Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2020

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, training is never a bad thing. As I mentioned, judges already receive training on a plethora of other subjects, and it does not skew their reasoning. Furthermore, the training will be for superior court judges.

If a judge is perceived as being biased, here is what I can say. First, they will have to provide more reasons for their decisions. Second, there will always be the possibility of appealing the decision. Judges are human, which means they are not infallible. Training is a way to support them.

I hardly think the training will create any biases. However, there are mechanisms and safeguards that will enable us to seek recourse in the event of an error. In fact, that error might not even be caused by the training.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member on her speech and also recognize the amazing work we did together at PROC to look at how we could do this all virtually. I am very happy to be here participating with members across Canada. I think it is a wonderful progress of democracy during these very trying times.

I would like to ask the member to speak a bit about how she sees this impacting women. We have had a lot of women come forward in my riding who have faced different kinds of sexual assault cases and have felt diminished and afraid of coming forward because of this situation and the history of our legal system in this country. I wonder if she could speak to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, I do not think that Bill C-3 will solve all the problems.

However, the fact that the training will be offered to all superior court judges could, in some way, help restore the confidence of victims in the justice system and, as I was saying, that may open the door to more avenues of recourse. There can never be enough good recourse options to help victims of sexual assault so this is a step in the right direction.

However, I have no problem saying that this is not enough. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I think that this is an excellent start. If we look at this bill from that perspective and remember that it opens the door to civil courts, it would be a mistake not to move forward with it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-3, to give the position of the NDP in my role as the deputy justice critic.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois for their interventions. The nature and tone of today's debate on the bill and the sensitive subject matter it deals with shows how well this Parliament can work and the seriousness with which we can treat these particularly sensitive subjects.

It is a little strange to be back at second reading on the bill before us. As members know, it is the reincarnation of a previous bill, Bill C-5, which was debated in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Of course that bill was passed in one day and made its way to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we did have two days of witness testimony. It feels like we are reversing things and going back in time, but it is good that the bill is being brought forward in short order by the Minister of Justice. I have to thank him for placing it on the priority list. Hopefully, we can see the second reading debate stage not take up too much time so we can get back to that all-important committee work.

When the previous bill was debated on February 19, we heard much of the same comments as has been evident in the debate today. I hope that after maybe a few more interventions, depending on how many other members can speak, we can find some kind of unanimous consent to not go to a recorded division but pass the bill on a voice vote, as was done on February 19 of this year, so the justice committee can get back to its work.

I want to also acknowledge the incredibly important role that judges have in our society. I do not think the jobs they do get enough credit because of the gravity of their decisions. Indeed, judges have an incredibly important job. They not only have to be well versed in the facts of law, but they have to interpret that law and apply it to the facts of the case before them, knowing full well that their decisions are going to have profound consequences either for the accused or for the person who brought forward the complaint. It is something that we should not take lightly and it is a position that deserves our utmost respect.

I want to acknowledge the role of the former interim Conservative Party leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who brought forward the original version of the bill back in the 42nd Parliament through her private member's bill, Bill C-337. At that time, she recognized how important the bill was. In that 42nd Parliament, it was good to see that unanimous consent was given to send the bill to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which did some very important work as well.

We have the bill before us because there is a wide body of evidence of a lack of trust in the justice system, particularly by people whose experiences have been marginalized and so on. We are very much supportive of the intent behind Bill C-3. We do indeed want to see it get to committee, because it is at committee where that all-important witness testimony will highlight why the specific sections of the bill are necessary. I know there is debate at committee as to whether the bill in its present form is properly worded, but that is something for a later stage.

However, it is important at this second reading stage of the debate to acknowledge that complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports, inadequate information about court processes and they are often confronted by a system that ignores their wishes. We should acknowledge that Bill C-3 will not solve those problems by itself. The bill is very narrow in its scope. It looks at the training that judges receive.

