Debates of Oct. 7th, 2020

Judges Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, today, while we are celebrating the International Day of the Girl Child, we are debating a bill that would require judges to take sensitivity training around “sexual assault law and social context”. This is because of men like John Reilly, former judge and federal Liberal candidate who said, “Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults”. Reilly then pointed to a case of a man who had digitally penetrated his girlfriend while she was sleeping, saying that a three-year sentence would have been too harsh.

We are also debating this bill because of men like former judge Robin Camp who asked a 19-year-old complainant why she had not done more to prevent her alleged rape and then told her that “sex and pain sometimes go together”.

However, there is something about this bill that really makes me angry. It is absurd to me that we have to spend time figuring out how to train the men in Canada's systemically misogynistic justice system to be sensitive to sexual assault. In so many ways, it is blindly the wrong approach because it is so paternalistic in its design.

Instead of using tax dollars and research to illuminate men on the finer points of how being fingered against one's will while one is sleeping is wrong, or that it is kind of hard to keep one's knees together when one is being overpowered by somebody twice one's size, or the lingering shame and emotional burden these things can cause a woman, why can we not simply appoint fewer sexist women-haters to the bench? If men want to be honoured with a judicial appointment, why can the hiring criteria not be what they have done in their career to remove the systemic barriers women face? Why do we have to train the idiots in society, and why could we not just hire the allies?

This bill would not do much to fundamentally change the systemic misogyny embedded in the Canadian government, whatever the branch may be. There are those who will say that systemic misogyny does not exist in Canada. To these people I would say this: That we are debating this bill today is clear evidence of systemic misogyny.

If people are part of a system that they benefit from at the expense of others due to barriers others experience of stereotypes, bigoted social mores or rigidly traditionalist beliefs about women, and they do nothing to stop it, then they are part of the problem. That is systemic misogyny. If they refuse to look for these issues or address them when they see them because they think it does not exist, then they are part of the problem. If they think that protecting the rights of women will erode their own rights, they are part of the problem. They are lazy and cowardly at best and misogynist at worst. No amount of training will fix that system. Only removing those who benefit from perpetuating it from their position of privilege and power will.

This system has affected me. I regularly receive sexualized death threats. I get microaggressions like being asked by a colleague if I am pregnant because I committed the sin of eating a sandwich during a Zoom meeting, or being called the B-word because I am a woman who unapologetically challenges the dogma of the system. I have had my gender and my brand used as a fig leaf to cover the misogyny of others through tokenization, and there has been so much more.

If this is me, a white straight woman in a position of power, imagine what it is like for a racialized, queer or trans woman. Imagine what it is like for a woman in poverty with children. Imagine what it is like for a woman living on reserve. Imagine what it is like for Nadia Murad and the millions of other woman around the world who have had their bodies used as tools of war while the world refuses to even prosecute their oppressors.

This bill is a good opportunity to take a moment to reflect on the experience of these women, the Yazidi genocide survivors, because the experience of these women really does highlight to me the problems embedded in our system, not only for women on the international stage but their quest for justice here in our own country. As some of the members in the House might remember, several years ago I worked with these women to bring their plight to the attention of Canadian parliamentarians and to get justice and action for their people. It was the voices of these women, these survivors who were seeking justice after experiencing genocide and sexual enslavement, that effected some change.

Imagine what these women went through and then imagine, after all of that trauma, having to come to Canada's Parliament time and time again to push the government to do something when it was obvious that action was needed to do what is right. Take a moment and reflect on that.

Take a moment and reflect on being a victimized woman who was sold as a sexual slave and who had to beg to have her plight recognized by those who sit in this position of power, and then having them wonder if this was going to be politically convenient for them. That is what is wrong with the system, and no amount of training is going to fix that.

After many motions in the House, committee studies, press conferences, news releases and, most importantly, advocacy by the Yazidi community here in Canada and abroad, we were able to get some movement, but it is not close to being enough. We must seek justice for these women, and that includes prosecuting their oppressors. To date, there has been no justice for these women. ISIS has not been brought to trial on the international stage, and day after day the women are revictimized because they have to explain to the world that there is no closure and there is no change without justice being sought.

This issue alone shows that Canada has much work to do on gender equality. We live in a country where human trafficking occurs, and indigenous and first nations women go missing and are murdered. Last year, the national inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls found a “significant, persistent, and deliberate pattern of systemic racial and gendered human rights and Indigenous rights violations and abuses”, yet the government continues to fail to take meaningful action in creating safer conditions for indigenous women and girls. Instead, the Prime Minister offers up a lot of platitudes on Twitter. He was rightly criticized for that this week. He is more interested in keeping up the appearance of positive change than in actually effecting it.

That is what this bill is about. We cannot speak about the misogyny in the justice system today without recognizing the significant racialized and colonial violence against indigenous women across our country, both inside and outside the courts. We live in a country where we feel we need to educate the ones who are supposed to uphold and champion justice, our judges, not to be sexist. We live in a country where we have to talk about how those meant to care for us in our time of need, nurses and doctors, need sensitivity training.

