Debates of Dec. 6th, 2018

Question No. 1998

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, per the privacy notice statement contained in the Canada Summer Jobs 2018 Applicant Guide, applications deemed ineligible will not be disclosed.

Question No. 1999

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

With regard to the handling of evidence related to the leak of information pertaining to the November 2015 Cabinet meeting where shipbuilding was discussed: (a) why has the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office not released all relevant evidence; (b) can the government guarantee that no evidence has been destroyed by the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office; and (c) what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that the records are not destroyed or altered in any way?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the handling of evidence related to the leak of information pertaining to the November 2015 cabinet meeting where shipbuilding was discussed, the response from the Privy Council Office is as follows.

With regard to (a), this matter is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice. The court has been asked to determine the relevance of government information as well as the application of any privileges and cabinet confidentiality to such information, and will determine what government information should be released.

With regard to (b), the Government of Canada takes seriously all laws and policies concerning retention and disposition of government information, for example, under the Library and Archives Act and the Treasury Board Secretariat Access to Information Manual.

With regard to (c), the government is committed to handling government information in a manner that respects relevant laws and policies concerning retention and disposition of information.

Question No. 2000

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments in April 2017 that the case against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would likely end up before the courts, and in February 2018 that it would inevitably lead to court processes: (a) was the Prime Minister revealing classified information by saying those comments; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, was an investigation launched against the Prime Minister for leaking classified information; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, on what specific unclassified information were the Prime Minister’s comments based; and (d) who provided the Prime Minister with the information mentioned in (c)?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction]

Mr. Speaker, this matter is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice. The Government of Canada takes seriously all relevant laws and policies regarding the protection of classified information, including the policy on government security.

Question No. 2002

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

With regard to the Study on Competitiveness of Canada's Upstream Oil and Gas Industry which was put up for tender by Natural Resources Canada in April 2018: (a) who conducted the study; (b) what were the findings and methodology of the study; (c) what was the final contract value of the study; and (d) what is the website address where the findings can be located?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a request from the provincial and territorial energy and mines ministers, Natural Resources Canada commissioned a study on the competitiveness of Canada’s upstream oil and gas industry.

With regard to (a), the contract for a study on the competitiveness of Canada’s upstream oil and gas industry follows a joint ministerial commitment made at the 2017 Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference, EMMC, to examine regulatory barriers to investment in Canada’s oil and gas industry. Given the specialized knowledge and expertise that exist outside government, particularly in terms of project valuations and modelling of the effects of various policies and regulations on project returns, it was decided that a study would be contracted to a third party. Following an initial advance contract award notice, ACAN, process, a request for proposals was posted in April 2018. A contract was awarded to Wood Mackenzie, a leading oil and gas consultancy, on June 7, 2018. A final study, titled “Study on Competitiveness of Western Canada’s Oil and Gas Resources”, was delivered to Natural Resources Canada on July 31, 2018.

With regard to (b) and (d), a comprehensive summary, including a detailed look at the methodology and key findings, can be found on Natural Resources Canada’s website at:

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/emmc/pdf/2018/en/Summary%20-%20Competitiveness%20of%20Western%20Oil%20and%20Gas_en.pdf.

With regard to (c) the final contract value of the study was $88,000.

Question No. 2003

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

With regard to all Marine Mammal Regulations introduced or amended by the government since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all biological, ecological, population, and impact studies conducted by the government, broken down by regulation or regulatory change, including (i) completion date, (ii) who conducted the study, (iii) findings, (iv) website location where the findings can be located, (v) methodology?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, there were no scientific studies specifically conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to inform the marine mammal regulations amendments post November 4, 2015; therefore, the answer to the above questions (i) to (v) is nil. However, the most recent amendments to the marine mammal regulations were informed by the best available science from the department’s scientists, as well as external scientific research, and through consultations with indigenous groups and stakeholders.

