Bill C-233

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.
The enactment also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to disclosure of information to victims. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑320. This bill is an essential measure to ensure greater transparency in our justice system and to strengthen our fight to end violence against women and girls.

As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I was involved in the study on domestic violence in the fall of 2021. Sadly, as I listened to the extensive committee testimony, I realized that we live in a world where violence against women and girls is all too common. These abhorrent acts leave indelible scars that prevent many people from achieving their full potential. That is why we have a duty to take firm action and send a loud and clear message that we will no longer tolerate it. I would like to explain a little more about the Bloc Québécois's position. I will then talk about the progress made in Quebec. I will conclude by talking about other initiatives that will need to be monitored and analyzed, with the aim of working to end this scourge once and for all.

First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to supporting initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's parole, when applicable. Our position is therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-233. Let us remember that that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device, also known as an electronic bracelet. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions.

Bill C‑320 essentially seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of an offence to be given an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes, for example, the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, releases or parole. It would strengthen the justice system to have a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and the decisions being made about their assailant.

Second, over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protections and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses, like the one in Granby, in my riding of Shefford. It also launched a pilot project requiring electronic monitoring devices to keep victims and their abusers apart, which has been a success and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime.

In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320. If it passes, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence. The justice system has to be more effective and transparent, not just to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant, but also to strengthen public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police, which still happens far too often, unfortunately.

Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. We all know that this situation was exacerbated during the pandemic. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is being detained. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a report.

I believe that we could work on this bill without too much partisan bickering, because I fully expect that Conservative members will support this bill to further punish offenders and above all to restore victims' confidence in the justice system, which the Conservatives often say is soft on crime.

The member for Oshawa, who is the sponsor, says he presented the bill to empower victims and their families to obtain more accurate and timely information about the court's decisions concerning their assailant. In his opinion, too many victims and their families have been surprised to learn the assailant was released early, well before 25 years were served, for example.

It would seem that the Liberal caucus is also in favour of this bill to increase transparency in the judicial process. The same goes for the NDP caucus, which believes that this bill could possibly increase transparency in the judicial process.

Third, I will also be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations in the report “Rebâtir la confiance”, a report produced in Quebec that seeks to address violence against women in a targeted and non-partisan way. It recommends the creation of a special court, which I spoke about in the first part of my speech.

In fact, a member of the Quebec National Assembly, the MNA for Sherbrooke, recently contacted me to suggest that we look into the notion of coercive control, which could broaden the possibilities of action in the face of domestic violence.

I fully intend to listen to women's groups and to the requests coming from elected officials in Quebec City, who are also asking that this issue be addressed at the federal level, since it falls under the Criminal Code. That is why I will be going back to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women with the following motion: that the committee undertake a study on coercive behaviour, with an emphasis on studying countries or jurisdictions around the world that have already passed legislation on this issue.

The concept of coercive control was first introduced by American researcher Evan Stark, who has proposed a shift away from an understanding of domestic violence based essentially on acts of violence and visible signs of abuse. Although considerable efforts have been made in recent years to ensure the recognition of forms of violence other than physical violence, including psychological violence and harassment, domestic abuse still tends to be regarded as acts of violence committed by an individual.

As an alternative, the concept of coercive control advocates an understanding of the complex dynamics that enable abusers to establish and maintain control over their partners or former partners. This should lead to a better assessment of domestic violence situations and the risks they pose to the safety of women and children.

Coercive control was recently introduced into the criminal codes of England and Scotland.

The concept of coercive control makes it possible to analyze female victims' accounts in their entirety before looking for a discrete incident that corresponds to a particular offence. It highlights the different techniques an abuser may use to maintain power and control, because violence is not always about hitting, but it always hurts.

If we want to take serious action, these two measures, namely specialized courts and coercive control, should be examined carefully. We must also remember that lack of housing has repercussions on women's ability to regain power and on their opportunities to break the cycle of vulnerability that keeps them in a cycle of violence.

In conclusion, by strengthening the ties between victims and judicial institutions, we are providing a meaningful response to the insecurity that many victims experience.

To come back to the bill that is before us today, this bill would be a valuable tool, one more tool to help us stop violence against women and girls, but it will not fix everything. At least it will make information on the possible release of offenders available to victims, so that they are better able to protect themselves and take the necessary steps to keep themselves safe.

