grasp of these issues. When asked to assess the credibility of a witness, a judge must have sufficient academic and practical knowledge to deliver a judgment that is sound and, above all, that Canadians can trust.

I hope that Bill C-3 will somehow open the door to the possibility of including, in sexual assault cases, a restorative component more common in the civil courts of Quebec and the provinces. We want to enhance people's trust in the courts, and not just criminal courts. It is normal for rulings to be overturned. Every day, rulings are handed down by the courts, and every day, rulings are overturned by the court of appeal. Sometimes the decision is two against one, as the judgment is not unanimous. Those cases go to the Supreme Court, which also often quashes appeal court rulings. Those judgments are not always unanimous either.

What is more, we are hearing that Quebec wants to establish specialized courts to hear sexual assault cases. Given that judges in all kinds of courts will receive this training, they may take it upon themselves to promote such avenues of recourse. In some cases, this could be done by improving legal aid so that people who rely on legal aid can seek redress through the civil courts.

That is why this bill must be passed quickly. Training is a driver of change because it seeks to increase awareness of the situation and to ensure that real needs are taken into consideration so that the work is done properly. We hope that no one has to experience sexual assault before having empathy for victims.

This training is essential for our current justice system. For all of these reasons, and for the reasons cited by all of my colleagues over the past few hours, we will be voting in favour of Bill C-3. I want to reiterate for the fourth time that I hope it will be passed very quickly.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, other committees should already be looking into the possibility of expanding the scope of this issue to include other levels of the justice system. I would remind hon. members that the focus of Bill C-3 is training for judges. Other ongoing work will help determine how to expand the scope of this issue with respect to our justice system.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

This week, I got to see a comedy called How to Be a Good Wife. The movie made me realize that, not so long ago, women could not wear pants or dress how they liked. I am getting to the point, so please be patient. There is a connection. They were seen as creatures whose marital duty was to submit and be beholden to men. Of course, society has evolved. A woman who wears a short skirt or a low-cut top or who drinks should not be seen as a cheap piece of meat, nor should anyone interpret her attire or actions as signalling that she wants to be raped.

I have worked with women's groups, so it means a lot to me to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. Everyone seems to agree on this bill.

There are three parts to my speech. First, I will situate the bill in the context of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Then I will contextualize it from a uniquely Quebec perspective. I will conclude by explaining why I want to see it passed as soon as possible.

Bill C-337, which amends the Judges Act and the Criminal Code with regard to sexual assault, was introduced in the House of Commons on February 23, 2017, by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which, in its report on the bill, recommended amendments to three clauses and the deletion of one clause. The House of Commons passed the bill with the committee's amendments over two years ago on May 15, 2017. Bill C-337 received first reading in the Senate on May 16, 2017, and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on May 31, 2018. Unfortunately, I was not yet a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women at that time.

Bill C-337, whose short title is the Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act, has three central purposes:

First, it adds a new eligibility requirement for lawyers to qualify to become a judge of a superior court in any province, namely, that they must have completed recent and comprehensive education in sexual assault law to the satisfaction of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

Second, it requires the Canadian Judicial Council, or CJC, to submit an annual report to Parliament through the Minister of Justice on the delivery and uptake of sexual assault law seminars established by the CJC.

Third, it requires reasons for decisions in sexual assault cases to be entered in the record of the proceedings or, if the proceedings are not recorded, the reasons must be provided in writing.

Of course, improvements were made to Bill C-337, which is considered to be the forerunner of Bill C-3. However, it is important to remember what was going on in the media when the bill was proposed and what problems it was trying to address.

The legal system's handing of sexual assault cases was often in the news. When she appeared before the the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Hon. Rona Ambrose explained that she decided to introduce the bill after noting that a disturbing number of sexual assault cases had shaken the public's confidence in our justice system.

She was referring to statements made by judges in sexual assault trials or in their decisions. Some felt that these comments were based on discredited stereotypes about victims of sexual assault. In one case, the judge resigned after the CJC recommended his removal because he made comments or asked questions evidencing an antipathy toward laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality and bring integrity to sexual assault trials.

In a case from 2016, a new trial was ordered on appeal after the judge was found to have used myths about the expected behaviour of sexual assault victims to justify an acquittal. In 2017, another judge was roundly criticized for his insulting language towards a woman who was intoxicated at the time of the alleged sexual assault. “She had a pretty face”. “She should feel flattered for getting attention from an older man”. “What were you wearing?” “You should have just kept your knees together”. “He was just a kid”. “She's forgotten bits and pieces, so her testimony isn't credible”. These are the kinds of comments we have heard, but this is 2020: These comments should not be coming out of the mouths of judges during a sexual assault trial.

Senator Raynell Andreychuk, who sponsored Bill C-337 in the Senate, explained that those cases only add to factors that discourage victims from reporting sexual assault.

She pointed out that Bill C-337 seeks to prevent further court cases from being decided on the basis of stereotypes about sexual assault victims and to restore victims' confidence in the judicial process. I would like to quote from the letter sent by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2017.

Based on the testimony heard during the study of the bill, the Committee encourages the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to express to her provincial and territorial counterparts the need to make training in sexual assault law and social context more broadly available. Witnesses appearing before the Committee have highlighted the importance of training for all persons who play a role in the administration of criminal justice....

Additionally, the Committee wishes for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to strongly encourage provincial and territorial governments to make the transcripts of the proceedings of sexual assault cases for all courts under their jurisdictions available online in a searchable database....

The committee was serious about making this more transparent.

The Committee heard from Professor Elaine Craig, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at Dalhousie University, that “it's inarguable that written decisions provide a degree of transparency and public accountability that's not available with oral decisions.” The Committee requests that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada inform and advise the Committee at the earliest opportunity of the results and outcomes of these discussions with her provincial and territorial counterparts.

The excerpts I just read are from 2017. Already in 2017, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter calling on the Minister of Justice to take action. Then there was Bill C-5 and prorogation. Today, we are still here debating it.

I will now talk about Quebec.

In the meantime, an all-party group of women parliamentarians at the National Assembly are addressing the issue of violence against women. I recently asked one of those members how important the current bill is for helping women who are victims of assault and she told me that it was very important.

This is a very important bill. As I have already discussed this issue with some CALACS, I know that women hesitate to come forward because they do not wish to relive painful memories of an assault at a trial that forces them to relive these moments before a judge that lacks compassion or makes derogatory and inappropriate comments in their presence.

Let me be clear. I am not making generalizations or indicating that all judges are insensitive in sexual assault cases. Most already write very good decisions. That is not the case, and I am not making generalizations.

I believe it is high time that the bill be voted on and studied in committee especially in the context of a pandemic that has exacerbated the problem of violence against women.

During the pandemic, I had the opportunity to speak to someone from the Australian consulate about the importance of training for judges with respect to sexual assault. It is a question of dignity for the victims because it is important to have a good understanding of the sensitive issues involved in sexual assault cases. It is important to place them in their social and family contexts.

During the pandemic, I also had several conversations with a survivor from Quebec. She told me that she has received comments on her blog from women who, like her, have had difficult experiences in court. Here are some of the comments: “They cannot judge something they do not understand”. “They do not understand the victim's emotional state as a result of post-traumatic stress”. “Fragmented memory means people cannot clearly remember the order of events. Memories come back in bits and pieces. It is not deliberate. It is how the brain goes into survival mode”. “Judges need to be able to adapt to the victim's state, not vice versa”.

In many cases, these women are still in a state of shock. The courts expect them to maintain their composure, but how can they? It is not realistic to expect them to calmly testify and provide all the details. That is impossible for a victim of sexual assault.

I can only hope that, in the near future, the bill will be passed and brought into force as quickly as possible. We need to forget about partisanship and pass this bill now so we can fight the myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault, which is far too common.

There are 600,000 sexual assaults in Canada every year. On average, one in two women will be assaulted at least once in her lifetime. That rate is even higher for women with a disability, not to mention the MMIWG issue.

There are far too many assaults happening. Rape culture has no place in 2020. We must act.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the member is an admirer of my work. I encourage him to enjoy any of the debates that I have participated and that he has not heard either on ParlVu or in Hansard.

I was not here in 2017, but I am here now. I was elected in 2018 and again in 2019. Since being elected, I have participated in the protection and furtherance of this democratic institution and our democracy. Unanimous consent is not how this place was intended to operate.

The Bloc can opine about the abolition of the Senate. I am not looking to break up the country. I do not think that is the debate we are having today. Today, I am here to talk about the importance of Bill C-3. We are having a conversation about sexual assault, sexual harassment and violence against women and girls. The member opposite can yell into the wind about breaking up the country or abolishing the Senate. Conservatives are here to talk about Bill C-3 today, and I am proud to support that bill.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that my colleague likes to talk. I do too, but I also like to take action.

What goes around comes around. As my colleague mentioned, in 2017, Bill C-337, which was introduced by former Conservative member Rona Ambrose, received the unanimous consent of the House. This is practically the same wording, a carbon copy.

I respect that my colleague thinks it is important to debate Bill C-3 today, but it is also important to do something, to take action. It is useless to debate something that we already agreed on. It is a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

I would also like my colleague to explain what he thinks of the Senate, that archaic institution that is a waste of time and is very costly.

It was not the Conservatives that blocked the legislative process in 2017. It was the Conservative members who did not decide to give priority to examining this bill. That is the reason why, in 2020, we have to redebate the same issue on which there was already unanimous consent.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to continue the discussion on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

I am going to start where the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster left off. She did an excellent job on speaking to the issue. However, the questions that followed from the government were not about the importance of the discussion about sexual violence, sexual harassment or the contents of the bill. They were instead about the throne speech and why the official opposition voted against the throne speech.

It is important to note, first of all, it is not the obligation of Her Majesty's official opposition to support the government. We serve as a check in this place against the balance of power. It is also important to note that we are here today with this bill being reintroduced because the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. He put covering up corruption in his government ahead of dealing with important legislation like what we are discussing here today.

A version of this bill was first introduced in 2017 by the former Conservative leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It was called Bill C-337 and proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training. Going back to 2017, with respect to this bill, I want to start there and thank Ms. Ambrose for her leadership and for raising this important discussion. Over the past few years, she has played an important role in shining a light on this very important issue. She has been a strong voice for survivors of sexual assault. That initial bill received widespread support across party lines and from stakeholders, as does Bill C-3 today.

It is important that we discuss this bill and have that conversation. That is why I asked to speak on this bill. I am a dad. I have four children and one on the way, and two of my kids are little girls. Of course, I worry and wonder and have a lot of hope for the world they are going to grow up in.

The conversations and information around Bill C-3 and the necessity to introduce this legislation make me worried about the world my little girls live in. It makes me worried about the world my wife, my sisters and my mom grew up in, and my friends and colleagues in this House. Some of these women have lived in a world where they faced incredible challenges in dealing with experiences of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

We heard the member for Saint-Laurent talk about living in fear and growing up in fear. That is not the Canada any of us envision. That is not the Canada any of us want to live in. Making this country a better place for all Canadians, and as a dad, making it a better place for my little girls, is incredibly important to me.

It is heartening that we have cross-partisan collaboration in advancing this bill. It is important because we have an obligation, as legislators, to put these good intentions into practice and to enshrine them in law.

This bill has had support across the country before and that speaks to the ongoing need for it. In 2018, the legislature in Prince Edward Island passed a very similar piece of legislation. It was introduced by Conservative MLA Jamie Fox and he did that in consultation with Ms. Ambrose.