It is really important that in the context of the debate of the bill, we as parliamentarians take every opportunity we can to apply pressure to the government, to remind the government, that there is still much work to be done to ensure our justice system fully lives up to the expectations of everyone who has to use it. The fact that so many women, so many persons of colour, Black or indigenous members of those communities, have their experiences marginalized by the justice system and do not have the kind of confidence that others do. That is a real shortcoming and that has to be identified and fixed with appropriate funding and resources to ensure people have that confidence. In other words, a systemic review is needed to ensure we have a system that lives up to those needs.

There are other actors. It goes beyond just judges. We have seen problems before with our police services. We have seen problems with how lawyers behave in the courtroom. Therefore, many different actors could also benefit from this type of training.

To highlight these points, it is helpful at this stage of the debate to really illuminate some of the statistics out there. It is estimated that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police or that one in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. In 82% of these sexual assaults, the offender is known to the victim, and 28% of Canadians have said that they have experienced workplace sexual assault or violence.

We know, in breaking down the statistics further, that transgender people are far more likely to experience intimate partner violence. Women who are living with physical or cognitive impairments are two to three times more likely to experience sexual violence. Indigenous women are far more likely to experience this sexual violence, and of course senior women. The statistics are there. They are not a secret. They have been well known for decades now. The fact that we are in 2020 still speaking about the need for this training is rightly construed as a source of national shame, but also an important focal point and an impetus for us as parliamentarians to redouble our efforts to ensure we are building that system.

I remember from the previous debates in the first session on Bill C-5 that my Conservative colleagues had raised concerns at that time about some of the actions of the Parole Board of Canada. We know full well also that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has also had problems. Those judicial bodies, because they do fall under federal jurisdiction, the members of those particular boards could probably also benefit from this mandated training. I urge the government and the Minister of Justice to possibly look at ways we can expand this type of mandatory training to the appointees who sit on those boards.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, the previous version of this bill in the 42nd Parliament was Ms. Ambrose's Bill C-337 and that bill was referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in March 2017. During that time, the Status of Women committee had five meetings on the bill. It had 25 witnesses come before the committee and the bill was reported back to the House with some amendments. One of the big things to emerge from the committee study of that bill was to try to find a definition and exploration of the term “social context”.

Social context in the meaning of this bill will require that judges take into the account the context of the cases they hear and not be, and this is really important, influenced by attitudes based on the stereotypes, myths or prejudice that exist in our society.

Many of those same witnesses who before the Status of Women committee in 2017 also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had two meetings on March 10 and March 12, right before COVID-19 shut everything down for us. Those groups of witnesses in those two meetings included the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute. The testimony we heard mirrored a lot of what was heard back in 2017.

When this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, I hope it will take into account that previous testimony and perhaps pass a motion to accept it as part of the study on the bill so we do not have to go over old steps. However, there will be some debate on the particular wording of the bill, which I will go into a bit later in my remarks.

When we look at the substance of the bill, it seeks to ensure that judicial candidates have a full and current understanding of sexual assault laws, that they know the principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, that they are educated on the myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants and that it will all be done through training seminars. This is needed because we have seen through the actions of various judges that this training is sorely needed.

With respect to what the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute have said, this type of training is already happening. However, because we have this evidence of judges making inappropriate statements at trial, of following outdated myths and stereotypes, these have profound impacts on the victims of sexual assault and further erode the general trust in our judicial system.

When Bill C-337 was sent to the Senate, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee made some amendments to it. I understand the government's version of the bill we have before us today is a lot more in line with the Senate's version of the bill because of the constitutional concerns in place.

A big focal point of the bill will be the struggle between the role of Parliament and our judiciary. I understand that it is extremely important that our judges remain free of any type of political influence. As parliamentarians, we have a role to introduce legislation that falls within the social context we operate within. Therefore, our bills are often the product of the demands of society, of the members of the public who we serve.

When it comes to specific federal statutes like the Judges Act, there is a careful and considered role for Parliament in mandating the types of training we expect our judges to have. We escape any constitutional conundrums, because once the judges have taken that training, that is where Parliament's role ends and it is where it should end. We do not want to have any type of influence over how the judge uses that training. We simply want to know that the judge has taken the training and understands the full scope of sexual assault laws and outdated myths and stereotypes so we can build up the confidence that is sorely needed.