In the early 2000s, concerns about the cumulative effects of disturbance to marine mammals were brought to the attention of the department by industry and marine mammal researchers. The department commissioned Dr. Jon Lien of Memorial University in Newfoundland to provide his professional recommendations with respect to addressing these concerns. Dr. Lien’s report, found at http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/462620/publication.html, published in 2001, indicated that repeated exposure to, and interaction with, humans may interrupt or prevent marine mammals from completing their normal life processes, e.g., mating, calving and nursing; cause habituation of marine mammals to human activities; and threaten the survival of individual animals. At that time, section 7 of the marine mammal regulations, MMR, did prohibit the disturbance of marine mammals by any person. However, they did not expressly and effectively identify specific activities that may disturb the normal life processes of a marine mammal.

The department considered a general approach distance for vessels on the water of 100 metres for whales, dolphins and porpoises to be a practical and comprehensible means to prevent disturbance to the animals; however, the practicality of setting a single approach distance applicable to all species, areas and circumstances proved to be a very difficult task. Although 100 metres is considered to be a reasonable distance to minimize disturbance both nationally and internationally, including by Australia, New Zealand and the United States, after consultation in several locations in Canada, DFO considered different distances and ultimately decided to introduce a schedule to the MMR that tailors vessel approach distances to particular areas and circumstances and species.

Specific approach distances in the amended MMRs were informed by a number of external studies. For example, DFO contracted Chris Malcolm to conduct a study on the behaviour of beluga whales in the presence of whale watching vessels in Churchill, MB. This study, published in 2011, found at http://cbwtoa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MalcolmPennerBelugaBoats.pdf, recommended a 25 metre minimum approach distance in Churchill, and a 50 metre approach distance for beluga feeding aggregations. On the Pacific coast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has compiled scientific evidence regarding approach distances for killer whales. Research results indicated that killer whale behavior can be affected by approaches at distances greater than 100 yards, or 91.4 metres, according to Lusseau et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v6/n3/p211-221/; Noren et al, 2009, https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v8/n3/p179-192/; Williams et al, 2009 https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v6/n3/p199-209/, due to behavioural changes and therefore potential impacts on life processes.

In consideration of flight manoeuvres, the amendments prohibit activities such as taking off, landing or altering the course or altitude of the aircraft for the purpose of bring the aircraft closer to a marine mammal or otherwise disturbing it. This prohibition is applicable when the aircraft is being operated at an altitude of less than 304.8 metres, or 1000 feet, within the radius of one-half nautical mile from the marine mammal. The 1000 feet altitude distance is considered a best practice domestically and internationally, including in the United States. However, helicopters that are being used for the seal pup observation industry are exempted from section 7.2 of the regulations, as there is evidence that the brief interaction people have with seal pups on these excursions have no negative effects on the pups, according to Kovacs and Innes, 1990, https://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/0168-1591(90)90083-P/abstract.

The approach limits specified in the amended MMR are also generally consistent with standards adopted internationally, including Australia’s environment protection and biodiversity conservation regulations 2000, and most of the guidelines in the United States. There are various guidelines, codes of conducts and best practices guides in the U.S. under which the approach distance to marine mammals varies depending on the region, state, and species. Although they are distinct in their application, these regulatory and non-regulatory instruments reflect a common purpose for conservation and protection of marine mammal species, and include rules such as keeping a minimum approach distance of 100 yards from all marine mammals. Moreover, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s northwest office has established a regulatory requirement specific to killer whales in the Pacific region, which requires that vessels must not approach any killer whale any closer than 200 yards, or 183 metres, and must stay 400 yards, or 366 metres, out of the path of oncoming whales. Finally, vessels are forbidden to intercept a whale or position a vessel in the path of a whale.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Madam Speaker, if the government's response to Question No. 2001 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 2001

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to the government’s decision not to provide costs associated with legal assistance to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman: (a) who made the decision to deny legal assistance costs; (b) was the decision in (a) supported by the Minister of National Defence; (c) on what date was the decision in (a) made; and (d) which Ministers, exempt staff, or other government employees have or will receive taxpayer-funded legal assistance in relation to the case?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Criminal Code