In the long term, this measure could help prevent further acts of violence by giving victims a way to report any suspicious activity to the proper authorities.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations recently referred to violence against women as the shadow pandemic. Let us therefore ensure that victims have as much information as possible so that they can get into the light and break the cycle of violence.

I would be remiss if I did not mention an absolutely wonderful meeting that I had last week. My colleague from Mirabel invited me to meet a group of students from Oka Secondary School, who came to Ottawa to read me their plea to stop femicide and to implement effective public policies to keep women and girls safe.

I want to commend them for that. They were heard. I will share their plea and try to find ways to be their ally in this fight against violence against women and girls. I thank them.

Keira’s Law

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

Mr. Speaker, Keira Kagan was going to change the world, before her life was taken at the age of four.

Her mom Dr. Jennifer Kagan and stepdad Philip Viater have been tireless advocates for Keira's law, which has sparked a national conversation regarding domestic violence, coercive control and the safety of our children.

Bill C-233 will be Keira’s legacy of hope, and it is a huge step forward for survivors and victims at the forefront of judges' decisions in court. Keira’s law recently received royal assent, and it will provide judicial education about domestic violence and coercive control, thanks to the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, the member for York Centre, Senator Pierre Dalphond and so many others who ensured Keira will forever be a beacon of protection.

Keira would have been turning eight years old on May 29. Please join me in wishing Keira a happy heavenly birthday later this month.

Keira's Law

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues in this chamber who voted unanimously for Bill C- 233, also known as “Keira’s law”.

I express my heartfelt appreciation for Senator Dalphond, who sponsored my bill at the Senate, and senators, organizations and individuals who supported this fundamental change to the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill received royal assent last week.

We have all worked very hard to break the cycle of violence and empower those who are suffering. This legislation will strengthen laws surrounding domestic violence and coercive control.

For the very first time in the context of the Criminal Code, coercive control will be taken into account, because all judges will now be required to receive training on intimate partner violence and coercive control.

Electronic monitoring devices will also provide complainants with greater safety, security and peace of mind. This law sends an unmistakable message to violent intimate partners.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my eternal gratitude to my colleagues in this chamber, who voted unanimously for Bill C-233, also known as Keira’s law. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to Senator Dalphond, who sponsored the bill in the Senate, and the senators, organizations and individuals who supported this fundamental change to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Last week, the bill received royal assent. My colleagues have all worked together to help break the cycle of violence and empower those who are suffering. This legislation will strengthen laws surrounding domestic violence and coercive control.

For the first time ever under the Criminal Code, coercive control will have to be taken into consideration, since it is guaranteed that all judges will receive training on domestic violence and coercive control.

In addition, electronic bracelets will provide greater safety and peace of mind for complainants. This law sends a clear message to abusive spouses: Our justice system is equipped to monitor all aspects of their behaviour, even the subtle and devious ones.

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I have said time and time again during the precious time that I have in this debate. This is the power of collaborative work when it is done. I have seen it in my own work on Bill C-233, and I know that when there is the will of members of the House to get good work done on behalf of Canadians, lost Canadians in this case, it can be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share with the member that I am quite familiar with the process, having successfully passed with my colleagues Keira's law, Bill C-233, and understanding the immense value of unanimous consent and when members work across party lines because issues are so important.

I do not think any of this is partisan. I think this issue affects many families, including my own, and many constituents in my riding of York Centre. As a matter of fact, the member for Thornhill would attest to that as well, as we share similar constituency demographics in that sense. She is a member on his benches, and I would encourage him to perhaps speak to her about the many families in similar situations.

There is always an opportunity to work collaboratively, and I certainly hope the member will consider it.

Justice and Human Rights

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her intervention. I know she has worked very hard on this issue with Bill C-233 for a number of years. I admire the depth to which she and her colleagues have gone to ensure that it not only passes but also brings everybody together. I think she has successfully managed to do that.

Of course, this is an important conversation starter, but it should not be the end. Back to the point that my friend from Kamloops made, it is one of the important tools to ensure that sentencing, for example, is appropriate and that judges are informed of the peculiarities, special circumstances and risks involved in intimate partner violence. Therefore, I think it is an important and smart first step, but of course, there is much more to do.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work over the years on this issue. We have spoken extensively on the need to ensure that coercive behaviour and controlling behaviour is addressed.