These comments have been argued in the public sphere. I know concerns have been echoed by Michael Spratt, who is no stranger to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and has often written quite lengthily on the subject, and I appreciate his views. His concerns with respect to this legislation absolutely need to be taken into account.

We have also seen a commentary from Emmett Macfarlane, who is a constitutional law professor at the University of Waterloo. He believes Parliament has a legitimate role to step in and mandate that there are substantive qualifications for the judges of our land as well as, through legislation, mandate the type of training we want to see.

The government has provided a charter statement that addresses some of the concerns that fall under this, particularly section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so on. I think that is a good guideline for parliamentarians to use as a road map when we continue our deliberations at the justice committee. However, I do not think there is going to be any kind of disagreement that this bill is needed, especially from parliamentarians. What I am seeing already is that there is, in fact, going to be unanimous consent that this bill is worthy and that it warrants being sent to committee. If the actions of the 42nd Parliament are any guide to this one, I suspect that we may hopefully see this bill clear both Houses of Parliament and be sent to the Governor General for royal assent.

In the few minutes I have remaining, I think it is also important to talk about some of the other problematic areas that we have in our justice system. For this particular section, I want to reference the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly call to action number 27, which called upon the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to:

...ensure that lawyers receive appropriate cultural competency training, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

I acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of Bill C-3, and we certainly might run into problems in an attempt to fit that kind of training into a future bill, but I think the concerns that indigenous people in Canada have with the justice system, and concerns that Black Canadians and people of colour have with the systemic racism that is in existence, must remain top of mind, even if it is not possible for us to bring forward a legislative fix to them. I know they were referenced in the Speech from the Throne. I also want to thank all members of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, which put forward that statement as a road map for the action we need to take. I think those concerns are entirely appropriate to highlight during our debate on this bill, because it is following through in the same vein of people whose experiences have been marginalized through the justice system.

In conclusion, I would like to say that myths and stereotypes continue to have extremely negative impacts on people. It is extremely important that we as parliamentarians listen to the voices of people who have been marginalized by the justice system. Women's and LGBTQ organizations specifically must be consulted in developing the continuing education program on issues of sexual assault and social context. The Liberal government accepted all the findings in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the report noted that apathy from police services is indicative of ongoing colonial violence, racism and sexism, revictimizing indigenous women, girls and two-spirit peoples, so that must be paid attention to. As well, we must understand that sexual assault and gender-based violence disproportionately impacts women, minorities, poor people, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ+ communities, sex workers and other marginalized communities.

I will conclude there. I appreciate having this opportunity to give my thoughts on Bill C-3, and I look forward to my colleagues helping to pass this bill in short order and sending it to committee.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-4, An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19.

Royal Assent

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

October 2, 2020

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 2nd day of October, 2020, at 12:08 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Assunta Di Lorenzo

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his comments, his analysis of this bill and his important contributions to the justice committee in the last Parliament.

The member raised a couple of issues that I wanted to ask about, with respect to this bill. He raised the issue of judicial independence and he raised the issue about the credibility of, and the faith that Canadians have in, the administration of justice.

As the member knows, this bill clarifies that seminars and education would be provided on things like sexual assault law and social context, and that the curriculum would be developed in consultation with external groups such as victims' groups, women's groups, etc. However, the curriculum itself would be devised, after that consultation, by the judges themselves and delivered by judges to judges through vehicles like the National Judicial Institute.

The first question is whether that appropriately meets the constitutional principle of judicial independence, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford outlined.

Second, the bill also calls for a tabling in Parliament annually of the seminars that were delivered and the numbers of people attending. What would that do to contribute to the administration of justice and the credibility and confidence that people in this country have in that system?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, both in the last Parliament and now.