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that the House respectfully disagrees with amendments 1 and 2 made by the Senate to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as they are inconsistent with the Bill’s objective of codifying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on a narrow aspect of the law on sexual assault and instead seek to legislate a different, much more complex legal issue, without the benefit of consistent guidance from appellate courts or a broad range of stakeholder perspectives.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak to Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, and to respond to the amendments from the other place in this regard. It is a particular honour for me to stand to speak to the bill on white ribbon day, which, as we heard, commemorates the massacre that occurred in Montreal 29 years ago today.

As part of my mandate commitments I have been reviewing the criminal justice system with a view to ensuring that it is meeting its objectives and maintaining public safety. My review is also intended to ensure our criminal justice system is fair, relevant, efficient and accessible, that it meets the needs of its victims, respects an accused's right to a fair trial and is better able to respond to the causes and consequences of offending.

These are broad and important objectives, so our government has approached these tasks in phases. In Bill C-39, we removed passages and repealed provisions in the Criminal Code that had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, so that the law as written reflected the law as applied.

In Bill C-46, we significantly modernized Canada's impaired driving laws in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to provide law enforcement with the resources they need to effectively detect and prosecute impaired driving.

In Bill C-75, we seek to tackle the delays that are encumbering our courts.

Today, with Bill C-51, we continue to build on our government's commitment to reviewing the criminal justice system and to making all aspects of the criminal law fairer, clearer and more accessible to Canadians. In particular, the bill seeks to modernize the Criminal Code by repealing or amending provisions that courts have found unconstitutional or that raise unavoidable charter risk.

The bill also aims to ensure that offences in the Criminal Code continue to reflect today's society and its values. To that end the bill removes a number of obsolete or redundant criminal offences that no longer have a place in our criminal law.

Further, the bill creates amendments to the Department of Justice Act. Pursuant to these amendments, the Minister of Justice would have a statutory duty for every government bill to table in Parliament a statement that sets out the bill's potential effects on the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter. For every one of the bills I have tabled, I have tabled charter statements. These amendments would provide greater openness and transparency about the effects of government legislation on charter rights.

Finally, the bill seeks to clarify and strengthen the law on sexual assault in order to prevent misapplication of the law and to help make the criminal justice system fairer and more compassionate toward complainants in sexual assault matters.

The importance of these reforms cannot be overstated, and I would like to recognize and acknowledge all those who have been subject to sexual assault and gender-based violence. Sexual assault is a serious problem in Canada. It affects communities across the country and across all social and economic barriers, and it remains a significant barrier to women's equality.

Addressing violence against women is an issue of the utmost importance to me and to our government as a whole. We remain deeply committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system is responsive to the needs of sexual assault victims. To that end, we have provided significant funding for judicial education relating to sexual assault law, so that judges are better educated on this crucial area of law.

We have also made millions of dollars available through the victims fund to enhance the criminal justice system's response to sexual violence. These resources support important work such as pilot projects in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to provide four free hours of independent legal advice to victims of sexual assault.

It is through efforts like these, as well as those contained in Bill C-51, that we are working to effect a culture shift in our criminal justice system and to foster an environment where sexual assault complainants feel empowered to come forward for justice and support.

We should be proud that Canadian laws around sexual assault are robust and comprehensive, even more so with the proposed steps set out in Bill C-51. However, we must also recognize that more work lies ahead, and we must continue to strive for further improvements. In short, we must continue to work to reduce the incidence of sexual assault in Canada and to ensure more victims feel encouraged to come forward and report their experiences to police.

To that end, Bill C-51 would make important changes to strengthen the law of sexual assault. These changes include creating a new regime governing the admissibility of evidence in the hands of an accused, where the evidence is a complainant's private record.