I would ask the member's opinion on Bill C-233, which passed the House, in terms of how the bill would assist us in addressing coercive and controlling behaviour.

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

I really appreciate that. I think part of the problem I have—Emilie, if you want to come in on this one too—is that we know with abuse cases it's not just one, two and three times, but it continues. We know, unfortunately, that the justice system is not always working. There's Bill C-233 regarding judges' training, and hopefully that's going through, but we know sometimes these aren't taken into consideration.

You mentioned the 70.5% who are in pretrial detention. Do you know what the data is on that in terms of how many of these are abusers of women and children?

Criminal Code

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the speech he made today.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I will also add my voice to that of my chair. This type of non-partisan bill that addresses the safety of our young women and our young girls is essential. As my colleague mentioned, we worked together on Bill C‑233. I will not elaborate on this, but I just wanted to say that, to me, it is essential to finish the year on this note, with no partisanship, to ensure the safety of our women and girls.

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

Madam Speaker, I really would like to thank the member for putting the bill forward. Ensuring that our children are safe is probably the number one priority for all Canadians and for members in the House.

I recall the work we did on Bill C-233, which was called “Keira's Law”, and the importance of getting it through, because all parties recognized the importance of the bill. At committee, at all stages, we ensured that we allowed debate to collapse so that it could move forward. I really do hope that we will be able to get this bill through immediately so that we make a change to the Criminal Code and ensure that our children are safe.

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I'm here and ready to work. We're starting by engaging stakeholders and listening. I don't want to come in with a pre-established agenda, even though there are clear issues that need to be tackled. I think we need to hear directly from victims and survivors of crime across the country: What are the pressing issues right now that need to be moved on?

I think one of my keen observations at the moment around legislative changes that are happening is that I don't think it's right to dismantle mandatory minimum penalties without considering increasing protections and access to justice for victims of crime. There has to be some compensation in that equation, which is why I'm very interested in Bill C-233, about the potential use of electronic monitoring as a way of protecting women's safety if offenders are given the option of conditional sentencing. I think we have to look at the balance when we're making decisions as important as that.

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

I'm looking at the training of judges.

I know that we have in the room today the sponsor of Bill C-233, and I know that you yourself have put through something. What are we seeing on the uptake of judges? I think one of my biggest concerns is that when people come into the system, they do not feel they are going to adequately get what they need. Victims aren't coming forward because they do not trust the system.

Where are we at when it comes to training judges?

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody in the lobby is surprised that I actually did that at the right time.

Tonight is one of our last evenings sitting in the House of Commons before we adjourn for the summer and return to our ridings. The speech that I am going to give tonight is truly based in what I am seeing all around us. It has become a culture of violence.

Tonight, we are speaking on Bill C-28. Although I support it in principle, we do have a lot further to go. Tonight, we have the opportunity to begin this discussion, which I hope becomes a much larger national discussion. We need to continue this conversation, especially with women's organizations, which have come out and cannot support this legislation.

A good ally of mine and friend, Megan Walker, discussed this legislation with me yesterday. She cannot support it and shared her concerns about the ability of the Crown to prove it. She feels that this legislation is tokenism

Women's organizations are stepping forward and asking us to halt this legislation, while other organizations are in full support of the legislation. To me, this is a clear yellow light that we have to be cautious and that we need to re-address this: that what we are doing today is just not enough. This needs to continue.

My last six months in my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality and youth have given me the honour to work with people, especially in the committee on the status of women.

I can share with members that it seems like we are in a real mess, and I can tell us that we need change.

Let us start with this piece of legislation. I want to address it by sharing the letter that was received by the National Association of Women and the Law. It reads, and I quote:

Feminist organizations in Canada have long been concerned about the connection between men’s use of intoxicants, and violence against women. Study after study has shown that there is a direct link between so-called ‘drunkenness’ and sexual violence. There are studies that report an average of 50% of sexual assault perpetrators consumed alcohol at the time of the assault, with other studies showing a variance of between 30 and 75%.