In the previous Parliament, Canada's Conservatives were proud to support the just act. In our election platform in 2019, we were pleased to include support for this legislation.

We need to continue to recognize and respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault, and we need to acknowledge that our justice system oftentimes fails them.

Bill C-3 would go part of the way to improve the trust that Canadians have in their judicial system, specifically victims of sexual assault. They need to feel confident, they need to feel safe when they come forward. The last place that a victim should be revictimized, the last place that a victim should feel they will not be believed, is with a judge.

We have all seen headlines about incredibly insensitive, incredibly inappropriate and, frankly, disgusting comments made by some members of the bench in dealing with victims. That word is so important, “victims”. Oftentimes, we hear qualifying language around why they are victims. It is certainly not because they chose to be, but they did take the step to come forward and to put their faith in the rule of law, in the police, in the Crown prosecutors and in the judiciary.

Certainly, the least that we could do for them is ensure that the judge hearing the case understands the basics, understands where this victim is coming from. To achieve that, there needs to be transparency in the courts. Any of the decisions that they make need to have a rationale and they need to be accountable.

This legislation would go a long way to do that. Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed as a judge of the Superior Court. It would require that individuals undertake and participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars. This would not just affect the judges who are on the bench. Anyone who wants to be a judge would need to take this training first.

Instead of just members of the bench, anyone who aspires to serve would take the training, promoting understanding and ensuring that more women feel safe, more women come forward. All judges need to be fully equipped with a profound understanding of the law that must be applied to the facts of each one of the cases that they hear.

Bill C-3 would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to gather data and submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by them.

Finally, Bill C-3 would amend the Criminal Code to require appointed judges, as I said before, to provide those written reasons, increasing transparency and accountability. We have heard from previous speakers about the prevalence of sexual assaults, particularly in women between the ages of 15 and 24, the very low reporting rate, with 83% of them not reported to police at all. The need for this training is evident.

I am proud to stand today in support of this bill. I am hopeful that legislators in this place use it as an opportunity to look at how we can put the needs of victims first, how that can be reflected in sentencing against offenders, and how we can make sure that Canada's laws serve always to protect its most vulnerable, and in this case, in particular, protecting women and girls.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am very happy that we agree that action on Bill C-3 is long overdue.

I heard her denounce the Liberals' decision to prorogue, which delayed the passage of this bill. We would not have had to wait for third reading, which was delayed by the Liberals' decision to prorogue, if the Conservatives had unanimously agreed to send this bill directly to the Senate. It would not have come to this, and the bill might already be law.

What does the member have to say about that?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

First of all, I am honoured today to rise to speak to Bill C-3. This is legislation that would ensure that sexual assault sensitivity training is required for judges who are being appointed to a superior court. While I am very encouraged to see the bill reintroduced, I must admit that I am equally disappointed that the bill has to yet again restart the legislative process.

This is the third time that the legislation has been introduced, and the latest reintroduction is due to nothing more than the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament to hide from his own ethical scandals. This needed legislation is just one of the issues that has taken a back seat and has been unprioritized due to the Prime Minister's self-interested actions.

Before I get too far ahead in my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the original author of the legislation, the hon. Rona Ambrose, who first brought forward this piece of legislation in 2017. It builds on her steadfast work to support women and girls here at home but also around the world. I thank her for not only introducing this legislation but for continuing to tirelessly advocate to see that it is passed.

All Canadians should have confidence in our public institutions, but unfortunately, the reality is that many survivors of sexual violence feel hopeless in the face of our justice system. As legislators, we have a responsibility to address that. The statistics around sexual violence in Canada are devastating. They are heartbreaking. They affirm that the bill is timely, yet at the same time, these statistics also affirm that the bill is incredibly overdue.

In Canada, one in six men will experience sexual violence in their lifetimes. For women, that number is much higher. One in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetimes, and indigenous women and girls are at a much higher risk. Of those incidents, however, only 5% are reported to police and that number should be much higher. This means that the majority of survivors of sexual violence choose not to report it to the authorities. This begs the important question of why. Why do survivors of sexual violence and sexual assault in Canada choose not to report to the police?

A study based on self-reported data from the Department of Justice revealed that two-thirds of the participants stated that they were not confident in the police, the court process or the criminal justice system in general. That is why this piece of legislation is so important.

It is certainly a positive step that in recent years conversations around sexual assault and sexual violence have come into focus, including discussions around consent and healthy relationships. Whether it is breaking myths, calling out victim blaming, reducing shame or giving victims a voice, this move towards greater understanding has the potential to empower survivors of sexual violence.

We would be naive to think that there is just one reason that survivors choose not to come forward. As legislators, we cannot ignore the overwhelming number of survivors of sexual violence who have indicated that they do not have confidence in our legal system. Through the legislation we have the ability to do better for survivors, and we should.

Survivors of crime should always be at the heart of our criminal justice system. By identifying and announcing measures to increase confidence in our courts and our legal system, we can help ensure that our criminal justice system is victim-centric, and we can take practical steps toward helping restore confidence in it. It takes courage for survivors of sexual assault to come forward, and the bill is a tangible way we can support and empower survivors to come forward.

As we know, the bill would require lawyers who are vying to be appointed as a judge in a superior court to commit to taking sexual assault law and social context training. This training will help ensure that superior court judges have the knowledge and skills that are needed to ensure survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect.

The number of cases in recent years where judges have made comments shaming and blaming the survivor of sexual violence underscores the importance of this. There were comments like, “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?” or “Clearly, a drunk can consent.” These inappropriate comments have made national headlines, and these types of ill-considered words have, no doubt, had an impact on the public's confidence in our judges to preside fairly and impartially over sexual violence cases.

Just the same, these events could deter a survivor from coming forward. As I have already stated, it takes courage to come forward, and there are many reasons why a survivor may hesitate. In going to trial, victims may be required to come face to face again with aggressors. They may be faced with retelling or reliving their experience. They could fear that their case will not result in a conviction; that in process, they might be revictimized; that their case might not be presided over in an impartial manner or on the basis of law and evidence only; or even that they might find themselves publicly blamed. The reasons could be endless. That is why it is not hard to imagine why there is a trend not to report sexual violence.

Of course, in pursuing the legislation, it is not meant to paint every judge and every lawyer with the same brush. It is not drafted with the intent to solely assign blame to the judiciary, nor is it drafted to overstep on judiciary independence. By mandating sexual assault sensitivity training, not only can we help ensure that judges presiding over sexual assault cases properly understand sexual assault law, but we can also help ensure that survivors are respected and treated fairly. We can help ensure that personal biases or societal biases do not influence judicial decision-making. We can also help ensure that judges have the training and the know-how to be more conscientious of their word choices in presiding over these cases.

By requiring judges to provide written reasons for their rulings in cases of sexual assault, the legislation would also take steps to enhance judicial accountability. I would also note that in leaving the development and provision of training and education to the Canadian Judicial Council, the bill appropriately respects the separation of powers. It is within the purview of Parliament to implement mechanisms to strengthen and encourage confidence in our public institutions.

Passing the legislation is a starting point for supporting survivors of sexual assault. Survivors should never be revictimized, no matter the crime. It is not just in superior courts that survivors of sexual assault should be interacted with using a victim-centric approach. Sexual assault survivor advocates make it clear that myths and victim-blaming attitudes exist at every step of the way, and that there are many deterrents in reporting incidents. That is why eliminating rape myths and victim-blaming attitudes should be the goal in all circumstances.

Where there is a need, we should also look at better training and accountability in other public institutions, but today we are considering measures to improve public confidence in our justice system. Given that this proposed legislation would give us the opportunity to proactively take action to support survivors of sexual assault, we should act. If it is within our jurisdiction to support them and we fail to act, then we are failing them. That is why I am very pleased that we are debating the legislation today, and that we are looking at tangible, real steps to help improve accountability and confidence in our justice system.

These discussions are very important. I hope that this debate continues to be victim-centric and that we continue to be focused on ensuring that our justice system treats survivors of sexual assault fairly. We all have a duty to ensure that victims of crime are at the heart of our criminal justice system. Because of that, we will give survivors of sexual assault greater confidence in our justice system, and that greater confidence is needed to change the status quo.

No longer can we allow the majority of sexual assault crimes to go unreported. We can do better.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity today to speak in favour of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, an incredibly important bill that could help make Canada a safer place for women and girls in all corners of the country.

I would like to begin by thanking Rona Ambrose for bringing this issue to the forefront in the first place.

This is a bill that I feel extremely passionate about because I am a woman who grew up in what could be considered a rough neighbourhood. I spent the first 28 years of my life in the Chameran neighbourhood in my riding of Saint-Laurent, where I often saw violence take place before my eyes at the park across from where I lived.

As a little girl and later as a teenager and a young woman, I always felt like I was in danger coming home alone after dark.

I took public transit, and the closest bus stop was a five-minute walk from my house. Often I would run home as fast as I could, worried that someone could hurt me at any moment.

If we lived in a world without crime against women, where women were not victimized so much, I would not have felt so anxious on a daily basis at such a young age. So many girls and I are afraid to walk alone and take public transit at night.

Perhaps the craziest part about this is that we are taught from a young age to be careful and not talk to strangers, because they may kidnap us or harm us in some way. We are taught to protect ourselves from the outside world, when we know, or at least we learn if we take the time to study sexual assault data, that in over half of sexual assault cases, the perpetrators are people the victims know. They are family members, friends, significant others, neighbours and acquaintances. When it does happen at the hands of someone we know, we have no idea how to process it or what to do.

We have a culture where people get away with sexual assaults, a rape culture, either because the victims never report these crimes to begin with or because a very small percentage of the cases that are reported result in a conviction. According to the 2014 general social survey, an annual survey that monitors changes in Canadian society and provides information on specific policy issues of current or emerging interests, only 5% of sexual assaults were reported that year. It is important to look into the reasons that victims of sexual assault choose to remain silent, because ensuring that more people come forward is the only way to change the awful statistics around reporting and convicting sexual assault crimes.

One of the main reasons people choose not to testify is a lack of trust in the criminal justice system. They think the court will not believe their story, they feel ashamed or embarrassed, or they believe that there is not enough evidence to prove what happened to them. In some cases, because the attacker may be someone close to the victim, the victim fears or even feels sympathy for the attacker. Many victims have said that getting help from the authorities was just as traumatizing as the attack.

Let's not forget that more than half of the victims who choose to testify lose their case in court. For the 2016-17 fiscal year, only 42% of court decisions in cases of sexual assault involving adults resulted in a guilty verdict.

It is a vicious cycle. At least 95% of cases are not reported, meaning that more than 95% of perpetrators of this kind of violence never receive any consequence whatsoever, and so they continue. At the same time, because such a small number of cases are reported, around 5%, and of that small number, an even smaller number receive a guilty verdict, approximately 2%, women do not feel encouraged to come forward.

Sexual assault is a gendered crime. Women are almost four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men. Statistics Canada has reported that 30% of women in Canada, compared with 8% of men, have been sexually assaulted at least once since the age of 15. That is 4.7 million women and 1.2 million men who have been victims of sexual assaults. The age group most likely to experience sexual assault is between the ages of 15 and 24 years old.

In three studies completed by Justice Canada with survivors of sexual assault, participants were asked to rate their level of confidence in the police, the court process, and the criminal justice system in general. Two-thirds stated that they were not confident in the system. Those living in the provinces were more confident in the police than those living in the territories.