We saw this intersection of sexism and racism in the heartbreaking tragedy of Joyce Echaquan. It is difficult for us to admit Canada is not as exceptional as we may think. The reality is these systems, which were meant to protect us, often fail many because we are not getting to the heart of the problem. We need to do more to disrupt the systems that perpetuate this aggression.

I will go back to this bill about judges, and training them to be more sensitive. No amount of training, for someone who was privileged enough to finish law school as they were about to get a plum judicial position, will correct a systemically misogynistic system. Everyone needs to change their actions, and it should start here in this place.

People should not be running under the banner of a major political party if they have substantiated harassment allegations. People within the tents of these parties should find the courage to speak up when this happens. The most senior levels of leadership should not be allowed to follow a different set of rules from the rank and file when harassment allegations surface. Women who speak truth to power should not be turfed and labelled as problematic.

I have watched all of this and more happen in this place during my time here. Just this week, I watched the chair of a major parliamentary association stay silent as a group tried to force a Canadian woman off the ballot for the presidency of an international organization. All of these—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to interrupt the member for two seconds.

I would like to remind members that there is a member speaking very seriously, and we would like to hear her.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have watched all of this and more happen in this place during my time here. Just this week, I watched as the chair of a major parliamentary association stayed silent as a group tried to force a Canadian woman off the ballot for the presidency of an international organization. All of these experiences have led me to this central question: Why is it that the women always have to be ones to do the heavy lifting on these issues? Why is it that, in many cases, it is the women who have to stand up and demand these changes?

Yes, I see men speaking up when it is politically convenient for them. I see the social media posts. However, what we need to see is more courage demonstrated through action. As parliamentarians, we need to be reflecting on this, because it is this system that we work in that needs to be shaken.

I think about how no one has spoken out against the former Liberal MP for Kitchener South—Hespeler who is facing assault and criminal harassment charges. This is after the Liberal Party allowed him to run under the party banner, despite the fact that claims about inappropriate behaviour involving him and a female staffer were reported to the party multiple times over the last five years. I did that when it happened under my own tent. Where are the feminists on this side on that issue? We need men standing up in the House acknowledging the privilege found within patriarchal systems of power and, more importantly, we need them to take action when sexism happens within their own caucuses. It should not be me having to do that work all the time. Where were the woke MPs when we needed them to speak out, to enact change and to ensure that all of these things never happen again? It is all good and well to post on social media or voice support for gender equality, but when there is no action, there is no change.

Let us not forget about the issue of female genital mutilation. When I served as the shadow minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, this was an issue I had to repeatedly and shamefully push in the House of Commons. Media had reported that a draft version of the new citizen guide had dropped the condemnation of this abhorrent practice. There were headlines like, “[The minister of immigration] won't commit to keeping warning about genital mutilation in immigration guide”. After these reports came to light, I had to sponsor a petition that called on the government to ensure that the final draft of the new citizenship guide included the condemnation of this practice. I questioned the minister about this change repeatedly. Why did I have to do that? This is a no-brainer, yet it was weeks, months before we saw action on feminism. The fact that this question had to even be brought up and officially condemned in our Parliament is appalling to me.

When I think about today's debate, I also think about the women in my riding who have been devastated by this government's policy on the energy sector in Alberta more broadly. Everyone in my community wants to support a transition to a renewable energy-based economy. Having no plan to support them and no plan for other jobs has left my community destitute, and that has a unique effect on women. Almost every day, I heard about how the Liberal-induced jobs crisis in my community has left women in unimaginable situations. I have had women in my community say that, with job losses in the energy sector, they have contemplated turning to prostitution as a means of feeding their families. Rates of domestic violence are up, and they are losing their homes and their children. Yet, we are talking about training people who have the privilege of being appointed into a judicial position.

It is abhorrent that we are putting women in these situations because of the bourgeois attitude of this government. It is abhorrent that the women of my community are left behind while the Prime Minister stands idly by, claiming to be a feminist without any compassion or plans to address their plight. Do these women and their families not matter simply because the province they live in and their gender does not tend to overwhelmingly vote for this brand? Is their struggle any less, simply because the Prime Minister believes that their jobs are dirty? This is systemic misogyny, and it is right here in this place and we are not addressing it.

These issues are not limited to our legal system. In schools across this country, young women are taught next to nothing about their bodies. Female sexuality is still taboo to discuss, never mind talking about pleasure. We still see unfair dress codes that target girls who are wearing so-called revealing clothing that is just comfortable to wear. We see this with the ridiculous stigma around menstruation, a completely normal bodily function that billions of people around the world experience. That is to say nothing about the complete lack of discussion in schools about the unique experience of trans women and girls and the violence that they are subject to. This lack of education extends to issues of consent as well. Our youth, especially our men, are not taught that “yes” means “yes” and that “no” means “no”. How can we expect to actually address sexual violence in this country if girls learn to be ashamed of their bodies and young boys are not being taught when sex is consensual?