Looking back to the 1994 Daviault decision, in which the Supreme Court ordered a new trial based on the accused’s extreme intoxication at the time of the incident, the ‘gap’ in the law quickly becomes apparent. Mr. Daviault had voluntarily consumed an excessive quantity of alcohol before forcing intercourse on the complainant, an elderly woman with a disability. In response, feminist groups like National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) pressed the government to restrict the defence of extreme intoxication. The federal government enacted section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, closing the gap by preventing those who voluntarily consume intoxicants and then commit acts of violence from using the defence of extreme intoxication for general intent offences.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in Brown struck down the law set out in s. 33.1, declaring it unconstitutional and stating that voluntarily taking intoxicating substances cannot replace the criminal intent required for a conviction. This decision re-opens the ‘gap’ left by the 1994 Daviault decision, once again leaving women vulnerable to crimes of violence when the accused can demonstrate that his intoxication put him into a state of automatism. Despite the assurances of some defence lawyers and their allies that reliance on extreme intoxication will be rare, research analyzing the extreme intoxication defence indicates that it will be raised with some regularity. Indeed, research shows that it will be used overwhelmingly by men, and that the majority of victims will be women.

I know that I shared a very lengthy part of that letter, but to me, this is what we are talking about. Yes, this legislation came out very quickly. That means we need to get it passed to stop the gap today, but that does not mean that the gap has fully been filled. That is why I am urging the government to say, yes, we have got Bill C-28 done but we need to do more. I am urging the government to get on the road and let us start doing those consultations. Let us start talking more.

I want to go back to stuff that we have also been hearing about Hockey Canada. We just heard that Hockey Canada receives one to two formal complaints annually and that there are investigations.

I want to talk about all of this, because one thing that I can indicate is that sexual violence and violence against children should never happen. We are seeing it more and more. In the past number of weeks, as I have been dealing with my role as the shadow minister for women and gender equality, and in chairing the committee on the status of women, we are talking about violence and more violence. Our one study on intimate partner violence was talking about domestic violence. Following that, we talked about Kyra's Law, named for a young girl, a young child, who was murdered by her father, basically to get back at the mother.

I am looking at what is happening with Hockey Canada. We talked about a young girl who was allegedly raped by eight hockey players, and there is no responsibility. Then we can talk about what we are talking about here today, Bill C-28. To me, it is really clear. We are talking about things that are a social issue. It is a sexual assault issue.

When I look back at that link between what I am talking about with Hockey Canada and the eight players, and what we are seeing here, the bottom line is that it should never be happening in the first place. In Hockey Canada, we are hearing about a civil law suit that went through. Hockey Canada actually paid out, rather than having this go through the criminal court system. Unfortunately, I understand why someone would choose a civil suit over our justice system right now. We know it is not perfect. With the help of Bill C-233 and other bills that have been put forward in the past, we need to ensure that there is proper training for judges, but it is not just judges. It is everybody involved.

When I look at this, I look at who is responsible. Ultimately, the perpetrator has to be responsible. Although this legislation closes that gap in which we are talking about the state of automatism, we also have to look at what is next.

Just weeks ago, we passed that important piece of legislation, Bill C-233 with unanimous support. It was an all-party effort. I believe it started a conversation, and I believe what we are doing here tonight is also starting that conversation. Just as the minister stated, I had the same conversation with my 18-year-old son. He called me the very next morning and asked me about it when I was in Ottawa. I said, “Son, I'm working on this.” We recognize that it does not mean that someone has to be drunk and this could happen, but there needs to be extreme intoxication. For a young woman, anything is a barrier, including the fact that somebody may use this defence. Everything like that is a barrier.

People are coming out and saying that this law is just window dressing and is not really tackling the real issues. I think what we have to tackle is the culture of sexual violence, because we seem to be ignoring it. I was thinking about it a lot over the past few days. Working on the Hockey Canada case has really brought things to light. These are our kids we are talking about. These are the kids that our kids go to public school with. These are the children, whether they are the perpetrators or the victims. These are just kids. Sometimes we get lost on our way and we confuse what is right and wrong. Is extreme intoxication good enough, or is because someone is an athlete or a politician good enough?

We know, from the recent Supreme Court ruling on May 13, that women's organizations have spoken up. Because of that, we know this needs to be addressed. The government has addressed it through this legislation as Bill C-28. I thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. We pushed on this and we asked for this to be done, so I thank him for doing so.

We need more transparency for victims, and we need to remember that victims have rights, too. This is the problem. We talk so much about the rights of our perpetrators, but our victims need to have rights too. This is what we are losing a lot of the time in these conversations, whether I am talking about Hockey Canada or extreme intoxication. No is no, and there must be consent.