We must do better. There is a serious problem when victims are afraid to report crimes committed against them, especially when the crimes have long-term effects. Victims of sexual assault can often experience physical, emotional, psychological and sexual repercussions that are different from those suffered by victims of other crimes.

Survivors should be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve, and through Bill C-3, our government commits to taking steps toward that goal. Bill C-3 is designed to strengthen training requirements for newly appointed judges and provide them with important insights into the myths and stereotypes that too often surround sexual assault. It would ensure that judges participate in broader training on social context, including social or cultural factors that may influence and affect an individual's engagement with the justice system. All relevant training would be done through the National Judicial Institute to ensure judicial independence.

In budget 2017, our government provided the Canadian Judicial Council with $2.7 million over five years, and half a million dollars per year thereafter, to ensure that more judges have access to professional development, with a greater focus on gender and cultural sensitivity training. Budget 2018 provided funding for a number of targeted investments to help eliminate gender-based violence and harassment while promoting security of the person and access to justice. This included $25.4 million over five years to boost legal aid funding across the country, with a focus on supporting victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

These changes are aimed at enhancing the equality, privacy and security of the person rights of complainants by countering the myths and stereotypes that have persisted in our criminal justice system, while also balancing the rights of the accused, consistent with relevant Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. These myths include deeply rooted beliefs about how “real victims” react to sexual assault and myths about the reliability of women's testimony when they make sexual assault complaints.

In June 2017, the government launched its action plan to address gender-based violence, entitled “It’s Time: Canada’s Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”.

This co-ordinated multi-sector strategy is based on three pillars, namely prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promotion of responsive legal and justice systems. The government has invested substantial amounts to support the implementation of this whole-of-government initiative to address gender-based violence, co-ordinate existing programs and lay the foundation for greater action.

All this is to say that our government aims to end gender-based violence and has consistently worked toward this end. I strongly encourage all members in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-3, as it helps give a voice to survivors of sexual assault and harassment and helps us make the world a better place for Canadians.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent.

Today I speak in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

This bill has had the support of the House on two previous occasions, but despite all-party support has not yet become law. Listening to debate last Friday, it was obvious the bill continues to serve as an example of ongoing parliamentary collaboration and one which we should all take pride.

I want to start by recognizing and thanking the Hon. Rona Ambrose for her initiative on this critical issue. Her bill was the first legislation to be studied at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The collaborative work we did at committee made the bill stronger, and I am happy to see that the government has incorporated amendments from that study into this bill.

At the time Ms. Ambrose introduced her private member’s bill, several high-profile rulings had shown Canadians some judges did not understand sexual assault law and were relying on myths and stereotypes when issuing their rulings.

Members of the House will recall when former Alberta Federal Court Justice Robin Camp asked a sexual assault complainant why she could not “keep [her] knees together” during her alleged rape. Because of his comments, the Canadian Judicial Council launched a review into Justice Camp’s conduct and concluded that he “acted in a manner that seriously undermined public confidence in the judiciary.” Following the review, Justice Camp resigned.

Ultimately, Bill C-3 is about assuring Canadians that judges who are elevated to federally appointed positions have a desire to understand the myths and stereotypes that have been present in Canadian society for far too long. The federal government should appoint judges who acknowledge that learning is a lifelong process and value continuing education. This is a bill created to ensure that no other sexual assault complainant will be subject to condescending, humiliating and disrespectful conduct from a federally appointed judge.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require that a candidate seeking appointment to a federally appointed judicial position attest to participating in training related to sexual assault law and its social context. The bill would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure this training is developed after consultation with those knowledgeable in the field or other individuals or groups it considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivor organizations.

These amendments are designed to ensure that newly appointed superior court judges are fully apprised of the law in relation to sexual assault and on social context. Moreover, the bill is possible because of the already outstanding work the National Judicial Institute, the body responsible for creating judicial education in our country, has done, with help through federal investment, in developing comprehensive continuing education for judges on sexual assault law and its social context.

Finally, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to require that judges provide written reasons or enter them into the record of the proceeding for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

I have talked about the social context of sexual assault, and I would like to provide a clearer definition of social context.

Quite simply, social context means the immediate social or physical environment in which one lives affects how one sees the world. The experience of an affluent woman who has survived sexual violence will be different than the experience of a woman who is homeless. The experience of a white trans-woman will be different than the experience of a cisgender indigenous woman. The experience of a gay man from Toronto will be different than the experience of a straight woman living with a disability in Amherst, Nova Scotia. The experience of a judge trained in myths and stereotypes about sexual assault will be different than a judge who has never received such training.

Importantly, in the context of the debate on the bill, social context affects how different people view the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system views them. This is why it is my hope that at committee the bill can be expanded to clearly articulate the need for training, not just on sexual assault law and social context but on the need for training on anti-racism.

This summer, our country came to understand that systemic racism existed in all our institutions. In 2017, at the beginning of the #MeToo Movement, our country came to understand that systemic sexism existed within all our institutions as well.

Jennifer Koshan, professor of law at the University of Calgary, made clear in her testimony at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that “not only does the law change, but social context can change”. This is why requiring that a candidate seeking appointment to a federally appointed judicial position attest to participating in training related to sexual assault law and its social context is so important.

Bill C-3 addresses a long-standing problem: the influence of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault law. As hard as it is today to imagine, prior to the reforms that began in 1983, a husband could not be convicted of sexually assaulting his wife. Sexual assault convictions required testimony from someone other than the victim. Victims had to raise a hue and cry before the assault and report it shortly afterward or they would not be believed. Victims' sexual reputation and prior sexual activity could be used to attack their credibility.

Reforms were enacted to address these and other evidentiary rules through the 1980s and 1990s. For instance, in response to concerns from survivors and women's organizations, amendments commonly referred to as the ”rape shield” provisions, which govern the admissibility of the complainant's prior sexual activity, were first introduced in 1983 and then amended in 1992. These provisions are designed to protect survivors from the introduction of evidence of their sexual history, which had been used to infer that they were more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in question or were less worthy of belief. The provisions also place restrictions on the use of sexual history evidence for other purposes unless specific criteria are met.

Also in 1992, a clear definition of “consent” in the context of sexual activity was introduced in the Criminal Code and limitations on the accused’s ability to raise a defence of mistaken belief in consent were enacted. The Supreme Court of Canada has provided guidance on the application of the sexual assault provisions, making it clear that consent must be affirmatively expressed through words or conduct and cannot be implied by submission, passivity or a failure to protest.

However, despite the robust legislation in place and the clear rulings from the highest court, myths and stereotypes about sexual assault survivors still creep into the courtroom and into judicial decisions. Identifying solutions to these ongoing challenges has been a priority for our government and, indeed, a matter of ongoing concern in Canada.

Our government introduced Bill C-51 in 2018. With its passage, the changes clarified a number of principles that were already covered in the law, notably, that an unconscious person cannot consent to sexual activity; an accused cannot rely on a mistaken belief in consent where that belief is based on a mistake in law, such as consent obtained through force; sexual history evidence must never be used to infer consent; and, finally, the admissibility of evidence of a victim’s private communications made for a sexual purpose must be determined through the rape shield provisions.

In addition, Bill C-51 provided that victims could make submissions and be represented by counsel in sexual history evidence or rape shield proceedings and that the admissibility of victims’ private records that were in the hands of the accused be determined through a process similar to that of the rape shield and third party records proceedings.

Our government has also modernized the judicial appointment process to bring greater diversity to the bench. During testimony in 2017 at the status of women committee, Professor Carissima Mathen said, “That's been a somewhat unheralded earthquake in the world of judicial appointments.... The innovations that have been done around judicial appointments...have been quite remarkable.”

Canada’s—

The House resumed from October 2 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.

Justice

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Don Valley East for her commitment to advancing women's rights. Our government is committed to addressing all issues of violence against women, including sexual violence. Bill C-3 will help ensure that newly appointed judges participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context, all while respecting the principle of judicial independence. Through this bill we will help enhance the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the Canadian public more broadly in our criminal justice system. I look forward to working with all members of the House to get this bill through quickly.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, supporting women's rights is key to creating a better and more prosperous Canada for all Canadians. Sexual assault is a crime that more often affects women, and it is known that women are almost four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than men.

Could the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada please advise the House how Bill C-3 will ensure that sexual assault victims will have greater confidence in the criminal justice system?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[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, the member made reference to the fact that there was a different expectation after the last federal election and I concur. Canadians do have a very different expectation and the government has risen to that, which is to work more with opposition parties. In fact, anything and everything that passes through the House now requires that support and we continuously reach out for it. Even the throne speech will have the support of at least one other political party in the House, otherwise it would not pass. It is the same thing with legislation. Canadians also sent a message to the Conservative Party, one of co-operation. What we have witnessed over the last couple of months from the opposition party is anything but co-operation. Those members seem to want a dysfunctional House of Commons.

Last Friday, we debated Bill C-3, the Judges Act. The Conservative Party is completely in support of it. Their former leader Rona Ambrose wanted that bill. At one point, the Conservatives wanted unanimous consent, yet they continued to talk out the bill to prevent it from passing.

Why is that the case? Why this destructive force in the House of Commons?

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation. I again say meegwetch for their enormous hospitality and patience.

We are debating today a very important bill that has been before us previously. It was before us with its previous title as a private members' bill, Bill C-337, in the previous Parliament. Of course, that bill died on the Order Paper, but not for lack of support in this place. It was in the other place that it got bogged down for three years. The author of this private members' bill, whose name I can say because she is no longer in Parliament, was Rona Ambrose. She played many distinguished roles in the cabinet of the previous Conservative government and, ultimately, when she brought this bill forward, was interim leader of the Conservative Party.

I think it was Rona herself who said that the problem in the other place was a bunch of old white boys. That is kind of the problem with the people on the bench, too. We have a significant problem in that the cultural demographic most likely to sit in judgment in sexual assault cases is exactly the demographic least likely to understand the issues. One must never slur old white men, I sometimes say with tongue in cheek, but I just married one, so I really have nothing against old white men. I love one in particular a tremendous amount. However, he would be the first to say that in his generation, that group has privilege that comes from three things: being male, being white and being presumed to be somebody really special.

Most judges are fantastic human beings. I just mentioned my husband, John Kidder. His grandfather was the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, so he certainly would not have said anything other than wonderful things about his own grandfather. However, I used to practise law, and when taking a case to court, I had to hope I would get a good judge.

I had a really awful judge once. I was not even called to the bar yet when I went to court as both plaintiff and lawyer with a group of Cape Bretoners trying to stop the aerial spraying of Agent Orange on all of us. This was in 1982. The government of the day had approved aerial spraying of Agent Orange over Nova Scotians. We managed to fight it enough that they changed it to spraying from the ground, and then we went to court. It was a class action. My family lost all of its land in a bill of costs to Scott Paper.

It was a very ugly case, a one-year-long trial from beginning to end. For the actual court case, we were before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for a full month making the case that Agent Orange had caused damage, birth defects and cancer in Vietnam and had been found in groundwater. It was a long, complicated case. The judge we had, in his first big case, ruled that Agent Orange was safe and that we were actually bad people for bothering the Nova Scotia government with our complaints.

I mention this because the very next big case this judge got was a sexual assault case. Once again his words made headlines. He did find the assailant guilty of sexual assault, but the penalty was basically a slap on the wrist because, as he said from the bench, it was not a particularly violent rape. The assailant, found guilty of rape, was not really punishable because he had not used a lot of violence.