I do believe that the fact that we are mandating that the training would be overseen by judges is an appropriate place for Parliament's role to end. I believe that we satisfy the constitutional concerns. That is why I am providing my support to this bill. There may have to be some fine tuning with some of the language at committee. I do not want to presuppose the committee's work, but as a first step the bill that we have before us passes muster, and we will have to see if there is any fine tuning that can be done.

On the second part of the parliamentary secretary's question, with regard to the seminars and reporting back to Parliament, I believe that it is always in society's interests that we have some kind of feedback mechanism where we can keep tabs on how our legislation is actually impacting the people it is supposed to be impacting, but also that accountability for members of the public who have to go through the justice system, especially those who have been marginalized—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the west coast is a proud British Columbian as am I, and I thank him for his speech today.

We recognize in this particular bill that there cannot be inequality across this great country. Someone may be impacted if a particular judge does not have the familiarity or the sensitivity to wade through very difficult issues, and that is what this bill seeks to address.

Further than that, there is a question of the chicken-and-egg argument. Some people believe that justices should remain isolated and decide how to deal with their system versus it being done by elected politicians such as us.

I have a concern, as did the member of Parliament for Windsor West, about Crown copyright and how Crown copyright defers to the institution to decide how it will make its information known. This is specific because, in some parts of the country, provincial courts will give out information widely available on the Internet, while some others will not. That affects access to the public knowledge of justice.

Does the member agree that there are other things that we, as politicians, need to raise so the system can see its gaps and respond?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about the “chicken and the egg” problem. On my small farming property, I have both chickens and eggs, so I understand that concept very well.

I will always defer to my colleague from Windsor West on the issues of copyright. His expertise on that subject is well known, both within our caucus and within the broader House of Commons.

The member raises an important point about how different provincial jurisdictions have different approaches. Bringing it back to the bill, there is also the fact that 95% of sexual assault cases are going to be heard by judges appointed at the provincial level. It is very important that the federal government take note of that, and have some kind of unified policy with its provincial counterparts.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

As my colleagues from Saint-Jean and Rivière-du-Nord said, this bill is a first step. There will be work to be done in committee, and the Bloc would like to collaborate on those efforts.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on an idea raised by my colleague from Saint-Jean. This bill may open the door to other types of recourse or dialogue. In sexual assault cases we need to consider whether victims trust the system. The burden of proof can be challenging. The idea would be to use civil courts to expand the dialogue and look at other forms of redress. The idea would be to help victims regain confidence in the system.

We could also broaden the dialogue on what constitutes sexual assault. An online petition was started on the House of Commons website to expand the dialogue. Could a form of psychological violence be considered sexual assault in cases of domestic violence?

I would like to hear what the member thinks about how this bill could help expand the dialogue and help victims regain confidence in the system.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for bringing up the subject of trust. When it comes to the Criminal Code and Judges Act, these address the limits of federal Parliament. We have the ability to legislate both those federal statutes, but the administration of justice, and how our various provincial courts operate, fall under provincial jurisdiction. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech why it is so important that the federal government work with the provinces to make sure we have those financial supports in place for people who go through the justice system. This bill, by itself, is not going to solve those problems. We need to have a system to build that trust for victims of sexual violence so they have the confidence to bring their complaints forward, knowing they will get a fair trial and fair treatment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech.

I believe there is a consensus here in the House that the bill is a step in the right direction. It is absolutely essential that justices have training to eliminate prejudice in sexual assault cases. As my colleague from Shefford stated, having confidence in the justice system is also another very important factor.

However, even before arriving in court, many of these women are denied services that are absolutely essential. Not so long ago, I met with representatives of the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes. They pointed out that, every year, 10,000 women who are victims of domestic abuse and ask for help cannot find a room for lack of availability.

There is therefore a very serious underlying problem. These women are forced to return home to their violent spouse or end up homeless and on the street. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me that for there to be real justice we also must have basic services.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more. His comments are particularly important, especially in the context of the pandemic we now find ourselves in.

As we all know, this pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in the workplace, who have often been forced to go back home because they may have lost their job or they have to look after children. Absolutely, there are so many women in my community who face sexual violence and do not have appropriate housing options.