Finally, I want to end this with a quote. I go back to the National Association of Women and the Law:

While they may not be successful in making out the defence – pleading the defence, in itself, will result in increased timelines and lengthy court processes for victims. Ultimately, C-28 is a missed opportunity to close the door on the use of the extreme intoxication defence where alcohol alone is used.

I am coming back and I am saying that this summer I will be working on this. I will be working on providing any information that I can to both the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth and the Minister of Justice, because we can do better, and we need to make sure that we listen to everybody. We need to be listening to the victims, and we need to be working to end sexual violence.

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to address the House virtually today.

There are a number of thoughts that I would like to share with respect to this piece of legislation. It is legislation that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time. As much as I have been enjoying some of the questions and answers, especially when the Conservatives are being pushed as to when they are going to look at it or whether they would consider the passage of the legislation. Just given the context of what the official opposition members are saying, I do not anticipate that the bill will be passing before summer. I think the Conservatives have some spin notes that they want to try to leave on this particular legislation.

The biggest one that comes to my mind is the issue of “soft on crime”. It is especially members of the Conservative hard-right element who like to say that they are much harder on crime, that government needs to be tough on crime and that if it is not a Conservative government, it is soft on crime. Whether it makes sense or not, that is the line that the Conservatives like to give because of public perception.

That said, the bill will pass when it will pass, ultimately. I am hopeful that, as we can sense, the majority of the House see the value in Bill C-9, because it is something that is needed.

I want to start by making a couple of observations from some of the stakeholders. I want to do that this time around because I really do respect our judicial system as one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. Our rule of law, our judicial system and the idea of independence are held dear by, I would like to think, all members of the House.

For that reason, I thought it was important to start off with a quote. It is from the Right Hon. Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada and chairperson of the Canadian Judicial Council. He stated:

Over the past few years, the Council has consistently called for new legislation to be tabled in order to improve the process by which concerns about judicial conduct are reviewed. The efforts of members of Council to develop proposals in this regard have been fruitful, and we appreciate the openness with which the Minister of Justice has engaged the Council in his consultations.

I will go to another quote from the Canadian Judicial Council. It states:

While the Council will take some time to carefully review the proposed amendments, we are confident that these reforms will bring about much needed efficiency and transparency to the judicial conduct review process.

I wanted to start with those opening quotes because of the respect that I have for judicial independence. I also recognize that there has been a great deal of work, whether by the minister or by administration or by civil servants. They have worked very closely with the many different stakeholders while at the same time respecting the importance of judicial independence. That is why, when I look at the legislation—and I concur with some of the comments being made by my New Democratic Party colleagues and Green Party members, who seem to support the legislation and its speedy passage—I would like to think that the bill itself should not be controversial. It is actually fairly straightforward. There will be other opportunities for the opposition members to try to score their political points, if I could put it that way.

I do think there would have been a great deal of value in seeing Bill C-9 at least pass through second reading so that it could go to committee stage, possibly during the summer, when feedback could be heard from the public and experts, with the idea of coming back in the fall for report stage and third reading.

The Conservative members who spoke before me were interesting. I picked up on two comments; one was the issue of “soft on crime”, which I have already referenced and maybe will go into a little more later, but they also brought up the issue of appointments of judges. I was somewhat taken aback by some of the comments that were put on the record.

We were being criticized because we did not make appointments shortly after being elected into government, as we were reviewing and establishing a more independent, apolitical, transparent appointment process to ensure that our judicial system would be that much more transparent. Yes, there might have been some delays in those appointments, but they were taking the extreme position that murderers went free because of some delays in appointments. I would welcome and challenge the Conservative members to cite specific examples of someone who not only allegedly murdered but did murder an individual and ultimately, because they could not get a day in court, were let go without any charges being laid in that situation. I would be very much interested in a name. If they could provide me with one, they can always send it to my P9 email or raise it inside the House.

The member went on to talk about Jody Wilson-Raybould, being very critical of her for not making appointments and implying in the comments that she would only make an appointment if the person donated to the party. Again, those were very extreme statements being made by the Conservative Party. It is not fair. It is interesting how they seem to have forgiven the past—at least, most of the Conservative caucus has—in regard to Jody Wilson-Raybould, but I remember the allegations a number of years ago on that front.