I searched for the name of this case. We know the name of the judge; he has been referenced frequently in debate today. He said to the victim, “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?” and suggested the victim's attempts to fight off her assailant had been feeble. The judge chose not to believe the victim and the assailant was initially acquitted. That case was in 2016. Our ability to find things through search engines is pretty good for recent history, so we know it was Justice Robin Camp. It was a Calgary case. I do not think it is a stretch to say that this led quite directly to the hon. Rona Ambrose bringing forward, as a private members' bill, that judges needed training.

The case I referenced was not a particularly violent rape. If I could get to a law library I know I would find it, because it is in the Nova Scotia reported cases from around 1984. When I did a search, I discovered that the judge had passed in May of this year, and there were nothing but laudatory obituaries for the sterling character of the judge who found that Agent Orange was safe and that the victim in this matter did not really deserve justice because the rape had not been sufficiently violent. I will not mention his name out of respect for the dead.

There are judges out there who need more than training, and we need this piece of legislation to pass. We know that there is more at stake here to get justice for women who experience sexual violence. We know that critical recommendation after critical recommendation in the Inquiry on Missing and Murderer Indigenous Women and Girls has not yet had any official government response. That report says specifically that when an indigenous woman has been the victim of sexual violence, she must have access to culturally appropriate and sensitive physical help and psychological support. She must have help with retaining evidence, as well as help from a health professional who is indigenous herself, who can assist a victim and get justice and get through the next stage: what do police do.

Moments ago, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality made the case that quite often it is the police who say they do not find sufficient evidence, so there is the notion of a pile of unfounded cases. We know that very few women who are sexually assaulted actually report the assault. Within that group a great number of people are not believed, and the cases pile up in the unfounded category. When a case finally gets to court, we need to know the judge understands enough about sexual assault to not believe something silly like if they had been a victim of rape they would not have been silent about it for so long. Really, what do the judges know about it? They need education.

This bill is urgently needed. There is widespread support. As mentioned, it passed in this place very quickly when it was first brought forward in 2017. Then it got stuck in the other place and died on the Order Paper prorogation. I commend the government for bringing it back as a government bill. Obviously it will be passed much more quickly as a government bill than if we were to wait to see who would bring it forward as a Private Member's Bill.

I also appreciate the changes that were made to expand the notion of education for judges from questions of sexual assault law to include something which, in Bill C-3, is referred to as the social context. I know that many members of this place would like to see social context further amended to make it clear that we are talking about things like systemic racism, intersectionality, poverty, assumptions that are made about sex trade workers, assumptions that are made about the marginalized, and assumptions that are inherently discriminatory toward women.

In looking at the social context piece, I know there will be some desire to amend the bill to bring it into a fuller understanding so that we could actually use this legislation to deal with issues with which we are now far more seized: questions of, for example, systemic racism in police forces and systemic racism on the benches of our courts. We can maybe deal with more issues with amendments.

To make sure I do not run out of time, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a proposed motion that I hope will be acceptable to all members in this place. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to speed up this bill to help us get it to committee faster and skip the second reading stage.

It would read: “That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Government Orders today, or when no member rises in debate, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall forthwith put successfully all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, provided that if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred until Monday, October 5, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.”

I hope this motion is in its proper form. The clerks have it. I apologize to the other side of the House because normally I would run around and speak to each member personally. I relied on getting it to members electronically.

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I hope you will find unanimous consent to move Bill C-3 immediately to committee and skip second reading stage, with the possibility for a vote on Monday should other parties require it.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, my presentation comes with a story, which comes with a trigger warning.

The keg party was a 10-minute walk from Ava's new home at Delaware Hall residence, just north of Western University's soaring stone gates. It was the Friday after Thanksgiving, and word had it the organizers had already sold more than 200 tickets. She had been looking forward to it all week, her first big bash as a university student. Ava left the dorm with her friends around 10:15 p.m., already feeling a bit tipsy from the drinks they had while getting ready. She did not care much for the taste of beer, so the 18-year-old brought her own drink in a large plastic bottle that had a straw affixed to the lid: 10 shots of vodka mixed with diet lemonade.

Like many of the neighbouring properties, the vast, nearly century-old home had been converted into student housing. The party washed over every floor and spilled onto the lawn, which was littered with red plastic cups. Someone handed Ava a beer, which she accepted, but then quietly set aside, preferring to sip what she had brought. She and her friends watched drinking games, flip cup and beer pong.

As the night went on, things became more and more fuzzy. Ava remembers being outside with her friends and then leaving to find the washroom inside, with her nearly empty drink in hand. She stumbled off alone. Somewhere along the line, she is not sure when, she found herself talking to a guy from the party. He looked to be a few years older than her, with dark messy hair and a slim build. She remembers they were outside and kissing, and then she blacked out.

When things came back into focus, Ava says she was on the ground near a pine tree at the north side of the house. She was naked and cold and lying in the dirt. The man was inside her. “You're hurting me, stop”, she remembers telling him. She had only had sex once before. “I don't want to hurt you, baby”, he said, but he did not stop. Ava struggled to concentrate and stay conscious. “No, stop”, she said again and again, and he ignored her. Terror shot through Ava's body. In that moment, she realized the man had not simply misunderstood her. He was not playing around; he was raping her. No one could hear her call for help. She had no idea what to do. She wondered if he would kill her when it was over. She stopped fighting and went still.

Suddenly, there was a flash. Ava looked over and saw four or five men pointing cellphone cameras in her direction. She became frantic. The man on top of her ran away. He left his wallet behind, police later told Ava. She was left naked and curled on the ground, her back and hair covered in dirt. Two women who heard Ava sobbing found her shortly after.

It was October 16, 2010, more than five years before an eerily similar attack at Stanford University would make international headlines. Ava's story, however, never made the news. Her case did not go to court. Her assailant was never arrested, never charged. In fact, the London Police Service detective concluded that what happened to Ava that night was not a crime.

There are many ways to shut a case without laying a charge. If there is not enough evidence, there is a closure code for that. If a complainant does not want to proceed with charges, there is a code for that, too. On November 13, 2010, the detective closed Ava's file as “unfounded”, another formal police classification that rendered her allegations baseless. It meant that a crime neither was attempted nor occurred. It did not immediately brand Ava a liar, necessarily, but it meant she was not raped. According to police records, the suspect was given a warning.

“What does unfounded mean to you? What does unfounded mean to anybody? It means ‘You’re lying,’” says Ottawa criminologist Holly Johnson, who has extensively studied that city’s unfounded cases. She believes that high rates send a message that police don’t believe large numbers of complainants, “which reinforces damaging myths that women lie about sexual victimization, and could act as a deterrent to already low reporting.”

Until a few years ago, unfounded statistics were kept secret, but that was not always the case:

Until 2003, Statistics Canada released unfounded numbers. The last year for which numbers are available is 2002, when the national unfounded rate for sexual offences was 16 per cent. The agency collects data through the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, a national set of [data] standards that every police service is supposed to follow. The definition of unfounded, along with all other clearance codes, is laid out explicitly in the UCRS protocols.

But after Statistics Canada raised concerns that police services weren’t using the category consistently—for instance, misclassifying as unfounded cases that simply did not have enough evidence to lay a charge; or, more seriously, not recording unfounded cases at all—Statistics Canada decided to stop collecting the data altogether, rather than force police to follow the rules.

That was an excerpt from Robyn Doolittle's series in The Globe and Mail back in February 2017. We were all in the House of Commons in another building when that report came out. It was a big moment. It caused a ripple of positive changes for survivors of gender-based violence across the country.

My hon. colleague, the incredible Ralph Goodale, who was our minister of public safety at the time, worked with police services and brought back the coverage and the statistics being collected on unfounded cases. There continues to be work across the country within police services to continue to improve the process for victims and survivors.

I share this story now because I have 20 minutes, but also because I want to make sure. We have had this debate over and over again in the House, as my colleagues have said. Advocates and survivors have been fighting and saying stories like this are real for decades upon decades. I wanted to share the story because I wanted to make sure that survivors are at the centre of the conversations we have about Bill C-3. I also wanted to make sure that, for all the work that remains on the issues around sexual and gender-based violence and violence against women and girls, we remember survivors first and foremost and the courage it takes to step up and even report a case, let alone tell their stories so that others can learn from them and make a change.

I also want to acknowledge the important role that every sector plays and the important role that journalism, like Robyn Doolittle's piece, plays in moving us all forward.

Now let us go back to Ava. Let us say that Ava was believed to be telling the truth. Let us say that Ava did go to court. How should she be treated after having endured what she experienced? “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” or “sex and pain sometimes go together”.

What if she had been killed and happened to be indigenous, as Cindy Gladue was, a Métis and Cree woman from Edmonton? The jury in that case repeatedly heard Gladue referred to as a “prostitute” and as a “native” in the courtroom. The trial ended in an acquittal, but the Supreme Court ruled in May 2019 that the man accused of killing her should be retried for manslaughter, but not first-degree murder. In its ruling, the high court said there was evidence that Ms. Gladue's sexual history was mishandled and that trial judges should caution juries against relying on prejudices against indigenous women and girls.

I join members today from my house, not that House, in Peterborough—Kawartha on traditional Williams Treaties land. It is the only place I have ever been able to feel safe and that I belong. I share this with members because, despite not being physically in the House, I have been able to listen to the debate and thoughtful conversations by hon. colleagues from across party lines on this bill.

As the Minister for Women in the post #MeToo era and the post #BeenRapedNeverReported era and during the mourning by all of us at the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I acknowledge that what we are talking about in the House and the way my hon. colleagues are talking about this very important issue is a big moment for victims, survivors and the feminist movement, who have been fighting hard, sometimes with no outcome. For decision-makers like us to take issues such as this as seriously as we are, the fact that we are having this conversation in the way we are with the tone we have, is healing for survivors. I want to thank my colleagues for that.

Somebody asked earlier why now, why do we have to move so quickly? We owe it to those survivors for their courage. We owe it to those who fought hard and brought us to this moment in time so we can enhance their confidence in our judicial system, our legal system and our democratic systems.

As my hon. colleague said earlier, only about 5% of sexual assault cases are reported in the first place, and if they do not lead to a conviction a majority of the time, if they re-traumatize survivors or embolden and continue a culture of impunity, we have a problem. That is the problem we are working to solve together, and it is just one small but meaningful step for survivors like Ava, who share their stories in hopes of being believed, heard and listened to and prevent that kind of suffering from happening to someone else.

I am not going to go into the details of Bill C-3 because, first of all, we have heard debate on this again and again, and second, because my colleagues are well versed on this issue and have access to information. There is an opportunity for us, while this debate is under way, to dig a little deeper into the root causes of gender-based violence, the culture of impunity, the so-called rape culture and the generational trauma that is carried forward.

The hon. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is a colleague, of course, but she is also a mentor. I also think she is a flaming feminist, and I am so proud of her for that. She says that hurt people hurt people, not always, but they are more likely to. The survivors we are talking about are not just 18 years and older like Ava. Something like this happens every day in our communities. No culture and no region are immune, and in my own community, just a few weeks ago, a 61-year-old woman was sexually assaulted along one of our trails.

This is an issue that goes deep. One of the root causes is childhood trauma. Indeed, there are 11-year-old girls being raped, trafficked and harmed in our communities, and the conversation we are having is really just the tip of the iceberg. This particular bill is about a trauma-informed, culturally sensitive series of training modules to support the professional development of judges. As my colleague said, judges have a big job, and they are competent. As the law and the world evolve, we will all benefit from the additional training.