If we are going to talk about really lifting women up, really lifting up people who experience sexual violence, it is absolutely critical that we have those baseline services in place to ensure they have the supports necessary for confidence in going through the justice system. I could not agree with the member more.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being vice-chair of the status of women committee when we studied this bill originally.

During testimony, Prof. Carissima Mathen said:

That's been a somewhat unheralded earthquake in the world of judicial appointments.... The innovations that have been done around judicial appointments...have been quite remarkable.

I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the importance of ensuring that we get the right people on the bench, not just training but ensuring that we have the right people and that we have a broad diversity of people being appointed to the bench.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member. Ultimately, we want to see our judicial bench reflective of the cultural mosiac and diversity that we see in Canada. That would include persons of colour, Black Canadians and indigenous people. We want to see that diversity reflected on the bench so that the people who are making decisions in these profound and very important cases have that kind of understanding and the lived experiences that so many members of our society have every day.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Rural Economic Development]

Mr. Speaker, my presentation comes with a story, which comes with a trigger warning.

The keg party was a 10-minute walk from Ava's new home at Delaware Hall residence, just north of Western University's soaring stone gates. It was the Friday after Thanksgiving, and word had it the organizers had already sold more than 200 tickets. She had been looking forward to it all week, her first big bash as a university student. Ava left the dorm with her friends around 10:15 p.m., already feeling a bit tipsy from the drinks they had while getting ready. She did not care much for the taste of beer, so the 18-year-old brought her own drink in a large plastic bottle that had a straw affixed to the lid: 10 shots of vodka mixed with diet lemonade.

Like many of the neighbouring properties, the vast, nearly century-old home had been converted into student housing. The party washed over every floor and spilled onto the lawn, which was littered with red plastic cups. Someone handed Ava a beer, which she accepted, but then quietly set aside, preferring to sip what she had brought. She and her friends watched drinking games, flip cup and beer pong.

As the night went on, things became more and more fuzzy. Ava remembers being outside with her friends and then leaving to find the washroom inside, with her nearly empty drink in hand. She stumbled off alone. Somewhere along the line, she is not sure when, she found herself talking to a guy from the party. He looked to be a few years older than her, with dark messy hair and a slim build. She remembers they were outside and kissing, and then she blacked out.

When things came back into focus, Ava says she was on the ground near a pine tree at the north side of the house. She was naked and cold and lying in the dirt. The man was inside her. “You're hurting me, stop”, she remembers telling him. She had only had sex once before. “I don't want to hurt you, baby”, he said, but he did not stop. Ava struggled to concentrate and stay conscious. “No, stop”, she said again and again, and he ignored her. Terror shot through Ava's body. In that moment, she realized the man had not simply misunderstood her. He was not playing around; he was raping her. No one could hear her call for help. She had no idea what to do. She wondered if he would kill her when it was over. She stopped fighting and went still.

Suddenly, there was a flash. Ava looked over and saw four or five men pointing cellphone cameras in her direction. She became frantic. The man on top of her ran away. He left his wallet behind, police later told Ava. She was left naked and curled on the ground, her back and hair covered in dirt. Two women who heard Ava sobbing found her shortly after.

It was October 16, 2010, more than five years before an eerily similar attack at Stanford University would make international headlines. Ava's story, however, never made the news. Her case did not go to court. Her assailant was never arrested, never charged. In fact, the London Police Service detective concluded that what happened to Ava that night was not a crime.

There are many ways to shut a case without laying a charge. If there is not enough evidence, there is a closure code for that. If a complainant does not want to proceed with charges, there is a code for that, too. On November 13, 2010, the detective closed Ava's file as “unfounded”, another formal police classification that rendered her allegations baseless. It meant that a crime neither was attempted nor occurred. It did not immediately brand Ava a liar, necessarily, but it meant she was not raped. According to police records, the suspect was given a warning.