If we are silent across party lines on these issues here, in the centre of power in our nation, what good does training judges do? If those who run the show here do not face consequences, why should those in the judiciary expect that they will be treated any differently? Every person has an individual responsibility to change the culture that has precipitated the need for the bill, and that includes calling out people in our own networks and challenging our own rigidly held dogmas.

We are in the month of October when the traditional images of witches take centre stage in popular culture across the country. Warped, disfigured, evil-looking women are held up as signs of all that is evil and wrong in the world, and if something bad befalls us, witches are to blame. I could not think of a more apt month to discuss the bill.

For a significant portion of relatively recent history, women were burned at the stake for being midwives and herbalists because the church and wealthy mercantile class wanted to consolidate the medical trade into the hands of men. Women were burned if they embraced their sexuality. Women were burned if they were too pretty and spurned the advances of a wealthy man, or if they spoke truth to power. For a time, between 10,000 and 40,000 women were burned simply for being women who did not conform with the behaviour that the system of male patriarchal institutions prescribed.

Today, the image of a witch still evokes deep-seated cultural norms that strong, empowered women with extraordinary ability are evil: something to be feared, at best, and eliminated at worst. The shamans, the elders, the wise women, the truth tellers, the midwives and the empaths are the women who have brought change for the better to our world, yet in our history and celebrations they are still portrayed as something to be warded against.

While women in our country are no longer literally burned at the stake for being powerful, how many are passed over for promotions by those who fear their courage? How many women are sexually assaulted and made to feel that they brought it on themselves? How many children sit in poverty because they bear the cost of child care? How many women are taught that their sexuality is a sin, not a gift? How many women are placed in situations where they do not have total control over their bodies? How many women never see justice for wrongs they have experienced?

We still burn women for being witches, even if it is metaphorically. That is why we are debating the bill, but there is hope. Women have always had the innate power to create, to bless, to lead and to heal. When I came here, I thought I knew my power but I really did not. It took me time to understand that my intuition is always right, that my voice always has agency, that compassion always wins and that courage, while sometimes met with great personal cost, will always deliver change.

I have learned from tremendously courageous women in my time here. I remember the power and blinding radiance of Nadia Murad's face when she sat in the gallery as I fought alongside her for justice for her people. I remember the member for Vancouver Granville sitting resolute in her truth as her party worked to suppress her agency, but could not because her source of power was from something far greater that they could never remove.

I remember Jane Philpott, now the Dean of Medicine at Queen's University, courageously supporting her in her cause even though it cost her political career. Congratulations, Jane. I remember Megan Leslie, a champion for Canada's environment as she pushed to remove plastic beads from our lakes and rivers. I remember Lisa Raitt as she gracefully mentored me through some of the hardest lessons these halls of power can present.

I name these women and salute their courage and power, but we cannot forget the millions of unnamed women across this country who demonstrate their power on a daily basis. There is the mother who manages to feed her children with no partner to help her. There is the grandmother who takes care of her daughter's children. There is the doctor who finds a breakthrough in a disease, and the lawyer who wins a case, and more.

I stand here today unafraid, after all these years, of doing what is right no matter what is thrown against me. This is the magic that entrenched misogynistic systems try to beat out of women. They still try to beat it out of me every day, but we are remembering our power that has never left, and we are embracing it. We are demanding justice. We are claiming our power and refusing to let men in power skate by. We are not here to make the system comfortable. I am not here to make anyone comfortable, I am here to effect change. That is why the bill angers me: that we must put forward a program of training, in the expectation that those who we elevate to the judiciary have come to this place of power needing it, is a clear demonstration to me that the system is broken.

Why do we not appoint less misogynists to the bench instead of coming up with special programs to train away the hate that women experience?

Why do we not appoint more brilliant women to the bench, women who will work to dismantle the systemic misogyny that exists across our legal system rather than pour tax dollars into a training program that does little to actually protect women?

There are questions that this bill plainly fails to address and the government has taken precious little meaningful action to address them. While I support the bill, I refuse to be quiet about how it clearly takes the wrong approach to an issue that cuts to the very core of our society. This topic is worthy of much debate. I have no problem criticizing the bill for not going far enough. There are those who might even call me a witch for doing so, but I will not be silent.

By the way, happy Samhain to those who are celebrating.

We owe it to women and girls in my riding and across the country, our daughters and those who will come after them to demand more for them, a future where women and girls no longer live under the constant fear of sexual violence.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has demonstrated the importance of having debate on this bill. We have heard from members across the way that we should not have to debate it, but what we have heard today in the important, thoughtful and impassioned speeches is just how the debate itself is moving forward awareness and important conversations that need to happen.

Could the member speak more to the nature of training? She spoke very well about the limitations of training in that it will not change what is in the hearts and minds of certain people who are appointed to the bench and must go through a perfunctory training requirement.

Does the member have thoughts on the types or forms of training that are more effective than others and what guidance she would give to those who shape these kinds of training programs on how to make them as effective as possible?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we need less idiots. I wish we would appoint more people who do not need to have sensitivity training. I find the premise of this to be ridiculous.