I have incredible respect for and confidence in our justice system here in Canada. It is among the best in the world and has come a very long way.

This December, we are going to be marking 50 years since the groundbreaking report by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, which was tabled to someone just like you, Mr. Speaker, in a House kind of like the one we are in right now. That report came up with 167 recommendations. We have come a long way since, and our justice system has come a long way since.

Fifty-plus years ago, a woman could not apply for a mortgage loan without her husband's signature. Fifty years ago, it was legal for a man to rape a woman if she happened to be his wife. Fifty-some years ago, if police were called to a case of domestic violence in a home, they would have to leave, because it was considered a matter between man and wife. Not too long ago, it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion. Not too long ago, it was illegal for same-sex couples to be married. We have come a long way and the law has evolved.

The story of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a story of how people can move the institutions that provide healing and justice for victims, survivors, and society forward. It has been over 50 years, and we have clarified the definition of “consent” in the law. There is a reverse onus around bail. Advocacy rights for feminist organizations have been restored. We apply an intersectional, gendered lens to all of our budgets and decisions as a federal government.

This step that we are taking is a small but significant step. I want to thank everybody who has worked hard and tenaciously to bring this bill back to this place again and again, including the Honourable Rona Ambrose. This is a multipartisan issue, and it is part of the third pillar of our federal strategy to address and prevent gender-based violence.

It is Women's History Month. Our experts, survivors and those who have come before us have told us first and foremost to put survivors and their families at the centre of our work, including those who, because of their indigenous identities and experiences, are disproportionally affected by violence. We were told to put survivors and their families first, and we listened. We were told by survivors themselves that prevention is the thing they are hoping for to prevent their pain from happening to someone else. Then we were told, and put into action with our $200 million-plus strategy, that responsive legal and justice systems are key to that healing and key to addressing that culture of impunity and rape culture. We listened, and there is so much more work to be done. However, the fact we are having this conversation in the House and the tone we are having it with is a big deal.

We have already invested about $50 million in emergency COVID response funds to support organizations across the country that are supporting survivors and their families. There are over 1,000 of them getting money to ensure that they are staying safe and open for women, children and LGBTQ2 Canadians in their hour of need. The Prime Minister, just a couple of hours ago, announced an additional $50 million to support these incredible, hard-working, essential workers on the front-lines of gender-based violence support, including $10 million for women's shelters and sexual assault centres to help them continue to provide their critical services safely, $10 million for organizations that are broadly working to address and prevent gender-based violence to indigenous peoples off reserve, and $30 million for other women's organizations that are working to deliver GBV support to help combat the spread of COVID and address the increased demand for services. This brings the total emergency funding provided to gender-based violence organizations to $100 million.

I want to thank all of our partners, including the Canadian Women's Foundation and Women's Shelters Canada for helping us move this forward.

If I had time, I would talk about rape culture, but I do not, and so I will wrap up here.

I am happy to answer any questions from my colleagues. I hope that in our deliberations we also reflect on why it has taken this long to pass a bill that seems like common sense to all of us.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-3, to give the position of the NDP in my role as the deputy justice critic.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois for their interventions. The nature and tone of today's debate on the bill and the sensitive subject matter it deals with shows how well this Parliament can work and the seriousness with which we can treat these particularly sensitive subjects.

It is a little strange to be back at second reading on the bill before us. As members know, it is the reincarnation of a previous bill, Bill C-5, which was debated in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Of course that bill was passed in one day and made its way to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we did have two days of witness testimony. It feels like we are reversing things and going back in time, but it is good that the bill is being brought forward in short order by the Minister of Justice. I have to thank him for placing it on the priority list. Hopefully, we can see the second reading debate stage not take up too much time so we can get back to that all-important committee work.

When the previous bill was debated on February 19, we heard much of the same comments as has been evident in the debate today. I hope that after maybe a few more interventions, depending on how many other members can speak, we can find some kind of unanimous consent to not go to a recorded division but pass the bill on a voice vote, as was done on February 19 of this year, so the justice committee can get back to its work.

I want to also acknowledge the incredibly important role that judges have in our society. I do not think the jobs they do get enough credit because of the gravity of their decisions. Indeed, judges have an incredibly important job. They not only have to be well versed in the facts of law, but they have to interpret that law and apply it to the facts of the case before them, knowing full well that their decisions are going to have profound consequences either for the accused or for the person who brought forward the complaint. It is something that we should not take lightly and it is a position that deserves our utmost respect.

I want to acknowledge the role of the former interim Conservative Party leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who brought forward the original version of the bill back in the 42nd Parliament through her private member's bill, Bill C-337. At that time, she recognized how important the bill was. In that 42nd Parliament, it was good to see that unanimous consent was given to send the bill to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which did some very important work as well.

We have the bill before us because there is a wide body of evidence of a lack of trust in the justice system, particularly by people whose experiences have been marginalized and so on. We are very much supportive of the intent behind Bill C-3. We do indeed want to see it get to committee, because it is at committee where that all-important witness testimony will highlight why the specific sections of the bill are necessary. I know there is debate at committee as to whether the bill in its present form is properly worded, but that is something for a later stage.

However, it is important at this second reading stage of the debate to acknowledge that complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports, inadequate information about court processes and they are often confronted by a system that ignores their wishes. We should acknowledge that Bill C-3 will not solve those problems by itself. The bill is very narrow in its scope. It looks at the training that judges receive.

It is really important that in the context of the debate of the bill, we as parliamentarians take every opportunity we can to apply pressure to the government, to remind the government, that there is still much work to be done to ensure our justice system fully lives up to the expectations of everyone who has to use it. The fact that so many women, so many persons of colour, Black or indigenous members of those communities, have their experiences marginalized by the justice system and do not have the kind of confidence that others do. That is a real shortcoming and that has to be identified and fixed with appropriate funding and resources to ensure people have that confidence. In other words, a systemic review is needed to ensure we have a system that lives up to those needs.

There are other actors. It goes beyond just judges. We have seen problems before with our police services. We have seen problems with how lawyers behave in the courtroom. Therefore, many different actors could also benefit from this type of training.

To highlight these points, it is helpful at this stage of the debate to really illuminate some of the statistics out there. It is estimated that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police or that one in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. In 82% of these sexual assaults, the offender is known to the victim, and 28% of Canadians have said that they have experienced workplace sexual assault or violence.

We know, in breaking down the statistics further, that transgender people are far more likely to experience intimate partner violence. Women who are living with physical or cognitive impairments are two to three times more likely to experience sexual violence. Indigenous women are far more likely to experience this sexual violence, and of course senior women. The statistics are there. They are not a secret. They have been well known for decades now. The fact that we are in 2020 still speaking about the need for this training is rightly construed as a source of national shame, but also an important focal point and an impetus for us as parliamentarians to redouble our efforts to ensure we are building that system.

I remember from the previous debates in the first session on Bill C-5 that my Conservative colleagues had raised concerns at that time about some of the actions of the Parole Board of Canada. We know full well also that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has also had problems. Those judicial bodies, because they do fall under federal jurisdiction, the members of those particular boards could probably also benefit from this mandated training. I urge the government and the Minister of Justice to possibly look at ways we can expand this type of mandatory training to the appointees who sit on those boards.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, the previous version of this bill in the 42nd Parliament was Ms. Ambrose's Bill C-337 and that bill was referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in March 2017. During that time, the Status of Women committee had five meetings on the bill. It had 25 witnesses come before the committee and the bill was reported back to the House with some amendments. One of the big things to emerge from the committee study of that bill was to try to find a definition and exploration of the term “social context”.

Social context in the meaning of this bill will require that judges take into the account the context of the cases they hear and not be, and this is really important, influenced by attitudes based on the stereotypes, myths or prejudice that exist in our society.

Many of those same witnesses who before the Status of Women committee in 2017 also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had two meetings on March 10 and March 12, right before COVID-19 shut everything down for us. Those groups of witnesses in those two meetings included the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute. The testimony we heard mirrored a lot of what was heard back in 2017.

When this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, I hope it will take into account that previous testimony and perhaps pass a motion to accept it as part of the study on the bill so we do not have to go over old steps. However, there will be some debate on the particular wording of the bill, which I will go into a bit later in my remarks.

When we look at the substance of the bill, it seeks to ensure that judicial candidates have a full and current understanding of sexual assault laws, that they know the principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, that they are educated on the myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants and that it will all be done through training seminars. This is needed because we have seen through the actions of various judges that this training is sorely needed.

With respect to what the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute have said, this type of training is already happening. However, because we have this evidence of judges making inappropriate statements at trial, of following outdated myths and stereotypes, these have profound impacts on the victims of sexual assault and further erode the general trust in our judicial system.

When Bill C-337 was sent to the Senate, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee made some amendments to it. I understand the government's version of the bill we have before us today is a lot more in line with the Senate's version of the bill because of the constitutional concerns in place.

A big focal point of the bill will be the struggle between the role of Parliament and our judiciary. I understand that it is extremely important that our judges remain free of any type of political influence. As parliamentarians, we have a role to introduce legislation that falls within the social context we operate within. Therefore, our bills are often the product of the demands of society, of the members of the public who we serve.

When it comes to specific federal statutes like the Judges Act, there is a careful and considered role for Parliament in mandating the types of training we expect our judges to have. We escape any constitutional conundrums, because once the judges have taken that training, that is where Parliament's role ends and it is where it should end. We do not want to have any type of influence over how the judge uses that training. We simply want to know that the judge has taken the training and understands the full scope of sexual assault laws and outdated myths and stereotypes so we can build up the confidence that is sorely needed.

These comments have been argued in the public sphere. I know concerns have been echoed by Michael Spratt, who is no stranger to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and has often written quite lengthily on the subject, and I appreciate his views. His concerns with respect to this legislation absolutely need to be taken into account.

We have also seen a commentary from Emmett Macfarlane, who is a constitutional law professor at the University of Waterloo. He believes Parliament has a legitimate role to step in and mandate that there are substantive qualifications for the judges of our land as well as, through legislation, mandate the type of training we want to see.

The government has provided a charter statement that addresses some of the concerns that fall under this, particularly section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so on. I think that is a good guideline for parliamentarians to use as a road map when we continue our deliberations at the justice committee. However, I do not think there is going to be any kind of disagreement that this bill is needed, especially from parliamentarians. What I am seeing already is that there is, in fact, going to be unanimous consent that this bill is worthy and that it warrants being sent to committee. If the actions of the 42nd Parliament are any guide to this one, I suspect that we may hopefully see this bill clear both Houses of Parliament and be sent to the Governor General for royal assent.

In the few minutes I have remaining, I think it is also important to talk about some of the other problematic areas that we have in our justice system. For this particular section, I want to reference the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly call to action number 27, which called upon the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to:

...ensure that lawyers receive appropriate cultural competency training, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

I acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of Bill C-3, and we certainly might run into problems in an attempt to fit that kind of training into a future bill, but I think the concerns that indigenous people in Canada have with the justice system, and concerns that Black Canadians and people of colour have with the systemic racism that is in existence, must remain top of mind, even if it is not possible for us to bring forward a legislative fix to them. I know they were referenced in the Speech from the Throne. I also want to thank all members of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, which put forward that statement as a road map for the action we need to take. I think those concerns are entirely appropriate to highlight during our debate on this bill, because it is following through in the same vein of people whose experiences have been marginalized through the justice system.