In addition to the strengthening the law of sexual assault, Bill C-51 would also clarify the law. It would do so by making clear that consent must be affirmatively expressed by words or actively expressed through conduct. This principle codifies the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 Ewanchuk decision, and makes it explicit that there is no consent unless the complainant said “yes” through her words or her conduct. Passivity is not consent, and “no” does not mean “yes”.

Finally, as introduced, Bill C-51 proposes to clarify one aspect of the law pertaining to consent or capacity to consent to sexual activity by codifying the Supreme Court of Canada's 2011 decision in J.A. In J.A., the Supreme Court held that an unconscious person is not capable of providing consent to sexual activity. Therefore, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to state explicitly that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting, but also to clarify that a person may be incapable of consenting for reasons other than unconsciousness.

To pause for a moment, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the other place for their very careful study of Bill C-51. While the other place supported most of the bill, it adopted amendments related to the determination of a complainant's incapacity to consent to sexual activity in the context of sexual assault.

By way of background, many stakeholders welcomed Bill C-51's proposed sexual assault reforms after its introduction. Some offered suggestions concerning the elaboration of the Criminal Code consent provisions to reflect J.A. In part, those witnesses argued that the J.A. decision stands for a broader proposition. They noted that the court held that our consent law requires ongoing conscious consent and that partners need to be capable of asking their partner to stop at any point.

In other words, they suggested that the bill should be amended to reflect an additional principle articulated by the Supreme Court in J.A. to the effect that consent must be contemporaneous with the sexual activity in question.

After hearing from a number of witnesses on the question, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed, and amended to clarify that consent must be present at the time the sexual activity in question takes place. Our government agreed with that point, and we were happy to see that the justice committee amended Bill C-51 at that time so it would codify this broader principle in J.A. Doing so was in keeping with the objectives of the bill, including to ensure that the criminal law is clear and reflects the law as applied.

However, some stakeholders offered additional suggestions concerning our proposed codification of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in J.A. They suggested that the provision that would codify that no consent is obtained if a complainant is unconscious be entirely removed. While the House committee did not amend the legislation to this effect, the other place nonetheless proceeded to adopt amendments that would eliminate this provision.

In its stead, the other place proposed a list of factors to guide the court in determining when a complainant is incapable of consenting.

According to the proposed amendments, complainants are incapable of consenting if they are unable to: one, understand the nature, circumstances, risks and consequences of the sexual activity; two, understand they have the choice to engage in the sexual activity; or three, affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity in words or active conduct.

I would like to be clear. I agree that courts could benefit from guidance in making determinations on a complainant's incapacity to consent when she or he is conscious. The proposed amendments underscore some very significant issues in the area of consent. I also agree that intoxication, short of unconsciousness, represents challenges in the adjudication of sexual assault cases.

For one, as Bill C-51 specifically recognizes, incapacity applies to a broad range of cases well beyond those in which intoxication is an issue. This is an important conversation that we must continue to have. It is for this reason that I plan to consult with a variety of stakeholders on this issue moving forward to determine whether further action is helpful with respect to our common goals and if so, how this might be effectively accomplished.

In taking the time we need to get this right, we recognize just how complex the law of consent is. There is no clear guidance from the Supreme Court or other appellate courts to which we can turn for an exhaustive definition of what incapacity means. In addition, because Bill C-51 proposes to legislate on a very narrow aspect of the law of consent, more detailed guidance and specific instructions on this further issue are needed from stakeholders, as well as those who would be impacted by the further changes in this area. Without this guidance, the risk of unintended consequences is very real.

Moreover, the amendments made in the other place on this issue, though very laudable in their aim, unfortunately do not assist courts in adjudicating incapacity cases. For one, the amendments focus on concerns that arise in cases where the complainant is conscious but intoxicated. As a result, our government has concerns about the potential impact of the amendments on the law governing incapacity to consent in other types of incapacity cases, including those where incapacity is due to a more stable state, such as individuals living with cognitive impairment.