Think about this for a second. We are debating a bill that presumes that those who we are about to elevate to positions of influence where they are deciding justice in situations of sexual violence will need this training. Might this not already be a condition for their elevation? It is actually ridiculous. It is fundamentally misogynist in its nature.

I do not understand why I have to talk about having to train somebody not to be John Reilly. It makes me really angry. I think it sends a message to women that somehow we have to train people to do the right thing when we should be hiring people who have already done that.

For too long we have hired people, we have elevated people who do not take action on these issues, who do not believe in it and I am tired of it. I understand the intent of the bill, but it does not address the bigger problem and everybody here is guilty of it. After almost 10 years of being here, enough is enough. I am tired of having these debates. I am tired of talking about sexual violence, sexual harassment, women in politics and this stuff. I am done. I am tired of the requests for interviews.

There just needs to be equality. There needs to be an understanding that certain things are just wrong and that my agency is equal to everyone else. That is what needs to happen.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

In many ways, she and I are just as passionate about the cause and the advancement of women in politics. In fact, before I was elected, I ran workshops focusing on the issue of women and poverty. Clearly, there is a connection. Women need to be able to access better jobs, get into politics and have the same opportunities as men. We agree on that.

The problem of violence against women goes well beyond the scope of the bill before us today. However, I think this bill is an important step. This has been discussed with members of the Quebec National Assembly and with elected officials in Australia and elsewhere in the world. We want to see diversity and we hope to see diversity when we make judicial appointments, to bring in a new awareness.

I think that we can work on that and pass this bill at the same time. It is a matter of awareness and helping victims be better understood. This bill is certainly not perfect. It is not a panacea. However, it is an important step in advancing the cause of women who are victims of sexual violence and assault.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I said I support the bill. What I am done with are the fig leaves, where we take a small gesture to cover up a much larger problem and say that we are good. What that means is that we keep debating these things and we never see meaningful change. After almost a decade of it in this place I am still doing the same media requests, I am still seeing the same problems here with regard to sexism, and I am still getting the sexist comments. I am almost 40 years old, and it still happens to me. I do not understand it. This is me. I am in a position of privilege.

What I am saying is that this issue in particular is one that is tokenized. It is one where there is a small crumb that is always put forward, and it is meant to be a feast but it is not sufficient. We cannot just be debating this without debating every other issue. This is not going to deliver justice to first nations and indigenous women. It is not going to make it easier for women to report sexual assault. It really is not.

It is not enough. Maybe it is a small step, but it cannot be celebrated. It cannot because we still have so many things that we have to address. I live this, and I am tired of living it. If I am living it, what about the women who do not have my privilege? That is why this is so important. That is why we need actual, real, fundamental change.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for empowering all women. That is the thing; it is about how we can empower women and how we actually get to equality. Like her, I know I have gone through sexual harassment and different ordeals over my last 49 years, so I totally understand. These are things we need to do.

I am looking for the member's thoughts, specific to what we should be doing with young women and boys, how we can teach empowerment and at what levels we should work at that. To me, the core of the issue has to start through education.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work, collegiality and friendship to me. I wish I had two hours for this. I do not.

This is my lived experience. I think I scare people because I am really good at what I do. I do not tolerate things that are unjust, I do not tolerate cowardice, and I do not apologize for that. What we need to do is embrace the fact that this quality in a woman is inherent to all women, and it is something that we should nurture and empower, rather than trying to snuff it out. That quality is punished. It is. That is the starting point.

A strong empowered woman who leans into her courage and her place of power is everything that our society needs. It is just not respected in our systems. We have to realize that there are many barriers for many women across this country, millions of women, to being able to do that, be it poverty or housing or lack of access to education or lack of access to justice or trauma. That is where we need to start.

We need to start understanding that this is something that we value, not that we value with a “like” on social media but that we like in our own practice and actions. When someone is confronted with a strong woman who does something bold, rather than castigating her for it, they should embrace it and empower her and run with it.

Until that happens, we will never see change and we will always be fighting for our rights. While I am here, and while I have breath, I will do my best to make people do that and to empower those who will come behind me.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech, for her words and for her frustration and rage at the situation that women are facing. I share that.

I have been a member of Parliament for just a year, which means I have only had maybe a 10th of the barrage of sexism. I think back to February when this bill was put forward, and one of the Conservative members rose in the House after I spoke about the importance of listening to sex workers and of acknowledging that sex work is work. That member asked me if I had ever considered sex work. Underneath that was an undermining of sex workers' value and a restigmatizing of the sex workers out there.

I am curious if the member would want to comment on the need for legislation that actually protects sex workers and destigmatizes the work that they do.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would love two hours for this topic too. I share the member's concern about protections for sex workers. This goes back to my comment that, overall, our society, especially in Canada, has a very poor understanding of what consent means. We do not openly talk about women's sexuality, their agency, their rights and their bodies. It is something we put in these little silos and do not think about. There is so much work to be done on that. It is something we can all work on across party lines, and I would really support the member on it.