In conclusion, I would like to say that myths and stereotypes continue to have extremely negative impacts on people. It is extremely important that we as parliamentarians listen to the voices of people who have been marginalized by the justice system. Women's and LGBTQ organizations specifically must be consulted in developing the continuing education program on issues of sexual assault and social context. The Liberal government accepted all the findings in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the report noted that apathy from police services is indicative of ongoing colonial violence, racism and sexism, revictimizing indigenous women, girls and two-spirit peoples, so that must be paid attention to. As well, we must understand that sexual assault and gender-based violence disproportionately impacts women, minorities, poor people, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ+ communities, sex workers and other marginalized communities.

I will conclude there. I appreciate having this opportunity to give my thoughts on Bill C-3, and I look forward to my colleagues helping to pass this bill in short order and sending it to committee.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, I do not think that Bill C-3 will solve all the problems.

However, the fact that the training will be offered to all superior court judges could, in some way, help restore the confidence of victims in the justice system and, as I was saying, that may open the door to more avenues of recourse. There can never be enough good recourse options to help victims of sexual assault so this is a step in the right direction.

However, I have no problem saying that this is not enough. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I think that this is an excellent start. If we look at this bill from that perspective and remember that it opens the door to civil courts, it would be a mistake not to move forward with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague from Saint-Jean is bringing the conversation around to the topic of civil courts. I think that is important.

I would like her to comment on one aspect of the bill. In committee, we heard judges say that we needed to be careful. They also told us that it was a good idea to improve training for judges, but we must not undermine the authority of the courts or judicial independence, because that is the most sacred aspect of our judicial system. Parliament must not dictate a response to the courts. I think this is a sensitive issue. The committee will have to be very cautious on this.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this aspect of Bill C-3.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to start my opening speech by using my time to say that I am pleased to be back in the House. I was going to tell the Speaker that I am pleased to see him again, but I have had the privilege of meeting the current chair occupant outside the House on other occasions. Therefore, I will save my greetings to the Speaker for another time.

I would like to talk about the Judges Act, which is being amended by Bill C-3. The part on amending the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for their decisions is particularly interesting and important because that is something we want in all decisions made by the courts in general. I find this to be an interesting addition to the Criminal Code, but I do not intend to dwell on this particular aspect of the bill.

It would be untrue to say that judges would be forced to undergo training or that they would not want to do it. Judges have access to all kinds of training, and they often seek out training in areas that are not necessarily connected to the types of cases they normally hear. One of my colleagues in the Quebec bar gives on-demand training to a number of judges on health law and forced hospitalizations. Often, the judges who attend this training have never dealt with those types of cases.

From what I understand, the interest is there. The judiciary is eager to look at expanding training. The advantage of requiring this type of training is that better training resources will become available. The training will be standardized across the judiciary, to ensure that it is appropriate, and it will be given by qualified trainers.

Since this training is being developed, perhaps it could be made available to a larger audience. Lawyers in particular may also want to attend these seminars, these training courses, and educate themselves. One thing will lead to another and that is how we will ensure that the training leads to a better understanding of the reality of victims of sexual assault.

As a civil rights lawyer, I want to talk about this bill from another point of view. As was already mentioned, we have already talked quite a bit about this issue, since this bill has come before the House in different forms several times before. I want to talk about it more from a civil law perspective. We have never talked about how the training will not just be given to judges who hear sexual assault cases. It will be mandatory for everyone who wants to work in the superior courts of Quebec and the provinces. Take, for example, family law judges. They, too, will be required to take this training. I find that especially interesting.

According to the statistics, many women are victims of sexual assault in their lives and often they know their assailant. That means that sexual assault may come up in the background of a case even when it is not the main issue.

This is something that comes up again and again in family law, an area that I myself practised in. For instance, custody rulings get handed down in domestic violence cases, where we know that one parent was sexually assaulted by the other.

Providing judges with adequate training on matters related to sexual assault will ensure they are better equipped to seek out information, ask questions, understand the reality of a witness who has to testify in front of their assailant, and it may make it easier for them to research information and render more uniform rulings. At the same time, the assault aspect will not cloud the main issue too much.

This is more of a wish that I have, but what if this training provided to superior court judges—who will hear civil cases, among others—were to be a first step towards making better use of the other options available to victims of sexual assault? We have a tendency to fixate purely on criminal proceedings, but unfortunately, the criminal court process is often more punitive and less restorative for victims. That is a drawback right now.

Ensuring that training is available to judges may be the first step toward persuading victims of sexual assault to turn to civil courts more often. Some victims of sexual assault may seek some form of reparation or, in some cases, mediation, from a civil court.

Knowing that judges have received this training, we can hope that some victims will turn to civil courts because they believe they have a better chance of obtaining a ruling in their favour given that the burden of proof is lower than it is in criminal cases. Rulings can focus more on the victim than on prison sentences, and some victims who have gone through years of psychotherapy may get those costs reimbursed.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act provides an alternative, which is lots of mediation following a sentence an adolescent may have received for sexual assault. We have seen that victims do use this.

This does not apply in all cases. Victims may at times find it easier to move on after receiving a letter of apology or learning that the abuser has taken training or made a donation to a violence prevention or women's advocacy organization.

Civil courts obviously fall under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, but I hope Bill C-3 will somehow open the door to the possibility of including, in sexual assault cases, a restorative component more common in the civil courts. We want to enhance people's trust in the courts, and not just criminal courts.

We are hearing that Quebec City wants to establish specialized courts to hear sexual assault cases. Given that judges in all kinds of courts will receive this training, they may take it upon themselves to promote such avenues of recourse. In some cases, this could be done by improving legal aid so that people who rely on legal aid can seek redress through the civil courts.

For all these good reasons, I, like my colleagues, will obviously be supporting Bill C-3. It is a step in the right direction but we must not view this bill as an end in itself. Instead, we should view it as a beginning and the means that will ultimately let us have more confidence in the judicial system and let women—who, unfortunately, continue to be the main victims of sexual assault—believe that they have a voice and that, above all, that their voice is heard.

I have not used all the time I have been allocated, but I hope I have brought the debate around to something a little different. The issue of sexual assault has often been examined from the criminal perspective. However, I believe that we would all learn by examining this issue from a much broader perspective because, by its very nature, it has much broader implications.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Bill C-3 is a tool. It is not a magic solution, it is not a panacea and there is no genie in the bottle. It is a tool that will help our judiciary be more efficient.

We support the bill and we look forward to it coming into force, but additional training should be provided to all those working in the judicial sector, whether they are lawyers or community organizations working on behalf of and supporting victims. I agree with my colleague that this is urgent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting with the member from the Bloc on the justice committee when this bill was last there. I agree with him: this really does signify the struggle between the role of Parliament and our judicial system. I do not want people to think that Bill C-3 is going to solve all of the problems with the justice system.

Would the member agree that it is also important that the federal government, and indeed our provincial governments, step in to make sure that complainants in sexual assault cases are also provided with adequate social supports and adequate information about the court process, and that we have proper legal education for lawyers who are involved in trying the cases so that those people have the support they need?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to see you in that chair. With all due respect to the usual Speaker who does exceptional work, I commend you on your excellent interventions.

To answer the question from my colleague from Saint-Jean, I agree with her that there is an urgency here. We just finished an oral question period during which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answered our questions—asking him to intervene on urgent economic matters—by saying that we would soon be facing an election. It seems our colleagues in the government are anxious to spar again and call all Quebeckers and Canadians back to an election even though it has not been a full year since we were elected. We have that threat hanging over our heads.

I agree with my colleague that it is truly a shame that Bill C-3 is suffering the same fate as Bills C-337 and C-5, its predecessors. I think we should show the public some respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

We cannot talk about Bill C-3 without first highlighting the outstanding work being done by the members of our justice system.

In both Quebec and Canada, as far as we can tell, the justice system meets society's needs quite well.

I feel this is worth mentioning, because the main, if not only, criticism we had about Bill C-3, the former Bill C-5, was that we needed to move carefully with regard to judicial independence. I was concerned about this, and I will come back to it later.

That being said, I think our judges are doing an outstanding job, but they need more tools. This is important in our society. This is not to criticize their work, but we need to make sure they have the necessary tools on hand to get the job done.

The justice system is the backbone of any society. It enables citizens to resolve all disputes together through the courts, instead of taking the law into their own hands. Both civil and criminal matters are brought to a judge, who is expected to be impartial and competent.

Bill C-3 does address the issue of judicial competence, and I think we should give it our full attention to ensure that it comes into force as soon as possible.

This bill was first introduced in 2017 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the interim leader of the Conservative Party at the time. The Bloc Québécois enthusiastically supported what was then Bill C-337. At one point, I even moved a motion in the House to have the Senate deal with Bill C-337 quickly so that it could come into force as quickly as possible; the motion passed unanimously.

Then Parliament was dissolved, which meant that Bill C-337 could not be brought into force and we had to start back at square one last fall after the 2019 election. The same bill was reintroduced as Bill C-5, and committee hearings began. It got through first and second reading. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, and that was when everyone realized that, although most civil society stakeholders thought the bill was fine, essential even, the judiciary had some concerns.

The Hon. Justice Kent and the Hon. Justice MacDonald, former chief justice of Nova Scotia, appeared before the committee and made suggestions. I liked their approach. They never criticized the entire bill but provided constructive criticism and warned us to be careful. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. There is some work to do on how justice is administered in cases of sexual assault. That is what Bill C-3 proposes to do, but let us be careful that we do not undermine the authority of the courts over society in our attempt to improve the judicial process.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the justice system is very important in our society. If we cannot benefit from judicial independence, if we can no longer rely on the independence, impartiality and competency of our courts, it will have major negative consequences for our society. We cannot let that happen.

I urge us to proceed with caution, but to do that, we need to go back to committee as soon as possible. We need to take into account the criticism that we have heard. It seems to me that the suggestions of Justices Kent and MacDonald deserve our attention and that some amendments should likely be made.

I believe it was Justice Macdonald who talked about minor adjustments regarding how these matters should be dealt with. Rather than imposing obligations on the Canadian Judicial Council or on judges, tools should be brought in and the Canadian Judicial Council should be asked to support the measures and ensure that judges appointed to the various courts of federal jurisdiction have access to those tools to be better equipped to hear sexual assault cases.

That is not to say that they are not well equipped to hear them now, of course, but when it comes to sexual assault, I believe exceptional sensitivity is needed in the administration of justice.

The courts should take a special approach to these types of cases. We need to remember that testifying is usually a traumatizing experience for victims of sexual assault. They are reliving the tragic events that brought them to court. Judges need to be aware of this, and the bill will help judges and give them the tools to understand this reality and better deal with these kinds of cases.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, as we did in 2017 and as we did last year with Bill C-5. We look forward to working in committee and proposing necessary amendments to make Bill C-3 a bill that the Hon. Rona Ambrose would be proud of, that I would be proud of and that all parliamentarians in the House will be proud of.

This is an urgent matter, and it was urgent in 2017. I pointed out this urgency in a motion that passed unanimously and that called on the Senate to promptly adopt the bill. It was urgent in the spring. It is even more urgent now. Let us make sure that we do not end up with another election in the coming months, which would force us to start this process all over again.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that, along with my colleagues, I also welcome Bill C-3. It is long overdue.

I also want to thank my colleagues for the very raw and difficult stories they have shared today of their experiences with sexual assault.