I also wish to note a couple of points concerning the way the courts currently treat these issues.

First, appellate decisions show that a complainant's ability to understand that he or she has a choice to engage in sexual activity or not is determinative of incapacity. However, it is not clear from the existing case law whether the other elements proposed in the amendments are determinative of incapacity or merely factors to be taken into consideration, supported by circumstantial evidence in assessing capacity.

For example, in overturning the Al-Rawi trial decision earlier this year, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected incapacity to communicate as a determinative test for incapacity to consent. As a result, courts may well have difficulty interpreting the proposed provision.

Furthermore, the amendments' proposed factors focus solely on elements that are internal to the complainant and may lead some courts to overlook relevant circumstantial evidence in the determination of incapacity. Though the complainant's subjective state is important, there is a risk that the amendments will lead courts to overlook other evidence that bears on the complainant's capacity. This was also an error of the trial court in this case, as noted by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The amendments adopted in the other place would also prohibit drawing inferences about the complainant's capacity to consent to the sexual activity at issue from evidence of capacity to consent at the time of another sexual activity. These amendments simply restate a well-settled principle of law, which is already proposed for codification in Bill C-51. That principle is that consent must be contemporaneous with the sexual activity in question. This principle applies equally to capacity to consent. Each allegation of sexual assault must be considered on its own merits. The law is clear in this regard and the bill already proposes to codify it.

In short, the proposed changes are well-intentioned, but will not achieve their aim and, in fact, carry great risk of unintended consequences in what is a difficult yet critical area of law. Sexual assault law is too important to leave any room for error. If the definition of incapacity is to be provided, it is imperative we get it right.

If we are to alter this complex area of law in such a significant way, we must be informed by adequate analysis and debate in both chambers as well as by a broad range of stakeholder perspectives, including prosecutors from whom neither of the committees in this place or the other had the opportunity to hear. In addition, we need to consult with the defence bar, police associations and victims groups.

It is our obligation to ensure that the hundreds of sexual assault cases that are prosecuted every day in the country are not negatively affected by an amendment that has yet to be subject to full discussion and deliberation.

As I mentioned before, in order for these issues to receive the treatment they deserve and require, I will and have committed to study the issue of incapacity, with a view to striking the right balance on this important matter. I am grateful to the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee for suggesting that this issue be the subject of further study. I look forward to consulting with them further as part of my future review.

Our government continues to work toward fostering an environment where survivors of sexual assault feel empowered to come forward and trust the system they turn to for justice and support. Consulting on and studying the issue of capacity to consent while conscious will form an integral part of that effort.

I am incredibly proud of our government's efforts to date within the area of sexual assault law. I am confident that our continued efforts will help to ensure that all victims are treated with compassion, dignity and the respect they deserve.

Bill C-51 is an important part of our work on this issue. It is also consistent with our broader efforts to ensure that our criminal law is responsible to the needs of all Canadians and that it reflects our values. Our government will continue to find ways to improve upon our criminal justice system so it keeps Canadians safe, respects victims, responds to the needs of vulnerable populations and addresses the underlying social causes of crime. I am proud of the role Bill C-51 will play in helping us to achieve these goals. I look forward to the bill's expeditious passage to ensure these important reforms are enacted without further delay.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, a number of aspects of Bill C-51 are positive. Among other things, Bill C-51 would clarify the scope of section 276 of the Criminal Code in respect to the twin myths. As the minister correctly pointed out, it would codify the Ewanchuk decision as well as the J.A. decision.

With respect to the Senate amendments, I wholeheartedly agree with the minister's comments and the reason for rejecting those amendments, however well-intentioned they are.

However, one area of concern that I do have is with respect to the defence disclosure requirements, whereby any record relating to the complainant would have to be disclosed and an application would have to be brought 60 days before trial. Again, we are not talking about records involving the sexual activity of a complainant, which are protected by section 276. We are not talking about therapeutic records, which are protected by subsection 278.1. We are talking about any record relating to the complainant. There was significant concern that this was overly broad and that the process would be unwieldily with respect to potentially thousands of records that would have to be litigated before a trial and how that might contribute to delay.

