Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2020

The Environment

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to table this document, entitled “Storyteller and Team Lead”, reference number PCO20J-021515-000073. I believe it is proof that the government does have a serious job plan. I am sure they want this on the record as it shows how serious they are about employing Canadians throughout the pandemic.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I think what we heard was a unanimous consent request for tabling a document. This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to this request to express their disagreement.

Accordingly, all those opposed to granting unanimous consent to table this document will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We do not have unanimous consent.

Tamils

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by 409 Canadians. It is in support of the five men who walked from Toronto to Ottawa and the three who walked from Montreal to Ottawa to bring to light the issues of the families of those who have disappeared. As colleagues know, 60,000 to 100,000 Tamils disappeared during the last phase of the war in Sri Lanka, and this petition is to bring attention to their plight.

The petitioners asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs for a response.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition e-2710, which has been signed by over 1,100 Canadians. It relates to the ongoing debates around Israel's plans to annex the occupied Palestinian West Bank. The Government of Canada opposes this, of course. It would be an illegal act should it happen.

The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call on the government to put some force behind the call that Israel step back from this illegal action by banning the importation of settlement products into Canada, incorporating a settlement exclusion clause into the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, differentiating between those products made within legal Israel and those of the occupied territories and asking the Canada Revenue Agency to take steps relating to the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund of Canada, which is supporting illegal settlements.

Opioids

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on the opioid crisis. The petitioners are from Port Alberni, Qualicum and Parksville. They note that more lives have been lost, over 15,000, to a tainted drug supply and that this could have been prevented. They say there have been more lives lost to the opioid crisis than to COVID-19, SARS and H1N1. They are simply asking the government to show that it understands the seriousness of the crisis by declaring it a public health emergency, which needs to happen, under the Emergencies Act, for the government to develop a plan to save lives.

The petitioners are asking the government to reform current drug policy and to create, with urgency and immediacy, a system to provide safe, unadulterated access to substances so that people who use substances, experimentally, recreationally or chronically, are not at imminent risk of overdose because of a contaminated source.

Women and Gender Equality

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to table petition e-2636, a petition signed by nearly 3,000 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The petition calls for the government to put in place a measure that would see menstrual products, namely tampons and pads, provided for free in all federally regulated workplaces. The petition seeks to revamp an initiative brought forward originally by this government in May 2019, an initiative that has so far gone through consultation but has not been introduced with a concrete outcome. The petitioners call on the government to take this very seriously.

I commend the individual who introduced the petition. She is a former constituent. Her name is Rachel Ettinger. She and other Canadians have been calling for this for a long time. She is a passionate advocate and champion of women's rights and human rights. The petition is a serious one.

Questions on the Order Paper

[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, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Are any members opposed to all questions being allowed to stand at this time?

Seeing and hearing none, it is agreed.

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.

Judges Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up the motion before it, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country was about to start the five-minute period for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[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, I was very encouraged, as I know many of my colleagues were, by the presentation of this bill. We appreciate the comments from the minister and members of the opposition, and hopefully the bill will receive unanimous support from the House. With that sort of support, we can anticipate that the bill will get to the committee stage sooner rather than later.

Given the importance of the training process for judges, I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how nice it would be, given the potential support for the bill and the history of the bill in the chamber, to see it pass.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill shows what can happen when parliamentarians follow the full powers and processes of Parliament with a bill that has been amended and has already gone to committee at some point. It is really important for us to fulfill all of our duties and all of the processes that a bill should have, and it has brought us to this point today. Unlike in other situations when bills have not gone through full debate or have not been sent to committee, this is a really good example of what we can do to bring a bill to a better place. This our job and our role, and it is what we should continue to do.

[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?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with really big issues like what we are talking about here today, there is never one silver bullet; there are always multiple levers that can assist. This bill is one of those levers. It is important that our judicial system be fair and that we have judges who are properly trained and who will write into their decisions the rationale for those decisions. This is one of those levers that we are able to utilize as part of the greater conversations we are having in dealing with issues within our society.

[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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you in that chair. This should be memorable.

I have a question for my hon. colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who has seen several iterations of the bill and reiterated the urgency to quickly pass this one.

Is it all the more urgent because we have only just returned from prorogation and we are in a period of uncertainty? We do not know what is going to happen with Parliament and we would like the bill to be reviewed quickly in committee to be passed even more quickly.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her speech. I would like to ask her a question regarding what happened in Quebec a few days ago when an indigenous woman went to the hospital.

We are well aware that the problem of racism and discrimination against indigenous people, Black people and people of colour is very serious. This applies to all institutions.

How does the member think this bill can improve the situation in our institutions, our justice system and our penal system?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the parliamentary secretary for his very important question.

I was hoping to talk about this issue in a broader sense, so I thank him for doing so and reminding us that the bill may be useful in many ways.

The Bloc Québécois has acknowledged that systemic racism exists, including towards indigenous people. We know that there will be several dimensions to the training. It will be primarily on sexual assault, but it will also address the social context, the woman's situation and the family situation. It is hoped that the training will improve the courts and help combat systemic racism.

Ideally, we can also hope that training will be provided to decision-makers and various stakeholders from every background. I think that training is the path to take. This is certainly a step in the right direction, even if training will not solve every problem.

[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.