I have heard a lot today about the impacts of stereotypes and myths, which have resulted in the abhorrent treatment by judges of women who are seeking justice for sexual assault. I would go further and state that sexual assault cases that have resulted in the vile treatment of victims have also been a result of racist, classist and misogynistic beliefs, including beliefs that support the hypersexualization of indigenous women, as noted by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. It stated that the “Hyper-sexualization [of indigenous women] has created a perception that they're always sexually available, which causes people to dismiss violence against them.”

Does my hon. colleague agree that anti-racist and anti-colonial training is also just as needed to protect sexual assault victims who are seeking justice?

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.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be rising today to debate Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, otherwise known as the just act. This an important piece of legislation. A version of it was first introduced in 2017 by former Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose. It was then called Bill C-337, the proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training act. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for her leadership role in championing this bill and its important content over the last few years.

Ms. Ambrose has been a strong voice for women and sexual assault survivors. Bill C-337 received widespread support from stakeholders and from parliamentarians across party lines. Canada's Conservatives were proud to support the just act in a previous Parliament because we recognized that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

Passing this legislation was also part of the Conservative platform in the last election and was one of the platform points I was glad to see included. I am looking forward to the bill being debated. I will take the next few minutes to speak about this legislation, which will ensure survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity during the judicial process.

In the end this legislation is about bringing forth trust. The just act would require judges to continue their education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. Sexual assault survivors need to know that those hearing their cases have the training, background and context to give them a fair trial. To better ensure that sexual assault survivors do not hesitate to come forward, we need a judicial system that they can trust will be fair.

We also need a system which understands the laws of consent. With that considered, it is easy to support the bill. This legislation, if passed, would also require judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. This is another important step in the right direction that will provide more clarity in the process. Requiring the rationale for these decisions will provide documentation in these cases, including an understanding of the thought process of a judge.

I remember many years ago I took training at the Justice Institute of British Columbia in Vancouver for a regulatory tribunal I was appointed for. The training involved how to articulate in writing the thought processes that brought me to my decision. When I previously heard about this bill, I was surprised that this process did not exist when judges had to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases.

Having judges be clear on the factors that led to their decision-making and discuss each component of that factor on cases of sexual assault increases transparency, which is important for our courts and for victims. This may lead to more well-thought-out decisions as well. We hear of situations where the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. The reality is that presently there are evident gaps in the current process. These gaps have resulted in sexual assault survivors seeing the justice system fail to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

Some sexual assault survivors have said that they have lost faith in the judicial process completely. It was not too long ago that victims, especially women, were blamed for sexual assault. Before laws were put in place improving the process, it was common for judges to factor in things such as the length of a woman's skirt or whether she had had a past relationship with the perpetrator when determining if something was deemed to be criminal.

We may now look back on those days with disbelief that it ever happened, but we are far from having all the tools to ensure our judiciary, which is trained to look at sexual assault cases, is at the best of its ability. In fact, we hear too often the stories of this still happening in 2020, both in Canada and across the world. I am sure many of us have examples of this.

We have heard of victim blaming and of stereotypes. It is wrong and yet somehow it still happens. One story that continues to stick in my memory is when a judge, during court proceedings, asked a victim of sexual assault why she could not just keep her knees together. Comments such this are shocking. They show where there are gaps in the process of training the judiciary when it comes to sexual assault.

According to statistics from Canada's Department of Justice, 83% of sexual assaults were not reported to the police. This means that four in every five sexual assaults that occur are not filed with the police, let alone given a chance to go to trial and potentially lead to a conviction.

This figure is shocking and raises important questions about why the reported four in five victims of sexual assault feel that they cannot report what has happened. Is it because they feel they will be victim-blamed? Is it because they feel they will not be believed? Is it because they feel there may be a lack of evidence? Is it because they feel embarrassed? Maybe it is because they have heard of other cases where sexual assault was not taken seriously. Unfortunately, I know of a woman who chose not to report an incident that happened to her.

In further studies by the Department of Justice on this issue, victims of sexual assault were asked to rate their level of confidence in the police, the court processes and the criminal justice system in general. Few participants stated that they were very confident.

Bill C-3 would make an improvement in this trust factor on the judicial side of this process. Sexual assault victims would be better safeguarded and know that the judge in their case has up-to-date training in sexual assault law and understands the modern context of situations that can arise. This is important. If this bill would even slightly increase the confidence of sexual assault victims to bring come forward and report their situation to the police, then it is common sense that we should pass it.

Other important factors from the Department of Justice that stood out to me are that women between the ages of 15 and 24 have the highest rate of being a victim of sexual assault, and that self-reported sexual assault incidents very often involve an offender who is known to the victim, disproportionately more than other crimes such as physical assaults and robberies.

Young women need to know that the judicial system is fair and that they can trust it, even when it comes to reporting someone who is known to them. What message does it send to a young woman who is a sexual assault survivor who feels the judicial system did not give her a fulsome trial? The criminal justice system must work toward eradicating stereotyping and biases.

When it comes to supporting sexual assault survivors, this House must do all it can to improve the process. We must ensure that those who go through this have a fair and impartial process. Any legislation that would do this is something that should be enacted.

In my constituency, I sat with a woman in a coffee shop while she explained in detail her assault experience. I did not know what to say. The only thing that came out was, “I am so sorry that happened to you.”

My team and I have received emails and calls from those in Kelowna—Lake Country about the just act, as well as about improving the process for sexual assault victims. I have also had many conversations with those in Kelowna and Lake Country on their experiences with the process locally and how they believe it can be improved for sexual assault cases. We know that the Okanagan is not immune to this problem, and the just act comes up as one piece to address this issue.

I am looking forward to Bill C-3 moving to the next stage in the legislative process. This is an important bill for sexual assault survivors. I hope members in this House will support it when it comes to a vote.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, I was so anxious to get to what I was going to say, I forgot to ask for that permission. I thank all members.

It is certainly my honour to be speaking today on Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, concerning sexual assault. This legislation has special significance to me as a lawyer, a woman, a proud mother of four, a child survivor of sexual violence myself and, most importantly, a lifelong advocate for victims of crime and sexual assault, including men and women, boys and girls.

Bill C-3, formally known as Bill C-337, was first introduced in the House of Commons in February 2017 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It has received a tremendous amount of support from parliamentarians and stakeholders. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Ms. Ambrose for initially introducing this long-overdue piece of legislation and for her strong advocacy on this vital issue.

Conservatives were proud to support the Judges Act in the last Parliament because we recognize that far too often our justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. This legislation was part of our election platform in the last election. I am very pleased to see the current government put partisanship aside and adopt the bill in March of this year.

Bill C-3 would ensure that trust is built and maintained in our judicial system, and specifically, that victims of sexual assault are respected by that system when they choose to come forward. We know that only a small fraction, as few as 5% to 10%, of sexual assaults are reported.

Sexually assaulted at age 12, I know that I only told my mother when I was in my 40s. I was a child, I was afraid and I never told authorities. According to a Justice Canada study of survivors, approximately two-thirds of them stated a lack of confidence in the police, the court process and the criminal justice system in general. The process is even more overwhelming for children.

It is of utmost importance that Canada's members of Parliament address head-on this under-reporting and lack of confidence by breaking down the barriers that discourage victims of sexual assault from coming forward.

We must increase transparency in any court's decision through increased judicial training and accountability. This legislation would go a long way to doing just that. Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed as a judge of the Superior Court, requiring the individual to undertake and participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This training would help judges navigate the sensitivities commonly at the heart of these cases and allow them to better understand the social context in which the alleged crimes took place. We want to ensure judges are fully equipped with a profound understanding of the law that must be applied to the facts of each case. Bill C-3 would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to gather data and submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by them.

Finally, Bill C-3 would amend the Criminal Code to require appointed judges to provide written reasons for decisions made in sexual assault cases. Together, these requirements would ensure that Superior Court judges have the knowledge and skills necessary to properly handle sexual assault trials, recognize the challenges and trauma often experienced by victims, restore faith and confidence in our judicial system, and treat those victims with the dignity and respect they deserve.

As a family lawyer for many years, I dealt with too many cases where spousal violence against a female partner or spouse, and against children and stepchildren, were factors in separation, divorce and recovery.

As a volunteer board member active in supporting substance abuse recovery, I saw the devastating effects of sexual violence on victims who often dealt with it through self-harm and lives given over to addiction.

As a former member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I also understand that presiding over sensitive cases is not an easy task. I know our judges from coast to coast put in long hours of hard work to ensure the fairness of the judicial process.

However, the fact remains that on too many occasions, when deciding these cases, judges have improperly relied on or allowed into their courtroom myths and stereotypes about the expected behaviour of a victim of sexual assault and allowed evidence that should have been excluded. This is not okay.

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial of a 55-year-old Alberta man accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting his adolescent stepdaughter over a period of six years. At trial, even though the judge found the stepfather's evidence unbelievable, the appeal court found he relied on these myths and stereotypes about how a victim of sexual assault should behave. In delivering a finding of not guilty, the trial judge noted he had doubts about the case because the alleged victim had told the police she kind of got along with her stepfather and described their relationship as, “okay I guess.”

In the trial decision the judge stated:

...one would expect that a victim of sexual abuse would demonstrate behaviours consistent with that abuse or at least some change of behaviour such as avoiding the perpetrator;

The Alberta Court of Appeal rightfully disagreed and expressed the following:

This appeal represents an example of how deeply ingrained and seductive these myths and stereotypes can be.

Unfortunately, this is merely one of many examples.

In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a man who allegedly sexually assaulted and killed Métis woman Cindy Gladue should be retried, after evidence of Ms. Gladue's sexual history was mishandled at trial. Justice Karakatsanis explained that admitting evidence of prior sexual history makes jurors more likely to accept the harmful myth that past sexual behaviour suggests a greater likelihood that the victim consented to the alleged sexual assault, in this case one so brutal that it caused Ms. Gladue to bleed to death in a motel bathroom.

Similarly, in another 2019 Supreme Court case, R. v. Goldfinch, the court found the trial judge had improperly admitted evidence about the complainant's sexual history with the alleged perpetrator, which may have led the jury to decide the case based on the mistaken belief that prior consent means present consent.

All this to say there have been far too many cases in our society where myths and stereotypes have permeated the courtroom and where both judge and jury have been unduly influenced by the expected behaviour of a victim of sexual assault. Misinformation about the experience of victims of sexual assault and abuse has led judges to poor decision-making, resulting in the miscarriage of justice, and has caused unnecessary appeals and retrials.

As legislators, we must understand and appreciate the new and revisited trauma felt by victims throughout the course of these trials. If a trial is handled appropriately, appeals and retrials may be avoided. It is important that we keep myths and stereotypes out of the courtroom. It is essential that the justice system treat victims of sexual assault with dignity and the respect they deserve. It is imperative that the victims of sexual assault have confidence in the judicial system. We must do our part to break down the barriers that have prevented victims from coming forward in the past. This bill, through increased training and accountability, would address each of these issues and would tell victims of sexual assault loud and clear the Canadian government has their backs.

Of course our criminal justice system is built on the proud principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. I want to ensure Canadians that this bill, and the training it proposes, will not prejudice the accused; instead, it will ensure that the scales of justice are fair and balanced, at the same time compassionate, and make certain that victims of sexual assault have access to the justice they deserve and their faith restored.