I would say this to the member: I am angry. I am angry that I have to carry the emotional labour of this stuff and my male colleagues do not, or that they put it on me and do not think about doing it. Enough is enough.

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

Madam Speaker, could you clarify how much time I have before the end of the day?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There are 15 minutes remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-3.

Before getting elected, I had the opportunity to serve on the board of an organization in my riding called the Saffron Centre, and I want to recognize the great work it is doing in providing counselling and education on bullying, sexual violence, boundaries and related points. I served on the board of that organization prior to the #MeToo movement. At the time, the board would have conversations about the lack of social awareness around these issues and some of the challenges of fundraising and engaging people in supporting our organization in the context of where the awareness was at that time.

There is still a long way to go, but I think a lot has changed. As a result of the #MeToo movement, there has been a real growth, awareness and recognition. It was interesting for me to speak with some of the people involved in the organization after the start of the #MeToo movement. They shared with me that there was a significant increase in the demand for counselling. A lot of it was cases of historic trauma, that is, people who had experienced sexual harassment and violence, perhaps decades ago, and had never come forward or sought help. They were empowered to seek help based on what they were hearing about in the media or on social media when other people were stepping forward and sharing their experiences. We probably all have stories about community-based organizations in our riding. The way that public conversations around the #MeToo movement encouraged people to come forward to seek counselling and support for historic trauma really reminds us of the importance of these conversations.

Some time today has been spent debating the debate, with members across the way challenging why we are having this debate and asking why we cannot just give unanimous consent at all stages of the bill. We have seen cases in which bills that maybe have one objective do not fulfill that objective or could be strengthened in other ways at committee, so the parliamentary process is important. We have also seen, even today, how the conversations around these issues can be important and inspiring for people. It is therefore important for us, as members of Parliament, to discuss these issues as we support Bill C-3 and work to move it forward.

In 2017, our former Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, introduced the just act, a bill that would have required lawyers seeking a judicial appointment to undergo training about sexual assault. It would also have required courts to provide written reasons in sexual assault rulings. The House of Commons passed the bill unanimously, but it was delayed in the Senate, and as a result the just act was never passed.

In Canada, an estimated one in three women and one in eight men are victims of sexual violence at some time in their lives. That means approximately 5.73 million women and 2.3 million men will be victims. We can all agree that those numbers are too high. Statistics Canada reported in 2014 that, sadly, only 5% of sexual assaults were reported to the police. That means that fewer than 5% of sexual predators get the justice they deserve for their despicable acts.

The low number of reported cases is due to the fact that victims of sexual assault no longer have confidence in our justice system. A report published by the Department of Justice entitled “A Survey of Survivors of Sexual Violence in Three Canadian Cities” found that two out of three women had little or no confidence in the justice process. This is because the judges presiding over sexual assault cases had no knowledge of Canada's sexual assault laws. This led to incidents where judges unfairly questioned the character of the victims and completely ignored our sexual assault laws.

The just act would have improved this situation. Last Monday the Liberals decided to re-introduce this bill. Like the just act, Bill C-3 would require all newly appointed provincial superior court judges to participate in training on sexual assault and would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide written reasons or provide reasons in the record when making a decision in a sexual assault case.

Let us put politics aside. I am pleased that this bill has been brought forward again to protect the vulnerable victims of sexual assault. However, I think that we should take this opportunity to go even further. In February, I told the House that it would be useful to include sexual assault training for parole officers as well. I would like the government to add that to this bill.

We know that there have been problems in the past with the Parole Board of Canada. Dangerous criminals have committed more crimes after being released on parole. One example is the case of Eustachio Gallese, a convicted murderer who stabbed a woman after being released on parole. This incident could have been completely avoided had the Parole Board of Canada demonstrated good judgment. I am worried that this sort of thing could happen again when predators are released on parole. That is why it is essential that we give parole officers training on sexual assault and sexual predators. Victims must be protected.

I know that the current Liberal government likes to boast about being feminist. Here is a perfect opportunity to show Canadians that its feminist approach is legitimate and not just a political talking point. Going above and beyond the previous proposal by adding other measures to protect victims of sexual assault would be a worthwhile initiative. I know that we all want to ensure that Canadian women and men are protected from predators.

As legislators in this minority Parliament, I think it is important that we work together to ensure that we pass good, comprehensive legislation. I look forward to discussing the need for sexual assault training for our judges and our parole officers with my colleagues from all parties.

Having discussed now the substance and history of this particular bill and some related issues, I would like to add a few additional general comments about the vital work of combatting sexual assault and then respond to some of the other comments that have been made thus far in this debate.

While recognizing the value of educational initiatives, we also need to recognize their inherent limits. Criminal behaviour by some and callousness or indifference by others can, indeed, result from ignorance. Ignorance can be resolved through education, but ignorance is not the only cause of bad behaviour. Some people who are fully informed about what is right and wrong will still go on to commit heinous crimes or show indifference to the suffering of others. For such people, the problem is not awareness; rather, it is inclinations or patterns of behaviour that they have not brought under control.