Could the hon. minister comment on that?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to comment again on the efforts that were made at both committees and the improvements the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has made.

With respect to the comments around expanding the rape shield provisions and on defence disclosure, I appreciate the conversation that took place at committee. I assure my hon. colleague that with respect to disclosure requirements, to sustain expanding the rape shield provisions to sexual communications and creating a regime for the admissibility of private records in the hands of the accused would not impose a reverse or defence disclosure obligation.

The Crown is not entitled to receive evidence. Nor is the defence required to hand it over. They are rules of evidence which govern the admissibility of the evidence in sexual assault trials and not rules of disclosure.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her bill.

The NDP is heartened by several amendments seeking to enhance the rape shield provisions and to ensure complainants have legal representation during proceedings.

However, the bill does not include any additional funds to help cover legal fees. It is well known that this will create economic disparities between victims who can afford a lawyer and those who cannot.

Does the minister plan to set up a fund to help victims obtain legal services for their own protection?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague on recognizing the need to assist victims of sexual assault and to assist them in accessing the criminal justice system, being informed of their rights and being able to obtain legal advice if they have an inability to pay for that advice.

We recognize this is an issue. One of the things I am incredibly proud of is that my department and our government have invested significant dollars to support victims of sexual assault in a broad range of areas. Specifically with respect to the Department of Justice, we have what is called the victims fund. Through the victims fund, we have been able to fund projects in provinces, as I referenced in my speech, around providing four hours of free legal advice to victims of sexual assault.

I know there can and is more to be done. We are committed to ensuring we provide all victims with the respect they deserve, with the necessity to ensure that they are aware of their rights and that my office continues to work with the ombudsperson for victims rights among the other measures we are advancing on gender-based violence.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments today, especially on December 6 as we recognize the 29th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, on a bill that would address head-on gender violence, this day and everyday. I thought the minister captured the sentiment that “no” does not mean “yes”, a simple but important phrase.

I want to ask the minister two questions. One builds on the question that was posed by the NDP with respect to other efforts that have been made not just by the justice ministry but across government, to assist in addressing gender-based violence. I am thinking about the access to justice components of pro bono law in Ontario, the victims fund, as mentioned by the minister, and also our efforts to support legal aid.

Second, could the minister connect this bill to another important initiative, which is our response to the Jordan decision in Bill C-75 to clean up provisions that have been found unconstitutional? That bill would reduce backlogs and delays. How does that address our efforts to respond to Jordan?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the parliamentary secretary's important work on advancing our justice legislation. His questions give me the opportunity to highlight broadly what our government continues to do with respect to addressing sexual assault and gender-based violence.

We have invested significant dollars in budget 2018 to combat gender-based violence, including sexual assault. We have provided $25 million over five years for legal aid for victims of workplace sexual harassment. We and the Minister of Status of Women are embarking on a national strategy to address gender-based violence and to support judicial education and training, among other initiatives, in the Department of Justice, such as the victims fund. We continue to work with my counterparts in the provinces and territories to continue to have a fulsome response to gender-based violence.

In terms of our legislative agenda on law reform, there is a direct connection between Bill C-51 and Bill C-75, which is the criminal justice reform bill that addresses efficiencies and effectiveness, all of which are intended to ensure that we are protecting and supporting victims of crime.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is positive that Bill C-51 seeks to remove redundant and obsolete sections of the Criminal Code. What is unfortunate is that the government still has not been able to move forward with the removal of the so-called zombie laws, the sections of the Criminal Code that have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The minister mentioned Bill C-75, which includes the removal of those provisions. However, the minister neglected to note that Bill C-39 was introduced all the way back in March 2017, which would have removed those sections. Why did the government not pass Bill C-39, which could have been passed unanimously in this House almost two years ago?