Please join me in keeping faith with sexual assault victims by supporting Bill C-3. Let their voices be fairly heard.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

It is my honour to join in virtually today to speak to Bill C-3—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3 seems extremely important for renewing victims' trust in the justice system. The reporting process is often central and victims have to be able to speak out with confidence.

In the summer, we saw the terrible consequences of the pandemic on women, who have suffered violence and assault. I know that the issue of violence against women is very important to the government and I would like to know how Bill C-3 lines up with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality's plan to develop measures to address that violence.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, which is identical to former Bill C-5.

I am delighted to be reintroducing this important piece of legislation today. I know we in the House are all anxious to see the work that was started by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in 2017 with the introduction of Bill C-337 come to fruition with the quick passage of this bill in this session of Parliament.

Regrettably, Parliament's consideration of Bill C-5 was abruptly interrupted and the study of the justice committee halted by a health crisis that has created unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Canadian society, including our justice system. The pandemic has exposed and exploited underlying conditions that have long plagued our justice system. It brought into stark relief the unacceptable barriers to accessing justice for the most vulnerable in our society. The reintroduction of the bill comes at a time when the need to protect our most vulnerable has never been clearer, nor the importance of ensuring a justice system that treats everyone fairly and with respect more critical.

Bill C-3 is designed to enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system, and in particular the confidence of survivors of sexual assault. It is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable in the criminal justice system than the women who find the courage to report sexual assault.

The bill will ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect by the courts and will give them confidence that the judge in their case will enforce sexual assault laws fairly and accurately, as Parliament intended.

It has never been more critical that all of us who serve the public are equipped with the right tools and understanding to ensure that everyone is treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, no matter what their background or their experiences. This would enhance the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the Canadian public, more broadly, in our justice system. There is no room in our courts for harmful myths or stereotypes.

I know that our government's determination to tackle this problem is shared by parliamentarians from across Canada and of all political persuasions. The bill before us today will help ensure that those appointed to a superior court would undertake to participate in continuing education in relation to sexual assault law and social context.

As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I take very seriously my responsibility to uphold judicial independence, a constitutional principle that is a cornerstone of our democracy. Judicial independence means that judges must be free to decide each case on its own merits without interference or influence of any kind from any source. For this reason, judicial independence requires judicial control of judicial education, and I salute the work that is being done by the Canadian Judicial Council as well as the National Judicial Institute in Canada in the training they have already begun to provide. Applying this principle to the current bill means that our government's efforts to ensure judges participate in education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context must not undermine the independence of the judiciary.

In that vein, I would like to describe the key elements of the proposed legislation. Bill C-3, as noted previously, is identical to former Bill C-5 and essentially the same as former private member's bill, Bill C-337. Importantly, the bill includes the amendments to Bill C-337 passed unanimously by the House of Commons to include social context education within the requirements of the bill. This requirement is specifically aimed at providing those who preside over cases with deeper insights and best practices to help them better navigate the social and cultural factors that they will likely come across in their time on the bench.

Bill C-3 also includes the amendments recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill C-337.

The first key element of the bill is that it proposes to amend the Judges Act to require candidates for superior court judicial appointments to commit to undertaking training in matters related to sexual assault law and social context. This becomes part of the application process. This commitment will become an eligibility requirement for appointment to a superior court.

It is no easy task to bolster public confidence, in particular the confidence of sexual assault survivors, that our criminal justice system will treat victims with dignity, fairness and respect. This is a particularly acute challenge when there are reports in the media of judges doing exactly the opposite. We hear of highly publicized cases in which judges have relied on stereotypes or myths about how a victim of sexual assault should have behaved and have misapplied the carefully crafted law intended to prevent this.

The undertaking to commit to training is aimed at ensuring that Canada's highly developed law and jurisprudence on sexual assault are appropriately applied in the courtroom. It will also ensure that newly appointed judges receive the education and training necessary to understand and appreciate the social context within which they perform their functions, so that personal or societal biases or myths and stereotypes do not have any bearing on their decisions.

Over the past three decades the criminal law has undergone significant reform to encourage reporting of sexual assaults, to improve the criminal justice system's response to sexualized violence and to counter discriminatory views of survivors that stem from myths and stereotypes about how a true victim is expected to behave. As a result, the Criminal Code prohibits all forms of non-consensual sexual activity, provides a clear definition of consent, identifies when consent cannot be obtained and sets out rules for the admissibility of certain types of evidence to deter the introduction of these harmful myths and stereotypes.

Canada's sexual assault law is robust, but is necessarily complex. It applies to the most intimate of human interactions, so to be effective it must be properly understood and applied. This is why judicial education in this area is so significant and Bill C-3 so important.

The second key element is to require that the Canadian Judicial Council develop this sexual-assault training only after it consults with groups and individuals that it considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivors and the groups that support them. This will give the council the opportunity to gather different perspectives on sexual assault informed by the experiences and knowledge of the community.

Transformative change across the criminal justice system will require a sustained collaborative effort by all actors in the justice system, with the support of stakeholders and civil society. Training is needed not only for judges but for all actors in the justice system. We are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts and justice sector stakeholders toward more comprehensive efforts. However, the pivotal public and determinative role judges play must also be taken into account.

The third key component of the bill will require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit to the justice minister an annual report to be tabled in this Parliament about the training on sexual assault law that has been provided and the number of judges who attended. This requirement is designed to enhance accountability in the training of sitting judges on these matters while still acting as an incentive to encourage their participation.

The final element of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide reasons for decisions under sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code. This amendment is intended to enhance the transparency of judicial decisions made in sexual assault proceedings by rendering them accessible, either in writing or on the record of the proceedings. I would like to mention that this proposed amendment to require judges to provide reasons in the determination of sexual assault matters specifically is complementary to three existing requirements.

The requirement to provide reasons will be placed in the other sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. This will help ensure that all provisions related to sexual offending are clear and accessible to those applying them. This is part of the effort to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law by helping to ensure that decisions in sexual assault matters are not influenced by myths or stereotypes about sexual assault victims and how they ought to behave. This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that such myths and stereotypes distort the truth-seeking function of the court.

Being a judge comes with great responsibility. I would like to quote the Hon. Justice Charles Gonthier, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:

The judge is the pillar of our entire justice system, and of the rights and freedoms which that system is designed to promote and protect. Thus, to the public, judges not only swear by taking their oath to serve the ideals of Justice and Truth on which the rule of law in Canada and the foundations of our democracy are built, but they are asked to embody them....

Justice Gonthier then added the following:

...the personal qualities, conduct and image that a judge projects affect those of the judicial system as a whole and, therefore, the confidence that the public places in it.

Since judges play such a crucial role in upholding democracy and the rule of law, the public rightly expects their conduct to be exemplary. To quote the Canadian Judicial Council:

[1] From the time they are considered for appointment to the Bench, and every day thereafter, superior court judges in Canada are expected to be knowledgeable jurists. They are also expected to demonstrate a number of personal attributes including knowledge of social issues, an awareness of changes in social values, humility, fairness, empathy, tolerance, consideration and respect for others.

[2] In short, Canadians expect their judges to know the law but also to possess empathy and to recognize and question any past personal attitudes and sympathies that might prevent them from acting fairly.

In order for judges to be able to meet these public expectations, it is imperative that they keep abreast of developments in the law and the ever-changing social context in which they carry out their duties. To ensure excellence in judgments, judges must have legal knowledge that is as relevant as it is excellent so that they can make the difficult and life-changing decisions entrusted to them. For this reason, legal education is an essential element of the legislation under consideration.

The bill is carefully tailored to uphold the principle of judicial independence. In particular, it includes the recommendations of the Senate committee for amendments to Bill C-337 that were carefully designed to address the specific concerns raised by representatives of the judiciary.

In that regard, I would like to point out that members of the judiciary appeared before the House committee to call for additional amendments to Bill C-5. It is important to note that a respectful dialogue occurred between representatives of the judicial and legislative branches with regard to Bill C-337 and Bill C-5. I trust that this will also be the case with this bill. The partners in this dialogue all want survivors of sexual assault to have faith in the justice system and to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve when dealing with that system.

Canada is lucky to have one of the most independent, competent and reputable judiciaries in the world. The Canadian Judicial Council, with the support and co-operation of the National Judicial Institute, is a world leader in training judges. The Canadian judiciary is very committed to ensuring the best training for judges. I commend them for their co-operation in this regard. Finally, Canada is a pioneer in social context education in the justice system.

In its professional development policy, the Canadian Judicial Council recognizes that, in order to be effective, training for judges must include social context education so that court decisions are not influenced by personal or social bias, myths or stereotypes.

Given how important this is, the National Judicial Institute seeks to ensure that all programs cover substantive law, skills development and social context education.

It is important to acknowledge the significant contribution of both the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to ensuring judges have access to the training they need.

We are blessed with a strong and independent judiciary in Canada. We cannot take this for granted. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that we safeguard and promote it. This bill seeks to balance a legitimate need to enhance public confidence with carefully preserving the judiciary's ability to control judicial education.

The government also allocated significant resources to support this undertaking. The 2017 budget contained $2.7 million over five years for the Canadian Judicial Council and $500,000 per year thereafter to ensure more judges get access to professional development with a greater emphasis on issues related to sex, gender and cultural sensitivity.

Our government is also working with stakeholders to ensure that appropriate training is available to all members of the Canadian judiciary, specifically those not appointed by the federal government.

That said, I hope this bill will prompt everyone in the justice system to take a close look at other measures we can take to bolster the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the public in our justice system.

Finally, following Ms. Ambrose's introduction of the former Bill C-337, a number of provinces followed suit and did just that. At least one province, Prince Edward Island, enacted similar legislation, and I understand that others are carefully considering policy and legislative responses. I note that other countries have already enacted legislation similar to what is being proposed. It is time for all of our jurisdictions to act.

While we believe that reintroducing Bill C-3 is a crucial step, it is not the only action we can take as a government. We have prioritized supporting victims and survivors of crime by a range of different avenues. These include providing funding to provinces and territories to allow them to develop enhanced programs, to provide free and independent legal advice and, in some cases, representation for survivors of sexual assault. Also included is our government's commitment, as emphasized in the Speech from the Throne, to build on the gender-based violence strategy and work with partners to develop a national action plan.

This bill sends a message to all Canadians, and survivors of sexual assault in particular, that their elected officials are listening, that we care about what happens to their cases, and that we are prepared and committed to take whatever action we can to ensure that our justice system is fair and responsive. It is incumbent on all of us: legislators, judges, prosecutors, police and the public.

Right now, there is considerable enthusiasm across the country for meaningful, sustainable changes to our justice system.

This bill is a small but important step toward achieving that. It gives parliamentarians an opportunity to act on their beliefs and show all Canadians, especially survivors of sexual assault, that their voices matter and that anyone who has the courage to report an assault will be listened to and treated with the dignity and respect every member of our community is entitled to.

I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to take this step toward a more constructive, resilient justice system that is more responsive to the needs of those it serves.

I call on all of my colleagues to support this important non-partisan bill.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his weekly question.

In passing, I want to point out that things are working well in this hybrid Parliament. We are able to debate and vote, whether in person or via the Internet. I therefore commend all members.

With regard to the legislative calendar, here is the agenda for next week. This afternoon, we will continue with the fourth day of debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

On Friday, tomorrow, we will start debate on Bill C-3, the judges training legislation.

On Monday and Tuesday of next week, we will have days five and six of the Speech from the Throne debate, respectively.

We will then continue with the judges training bill on Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary.

Judges Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)