It also might be a lack of empathy. For those who lack a requisite degree of empathy, no amount of information will change their behaviour. As author C.S. Lewis once observed, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Lewis's point deserves reflection as we consider the importance, but also the limitations, of prescribing education and training in response to sexual assault and harassment. We need to ask ourselves what actions we can take and what actions other institutions can take to support the development of positive, as opposed to negative, patterns of behaviour, as well as the development of empathy. Without this necessary development of character and virtue, more education in terms of legal lines and processes will be ineffective.

Another way to consider this issue is through the lens of the old debate between virtue ethics and rule-based ethics. Rule-based ethics frames ethical actions being about adherence to rules. In the present case, a rule like, “Don't assault or harass another person” is the one being applied.

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, frames ethics in terms of the need to develop positive qualities of character that allow individuals both to know what is right and to be able to apply that knowledge in specific situations. Virtue ethics would emphasize the need to develop the virtues of justice and self-control. A person who has developed the virtues of justice and self-control will necessarily not engage in behaviour that hurts or threatens other people, justice being the virtue of giving to others what is due to them and self-control being the virtue of controlling one's own appetites or inclinations.

These two ethical frameworks, rule-based and virtue ethics, are not mutually exclusive, but there is a question of emphasis. Personally, I believe the virtue ethics framework is more important because it seeks to not only attend to questions of what we ought to do, but also attend to questions of how to develop the capacity to consistently do what we ought to do.

Efforts to combat sexual assault should not just involve education in the form of passing on information about standards of conduct and legal frameworks but should also involve the positive promotion of qualities of character like justice and self-control. Growing up, I do not specifically recall ever being directly told not to sexually harass or assault people. Instead, I was taught to recognize the innate dignity of all people and to exercise control over my impulses. When justice and self-control are fully absorbed, the specific rule in this case seems very obvious.

As a father, I obviously think a lot about how to raise my own children to be good people and good citizens. My own children are too young for discussions about sexual violence, but I already try to work to encourage the development of the virtues of justice and self-control as well as a sense of solidarity and empathy. The development of these intellectual and practical virtues will hopefully make it obvious how to behave in situations they may encounter in the future.

Much is said today about the idea of toxic masculinity. In my opinion, it is important for us to seek to replace toxic masculinity with a redefined masculinity. Toxic masculinity involves seeking power over others, but a redefined concept of masculinity means power and control over oneself and one's own appetites and the courage to work to protect vulnerable people and advance justice.

Winston Churchill once observed that the power of man has grown in every sphere except over himself. Here, Churchill puts his finger on one of the biggest problems we face today: People who may know what is right and have been fully educated in terms of what is right still do not always have the will or virtues required to exercise the necessary power over their whims and appetites. The exercise of that power over self is vitally important in order to be a good person and a good citizen. A person without the virtues of justice and self-control can never be truly happy or resilient.

A redefined masculinity would emphasize justice and control of self, not personal gratification and the domination of others. I worry that in so many domains modern governments emphasize rules but not virtues, training but not the development of character. We need to give more considerations to the lessons virtue ethics can provide for combatting evils like sexual harassment and assault. I hope those who are developing these training programs for judges as well as for young people, educators, former offenders, etc., will take into consideration the important insights of the virtue tradition.

I want to take the remainder of my speech today to just respond to some of the points made. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton spoke very eloquently about many different issues. She spoke about the importance of jurisdictions. This bill is an action in federal jurisdiction but it reminds us as well that there is other action that needs to be taken in other levels of government. The debate we are having today can hopefully be an impetus for further conversations.

My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton also spoke about the issue of rape culture. It is worth revisiting the important work done in the last Parliament that was initiated by my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, on understanding the impact violent sexual images can have on especially young boys who see those images. We need policy changes that specifically combat rape culture, such as having requirements for meaningful age verification on the Internet. We should not be allowing young boys to access violent sexual images on the Internet. By instituting mechanisms for meaningful age verification, we could provide greater protections to ensure there are not those aspects of rape culture shaping the early sexualization of young boys.

I want to salute the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Peace River—Westlock for the work they have done on those issues. I hope we will see, in the spirit of meaningful action on these issues, things like meaningful age verification. I will be picking up my remarks when we return.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to join everyone virtually today and talk about a question that I first raised last week about another potential WE scandal the Liberals are trying to hide.

Members will know that we have national security exemptions in this country, which is a designation used around the procurement of national defence equipment. It is rarely used except when we need to make sure that we do not release any details of a situation or a piece of equipment that could compromise the security of Canada or members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

What I asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement last week was whether or not the government was using the national security exemption designation to hide the details of sole-source contracts for personal protective equipment.