“What does unfounded mean to you? What does unfounded mean to anybody? It means ‘You’re lying,’” says Ottawa criminologist Holly Johnson, who has extensively studied that city’s unfounded cases. She believes that high rates send a message that police don’t believe large numbers of complainants, “which reinforces damaging myths that women lie about sexual victimization, and could act as a deterrent to already low reporting.”

Until a few years ago, unfounded statistics were kept secret, but that was not always the case:

Until 2003, Statistics Canada released unfounded numbers. The last year for which numbers are available is 2002, when the national unfounded rate for sexual offences was 16 per cent. The agency collects data through the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, a national set of [data] standards that every police service is supposed to follow. The definition of unfounded, along with all other clearance codes, is laid out explicitly in the UCRS protocols.

But after Statistics Canada raised concerns that police services weren’t using the category consistently—for instance, misclassifying as unfounded cases that simply did not have enough evidence to lay a charge; or, more seriously, not recording unfounded cases at all—Statistics Canada decided to stop collecting the data altogether, rather than force police to follow the rules.

That was an excerpt from Robyn Doolittle's series in The Globe and Mail back in February 2017. We were all in the House of Commons in another building when that report came out. It was a big moment. It caused a ripple of positive changes for survivors of gender-based violence across the country.

My hon. colleague, the incredible Ralph Goodale, who was our minister of public safety at the time, worked with police services and brought back the coverage and the statistics being collected on unfounded cases. There continues to be work across the country within police services to continue to improve the process for victims and survivors.

I share this story now because I have 20 minutes, but also because I want to make sure. We have had this debate over and over again in the House, as my colleagues have said. Advocates and survivors have been fighting and saying stories like this are real for decades upon decades. I wanted to share the story because I wanted to make sure that survivors are at the centre of the conversations we have about Bill C-3. I also wanted to make sure that, for all the work that remains on the issues around sexual and gender-based violence and violence against women and girls, we remember survivors first and foremost and the courage it takes to step up and even report a case, let alone tell their stories so that others can learn from them and make a change.

I also want to acknowledge the important role that every sector plays and the important role that journalism, like Robyn Doolittle's piece, plays in moving us all forward.

Now let us go back to Ava. Let us say that Ava was believed to be telling the truth. Let us say that Ava did go to court. How should she be treated after having endured what she experienced? “Why couldn’t you just keep your knees together?” or “sex and pain sometimes go together”.

What if she had been killed and happened to be indigenous, as Cindy Gladue was, a Métis and Cree woman from Edmonton? The jury in that case repeatedly heard Gladue referred to as a “prostitute” and as a “native” in the courtroom. The trial ended in an acquittal, but the Supreme Court ruled in May 2019 that the man accused of killing her should be retried for manslaughter, but not first-degree murder. In its ruling, the high court said there was evidence that Ms. Gladue's sexual history was mishandled and that trial judges should caution juries against relying on prejudices against indigenous women and girls.

I join members today from my house, not that House, in Peterborough—Kawartha on traditional Williams Treaties land. It is the only place I have ever been able to feel safe and that I belong. I share this with members because, despite not being physically in the House, I have been able to listen to the debate and thoughtful conversations by hon. colleagues from across party lines on this bill.

As the Minister for Women in the post #MeToo era and the post #BeenRapedNeverReported era and during the mourning by all of us at the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I acknowledge that what we are talking about in the House and the way my hon. colleagues are talking about this very important issue is a big moment for victims, survivors and the feminist movement, who have been fighting hard, sometimes with no outcome. For decision-makers like us to take issues such as this as seriously as we are, the fact that we are having this conversation in the way we are with the tone we have, is healing for survivors. I want to thank my colleagues for that.

Somebody asked earlier why now, why do we have to move so quickly? We owe it to those survivors for their courage. We owe it to those who fought hard and brought us to this moment in time so we can enhance their confidence in our judicial system, our legal system and our democratic systems.