It is important to look at the appointments that have actually been made. The government has made somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400 appointments since 2016. If we do the comparison, I would love to hear the numbers from the previous administration. When it comes to this administration, out of the hundreds of appointments to our judicial system, 55% have been women. I would love to hear a comparison with the previous 10 years under Stephen Harper.

About 3% of our appointments, or marginally just above that, were indigenous. That is important to recognize. Over 10% are visible minorities. The LGBTQ2 appointments are over 5%. Not only are we identifying ideal, competent, incredible individuals, but as a result of a more transparent, depoliticized appointment process, I believe that overall the appointments are more effective in better reflecting what our society looks like today.

On both of those points, whether it is judges and the appointment of judges or the issue of the Conservatives being soft on crime and saying the government is not tough enough on crime, I would challenge the Conservatives to prove their points, not necessarily on this legislation, but on other pieces of legislation so we can ultimately see Bill C-9 pass.

It is important to recognize that we do need to see a balance. We have the fundamental pillar of our judicial independence and it is important there be a high level of confidence held by the public in the administration of justice. I believe the legislation we are looking at deals with that in a very fair fashion.

The amendments will ultimately allow for the Canadian Judicial Council to continue to preside over the process proposed in the legislation. This would start with a three-person review panel ultimately deciding to investigate a complaint of misconduct. In some situations, if the complaint is serious enough, it might even warrant dismissal or removal from the bench. In situations like that, it could be referred to a separate five-person panel.

In the first case, it would be strictly a three-person review panel made up of CJC members. A judge and a layperson could impose sanctions such as public apologies and continuing education.

The current process has turned out, in many ways, to be exceptionally costly at times, and equally as important, it is not very timely. We have seen situations where it could take years before anything is actually concluded.

That is the reason our judicial system is saying that we need to make changes. Today, judges facing possible removal from office because of serious allegations of misconduct have several opportunities throughout the process to launch these judicial reviews. However, as I indicated, the process in some cases can be too long and can be at a fairly significant cost.

Replacing the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of a federally appointed judge is the essence of what the legislation is proposing to do. It establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a judge's removal from office and makes changes to the process by which recommendations regarding removal from office can be made by the Minister of Justice.

The new process would allow for the imposition of sanctions for misconduct which, while not serious enough to warrant removal, may warrant sanctions that are quite different. The current process does not allow for such sanctions. The member for Mount Royal highlighted some examples. Where a judge's actions have been deemed to have offended something and there needs to be a consequence for the actions, there are more opportunities for different types of consequences.

We could see anything ranging from verbal warnings to written warnings, to suspensions or public apologies. We could even see additional training being required, and ultimately, of course, judges being released. This legislation enables a suite of actions that could be imposed on a judge, given a certain behaviour or comment that is made publicly.

Not only have we heard today, but we have also heard it in the past. We have had private members' bills. I think of Rona Ambrose. She talked about educating judges, particularly in the area of rape victims. Her piece of legislation ultimately received support from all areas of the House. Parliamentarians from all political stripes recognized the need to have some form of educational programming for newly appointed judges to take things into consideration. In fact, my daughter, who is a local representative in the province of Manitoba, had also taken that particular initiative after hearing about what Rona Ambrose had done.

Ultimately, the government pushed that legislation through in the years that followed after Ms. Ambrose left the House of Commons, but we attribute it to Rona and we attribute it to the fact that there is a universal desire for that training.

It was not that long ago when we had another private member's bill, one from one of my colleagues from Montreal. There was a great deal of effort by members on all sides of the House to see that legislation, Bill C-233, which is still before the House today, pass second reading and go to committee. It came out of third reading because of that desire.

For those who are not familiar, Ms. Ambrose's piece of legislation is recognized as Keira's law for good reason. I will quote from an article, “When I brought forward the evidence about abuse of Mr. Brown, we had a judge, for example, who said that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and, 'I'm going to ignore it.'”

Periodically statements come out of our judicial system that call into question the public confidence. That is one of the reasons it is so important that we pass this legislation. It recognizes that our independent judicial system and our judges, who we do need to respect, can make mistakes. Obviously, a vast majority of judgments are done in a way in which they meet the expectations of Canadians, but on occasion, when that does not happen, there needs to be a more effective mechanism to ensure there is an appropriate consequence. This legislation would enable some variation of consequences for judges, at times, who cross the line.

I have appreciated the opportunity to share a few thoughts and will be more than happy to answer any questions.