We have learned there is a $237-million sole-source contract for the procurement and production of Baylis ventilators, which are called the Baylis V4C-560. The V4C stands for Ventilators for Canadians. They are built by a consortium but the manufacturer is Baylis Medical. Of course Baylis Medical is owned by Frank Baylis, who is a former Liberal member of Parliament. The minister proclaimed in the discussion last week during question period that everything had been publicly disclosed, yet we know the department is still hiding the details of the sole-source contract to FTI Professional Grade Inc. under the auspices of national security. It makes no sense.

We know that the Liberal government likes to hide behind a veil of secrecy and it has used that iron curtain before through non-disclosure agreements with over 235 members of the Canadian Armed Forces, who are not allowed to talk about different procurement projects that are under way based on the idea that it might violate commercial proprietary rights. We also know that it has used non-disclosure agreements as a gag order, and I will use Vice-Admiral Mark Norman as the example of what happens if one tries to step outside of the chain of command, outside of the PMO, to discuss what is in the best interests of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces. After it was proven that the government wrongfully accused Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, it made him sign a non-disclosure agreement so he could not talk about how he was abused and misused by the federal Liberal government.

We need to make sure that all the details of these sole-source contracts are widely available. We need to make sure that we are getting the best value for our taxpayer dollars. I do not begrudge the government for having to use a sole-source contract during a pandemic to access ventilators. I do not begrudge Baylis Medical, which is building our needs under contract for the Government of Canada. I think making sure that we get ventilators to Canadians is an important thing. However, the details of these transactions are not a matter of national security—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I want to extend a cordial good evening to my hon. friend in Manitoba. Through the miracle of technology we get to have this exchange.

I know that the member is properly concerned with the efforts we have under way to ensure the safety of Canadians, to ensure we are protected through this pandemic and to ensure that Canadians, health professionals and others, such as border guards, RCMP officers and all sorts of people who look after us, have access to PPE, the very best equipment and the supply channels we are going to require as we move through the various stages of this pandemic.

The government continues to ensure the health and safety of all Canadians. I think all members would agree that this is the most urgent priority.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the government has been taking measures to control the spread of COVID-19. Public Services and Procurement Canada continues to focus on procuring enough supplies to handle any eventuality during this pandemic. It is purchasing the essential PPE, treatments, vaccines and tests needed to protect Canadians.

I will note that the minister has shared a number of details through the PSPC website and continues on a weekly, or even more often, basis to reveal details of our arrangements with respect to pandemic-related procurement.

I do want to take a moment, because often it goes unrecognized, to recognize the very hard work of the procurement professionals at PSPC. They are unsung heroes in the same way that our nurses, our doctors, our first responders, our Health Canada officials and public health officials in the provinces are all guardian angels and heroes through this pandemic. So too are those at PSPC, who use the tools available to them to make sure, in a hyper-competitive global market, that Canadians, our government, and through our government to our partners, the provinces, acquire billions of units of PPE, including masks, N95 masks, respirators, face shields, hand sanitizer, protective gowns and gloves and, of course, more on the way.

Of course, we called on a number of foreign suppliers to purchase the supplies we needed and to secure future supplies. Furthermore, we can all be proud of the many innovative Canadian companies that got to work producing essential supplies right here in Canada, which in turn had economic spinoffs for the regions.

The member mentioned the national security exception. He mentioned its application in defence procurement. I am sure he is well aware that it is not limited to defence; that we use it in other areas, for example in IT and cybersecurity. I do not think any Canadian would argue that the question of the pandemic and pandemic-related procurement was also warranted, that we use and avail ourselves of the national security exception with respect to pandemic purchasing. That is going to be something on which we will be as transparent as we can be, going forward. I know that Canadians will also understand that it is a matter—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, in my rebuttal to the parliamentary secretary, I want to read in here, right off the government website:

The [national security exception] element permits a government to exclude a procurement from the application of the procurement rules of the trade agreements if it is necessary for the protection of its security interests.

...[The government] shall only invoke the NSE if Canada's security interests are at risk.

National security is not at risk over the purchase of ventilators or N95 masks. The question back to the government is, what are the Liberals trying to hide this time?

It is just another example of how the government likes to cloak itself in the curtain of secrecy and never, ever talk about details of these contracts. This is another sole-source situation and we could be looking at another WE scandal. The government needs to come clean on this.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me just finish the thought and say that using the national security exception does not mean we do not use procurement best practices, negotiate and conclude fair and fair-market contracts with our suppliers. That is of course what we do. I am rather surprised the member believes that a global pandemic, the worst seen in 100 years, is not a matter that we would apply national security measures to. I think it is very fully, and Canadians understand that it is a matter that we would apply national security measures to.

I want to reiterate that, in light of the increase in COVID-19 cases in Canada, we must ensure that our country is prepared for any eventuality.

This pandemic is the most serious public health crisis Canada has ever faced, and the government must continue to meet the challenges that it presents, head-on.

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to mention that my intern, Olivia, helped me prepare my speech for this evening. I think it is important for MPs to let young people assist us in our work. What I am going to say this evening was prepared in part with help from Olivia.