As my hon. colleague said earlier, only about 5% of sexual assault cases are reported in the first place, and if they do not lead to a conviction a majority of the time, if they re-traumatize survivors or embolden and continue a culture of impunity, we have a problem. That is the problem we are working to solve together, and it is just one small but meaningful step for survivors like Ava, who share their stories in hopes of being believed, heard and listened to and prevent that kind of suffering from happening to someone else.

I am not going to go into the details of Bill C-3 because, first of all, we have heard debate on this again and again, and second, because my colleagues are well versed on this issue and have access to information. There is an opportunity for us, while this debate is under way, to dig a little deeper into the root causes of gender-based violence, the culture of impunity, the so-called rape culture and the generational trauma that is carried forward.

The hon. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations is a colleague, of course, but she is also a mentor. I also think she is a flaming feminist, and I am so proud of her for that. She says that hurt people hurt people, not always, but they are more likely to. The survivors we are talking about are not just 18 years and older like Ava. Something like this happens every day in our communities. No culture and no region are immune, and in my own community, just a few weeks ago, a 61-year-old woman was sexually assaulted along one of our trails.

This is an issue that goes deep. One of the root causes is childhood trauma. Indeed, there are 11-year-old girls being raped, trafficked and harmed in our communities, and the conversation we are having is really just the tip of the iceberg. This particular bill is about a trauma-informed, culturally sensitive series of training modules to support the professional development of judges. As my colleague said, judges have a big job, and they are competent. As the law and the world evolve, we will all benefit from the additional training.

I have incredible respect for and confidence in our justice system here in Canada. It is among the best in the world and has come a very long way.

This December, we are going to be marking 50 years since the groundbreaking report by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, which was tabled to someone just like you, Mr. Speaker, in a House kind of like the one we are in right now. That report came up with 167 recommendations. We have come a long way since, and our justice system has come a long way since.

Fifty-plus years ago, a woman could not apply for a mortgage loan without her husband's signature. Fifty years ago, it was legal for a man to rape a woman if she happened to be his wife. Fifty-some years ago, if police were called to a case of domestic violence in a home, they would have to leave, because it was considered a matter between man and wife. Not too long ago, it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion. Not too long ago, it was illegal for same-sex couples to be married. We have come a long way and the law has evolved.

The story of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a story of how people can move the institutions that provide healing and justice for victims, survivors, and society forward. It has been over 50 years, and we have clarified the definition of “consent” in the law. There is a reverse onus around bail. Advocacy rights for feminist organizations have been restored. We apply an intersectional, gendered lens to all of our budgets and decisions as a federal government.

This step that we are taking is a small but significant step. I want to thank everybody who has worked hard and tenaciously to bring this bill back to this place again and again, including the Honourable Rona Ambrose. This is a multipartisan issue, and it is part of the third pillar of our federal strategy to address and prevent gender-based violence.

It is Women's History Month. Our experts, survivors and those who have come before us have told us first and foremost to put survivors and their families at the centre of our work, including those who, because of their indigenous identities and experiences, are disproportionally affected by violence. We were told to put survivors and their families first, and we listened. We were told by survivors themselves that prevention is the thing they are hoping for to prevent their pain from happening to someone else. Then we were told, and put into action with our $200 million-plus strategy, that responsive legal and justice systems are key to that healing and key to addressing that culture of impunity and rape culture. We listened, and there is so much more work to be done. However, the fact we are having this conversation in the House and the tone we are having it with is a big deal.

We have already invested about $50 million in emergency COVID response funds to support organizations across the country that are supporting survivors and their families. There are over 1,000 of them getting money to ensure that they are staying safe and open for women, children and LGBTQ2 Canadians in their hour of need. The Prime Minister, just a couple of hours ago, announced an additional $50 million to support these incredible, hard-working, essential workers on the front-lines of gender-based violence support, including $10 million for women's shelters and sexual assault centres to help them continue to provide their critical services safely, $10 million for organizations that are broadly working to address and prevent gender-based violence to indigenous peoples off reserve, and $30 million for other women's organizations that are working to deliver GBV support to help combat the spread of COVID and address the increased demand for services. This brings the total emergency funding provided to gender-based violence organizations to $100 million.