Five days ago, I had to ask for clear answers from the Liberal government concerning problems arising from work sharing at businesses in Mégantic—L'Érable and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada.

One of the answers I received last week from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion was that, in August, the government announced steps to support Canadians through the pandemic, that the government's plan included a transition to EI, and that the government had created new benefits so that no worker, no Canadian, would be left behind.

The trouble is, that is not what I asked. My question was about businesses that used the federal work-sharing program and decided to call employees back to work because that is what the government and the Prime Minister asked them to do. The eligibility period for the work-sharing program was even extended.

The problem is that the recalled workers who had been receiving the CERB did not receive their pay because of a computer glitch. Since May and June, over 150 workers in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable have not received the federal portion of their wages because of this glitch. Unfortunately, the government has not been able to resolve the matter. The public servants who answered us were very sympathetic. They did everything they could and pushed every button imaginable, but it did not work.

We talked to cabinet, which tried to do something. We talked to the minister. I asked questions last week, but the answers I got had nothing to do with my questions, unfortunately, so those 154 residents of Mégantic—L'Érable, whom I have talked to, still have not received the wages they are owed.

Employees in the Granit RCM reported that the glitch affected them, too. A Princecraft employee had to quit because the financial pressure was too much for him. A Plessisville business asked Service Canada to fulfill its responsibilities toward its employees. Businesses can no longer justify the fact that their employees are not getting their full pay. Businesses just want Service Canada, the minister or anyone in government to acknowledge that the problem is their fault, because the employees no longer believe the business owners. This is a real problem.

Today, I had the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a question about this, and he clearly indicated that he would look into the situation. I hope that, when he does, this situation will finally be resolved. I know that things have already started moving since question period.

However, is it normal that a member should have to take all of those steps? I have been working on this since June. I even published a news release to speak out about the situation, not to blame anyone, but to make sure that these workers could get their full pay after answering the government's call.

My question this evening is very simple. Could the government finally tell us when these people will get their full pay? They deserve it. They answered the government's call. Now the government needs to answer the call of these businesses, which do not know what to do anymore.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I would like to make it clear that the Government of Canada is committed to supporting Canadian workers through the COVID-19 crisis.

The workers in Princeville, Thetford Mines and Plessisville deserve our support. They expected our support when they applied for the work sharing program.

The work-sharing program makes it possible for the Government of Canada to support employers and employees when there is a reduction in business activity like the one we are currently experiencing.

The program allows employers to retain valued and skilled workers while allowing EI-eligible employees to maintain their work skills. When COVID-19 hit, the Government of Canada worked quickly to make work sharing available to more employers and workers through the introduction of temporary special measures, including doubling the maximum duration of an agreement to 76 weeks. We reduced the time to set up these agreements as well, from six weeks to two weeks. We simplified mandatory requirements by easing the employer recovery plan and removing the need for employers to submit financial documents, and we extended the program to workers considered essential to the recovery and viability of businesses, such as those engaged in product development and marketing.

The work-sharing program has been very popular. Since the start of the pandemic, demand for agreements rose 3,938% compared with the same period last year. As of early October, the Government of Canada has approved over 3,600 work-sharing agreements involving nearly 115,000 workers. While the vast majority of these workers are receiving their work-sharing benefits, there are some who are experiencing problems. We are working hard to fix that, day in and day out. Department officials are working around the clock to fix these claims. The money will be flowing very soon and people will get their due. They will not lose benefits as a result of this delay.

In the meantime, I want to be clear that the Government of Canada understands the difficulties that any delay in benefit payments can cause to claimants and their families.

We support Canadian workers. We will do whatever it takes to help Canadians get through the crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, this shows goodwill, but what I have been hearing from the start is that they are working hard to solve the problem and find a solution.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary should call the three businesses and talk to the three union presidents so he can explain to them that there is a problem in the government and that the workers cannot receive 55% of their pay. They have been living on 45% of their pay, some of them since June. That is outrageous.

I do not want an explanation of how the work-sharing program works. What I want is for these people to get paid. I want them to be able to support their families. They kept their end of the deal with the government by agreeing to go back to work. The government said that it would bring in a program to pay part of their wages. They are no longer getting the CERB. They are back at work now, but unfortunately, they are getting only half their pay. This is unacceptable.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will pressure his department and the government to correct this situation.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member we do recognize the urgency of this situation. As I stated in my comments, department officials are working around the clock to fix these issues and the money will be flowing very soon.

As we look to the future, we are going to reform the EI system so that it reflects how Canadians are working now. We are going to redesign it for the 21st century and for a successful economic recovery. In the meantime, the Government of Canada has the backs of Canadians, so the successful work-sharing program will continue to be there for Canadians.

In addition to a simplified, more accessible employment insurance program that supports work sharing, the new Canada recovery benefits act will allow workers to bridge the gap from receiving the CERB to one of the recovery benefits: the Canada recovery benefit, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and Canada recovery caregiving benefit that were passed into law on October 2.

The simplified EI program and these new recovery benefits will support Canadians—