I want to thank all of our partners, including the Canadian Women's Foundation and Women's Shelters Canada for helping us move this forward.

If I had time, I would talk about rape culture, but I do not, and so I will wrap up here.

I am happy to answer any questions from my colleagues. I hope that in our deliberations we also reflect on why it has taken this long to pass a bill that seems like common sense to all of us.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for her very brave remarks. It certainly is not easy, particularly on the floor of the House of Commons, even virtually, to put on the record stories of the rape and victimization of women and the horrors they have gone through. I very much appreciate her bravery. She is really setting an example for women.

We know that one of the reasons women often do not come forward concerning their rapes and abuse is that they have to relive and retell that story to so many different levels of police and bureaucracy. It can be very revictimizing for them. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that. She mentioned that we have so much more work to do, which I completely agree with.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work on this issue and for her question. She is absolutely right. Without a trauma-informed lens, without a or trauma-informed approach, the entire ecosystem of services and responders to survivors of gender-based violence run the risk of retraumatizing these courageous survivors who come forward to tell their story and seek justice.

There are investments happening to support women's organizations that provide healing and supports for victims and survivors as they go through the legal channels and other processes. In Peterborough, for example, they will go with her to court. They will go with her to get the rape kit and go through that process.

We have made some changes with how testimony is received, and I was grateful to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice here, who is a very strong advocate of this work and who can speak with his “lawyerese” to the changes that we have made. The reason this training in a trauma-informed approach is important is that it and the better understanding it brings will ensure that the victims are not retraumatized in our court system, and will encourage others to come forward as well.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her presentation.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I take a special interest in this bill. I have also worked with community organizations that help women who have experienced violence and rape. This is a very delicate subject, and my thoughts go out to all survivors.

My question is threefold.

This summer, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women met over two days to study how the COVID-19 pandemic has uniquely impacted women and how it has led to a rise in domestic violence.

How does my colleague think this bill ties in with the much-touted national action plan on violence?

This summer, I asked what kinds of measures might be included in such a plan and whether there was a time frame for the action plan. I am offering her a chance to give us some more answers.

Furthermore, the whole issue of prior consent is central to this bill. Prior consent is an issue that we are working very hard to educate the public on.

Finally, it is also important to provide enough funding for victims' groups. It is all well and good to restore faith in the system, but victims also need a little help. It will take more than the much-touted $50 million she spoke about during the pandemic to ensure that all of these groups have sufficient funding to help victims through the judicial process with dignity. We need to be more proactive. There is a whole rape culture we need to dismantle.

At the end of her speech, she spoke about rape culture. Could she comment briefly on that?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for my colleague's strong advocacy. Her first speech in the House of Commons was on December 6, shortly after we all came together for this new Parliament, and I appreciate that.

The national action plan on gender-based violence is in the works. We have received agreement and principle to move forward with this from my honourable counterparts, and the provinces and territories. It is going to build on the existing work, while recognizing that the federal government does not have all the levers. In fact, the majority of the jurisdiction is with provinces and territories and, of course, with municipalities, which experience this on the ground.

My colleague knows that, for example, the issues around consent and sexual education are the purview of the provinces. I have been so encouraged that every single minister responsible for the status of women in every province and territory, regardless of partisan stripe, just like us in this House, sees this issue as one that is multipartisan in nature. It is an issue that has to be moved upon as we get closer and closer to the 50th anniversary of the tabling the report from the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

I would love to speak with the member more on this. I welcome every colleague who cares about this issue to reach out to me. Together we can turn this into—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build off my colleague from Shefford's comments on the national action plan for gender-based violence. The Liberal government has been talking about bringing this forward since 2015. Many groups recognize that this was an issue before COVID, but obviously, during the COVID pandemic, it has become even more of an issue. We are able to work together to quickly move on this. Groups are calling for a coherent, coordinated and well-resourced national action plan.

I would like to hear about a specific timeline and deadline for when we can expect that action plan.