Debates of Oct. 7th, 2020

Judges Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the federal jurisdiction here would only require that lawyers who want to be federally appointed judges get the training. That was the only part of the pie that we have jurisdiction on, that we could legislate. That is why that is what is in here, so that it does not infringe on provincial legislation as it is written.

That said, we did send it all out to all of the provinces. I do not understand why not. If Quebec provincial jurisdiction allows them to get their lawyers this kind of training so that when they become provincial judges they will judge with sensitivity in sexual assault cases, that needs to happen. We need to get going on that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I might disagree with the member slightly on the story around the Senate, but we can take that up off-line some other time.

Regarding the final report on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, it found that the apathy from police services is indicative of racism and sexism that revictimizes women and girls. Would the member be in favour of, while not perhaps in this legislation, extending the training that we propose here to police services?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that I am in favour. However, again, we have this issue of provincial jurisdiction. Some of the police in the country are under provincial jurisdiction. For the ones that are under federal jurisdiction, such as the RCMP for example, I would definitely encourage this kind of training.

We have seen this not just in the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report, but I think there were 40 reports before that that looked at these various situations, all of which had police sensitivity and training as a recommendation. I would love to see that across the country, but at least we can do our part federally.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the history of this bill and a lot of the research that has gone into it. I really appreciate her perspective on this.

Could the hon. member give us a bit more background on the bill? We know that our former colleague, Rona Ambrose, brought it forward, and the Conservatives certainly supported it. However, there were reasons why she brought the bill forward. Could she speak to those reasons?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was during the time when diligent reporting by journalists like The Globe and Mail's Robyn Doolittle found that 5,000 allegations of sexual assault cases were closed by Canadian law enforcement annually. That statistic got Rona thinking.

Then there was the Robin Camp incident and the Jian Ghomeshi case. With all of there things happening. she thought something had to be done. We needed judges who understood the sensitivity needed to address sexual assault and who understood the laws that had already been passed with respect to the rape shield and others. I think that ignited the passion in her. She was already a passionate advocate for women and girls, being the a co-author of The International Day of the Girl:. From there, with some input from stakeholders, she was able to draft the bill.

The bill was unanimously passed when it came to the House. Of course, it is the will of the House that needs to happen.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech delivered by my colleague, who has a thorough understanding of this matter. That is remarkable.

I believe we are all of one mind on this issue. I think that everyone is pretty much on the same page. In Canada and Quebec, we want to ensure that the courts are more welcoming for victims of sexual assault.

Now, what is the next step? How can we get there?

The statistics we heard, which I was not familiar with, are appalling. Approximately 5% of victims of sexual assault in Canada file charges.

How can we make the courts more welcoming than they are at present? What can we do to get there?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it comes down to this. If victims know in advance that they will be shamed, that they will have to go through a long and arduous trial where they will be made to look bad and that at the end of the day only 7% of people will be convicted and will receive a sentence of a probation, fine or maybe a few months in prison, they will not put themselves through that. They have already been traumatized.

We need to address the conviction rate. The punishment should fit the crime. We need to educate people about the change so women are aware. One of the recommendation in our violence report suggested something like a spirit guide to guide women through the process and be there as an advocate for them, especially for younger women.

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

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciated my hon. member's comments about the issue of rape culture and how we could combat that. I know some work was done in the last Parliament around the exposure of especially young boys to violent sexual images online and how that might shape their socialization around sexuality.

Could the member speak to that and some of the action that could be taken on that issue?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we looked at some of the contributing factors to sexual assault against women and girls, pornography and a lot of the online images people were seeing, especially young boys, was one of the causal factors. One of the solutions presented was to organize men to come alongside the boys, train them how to treat women appropriately and help them understand the inappropriateness of their behaviour.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to take a different approach on this debate.

Looking at Bill C-3, I anticipate unanimous support from the House. I believe that every member, all 336 of them, actually supports this proposed legislation, and justifiably so. After all, it is not the first time that we have had this legislation before us. In fact, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party brought the idea forward.

The Prime Minister has inferred in the past that no one owns a good idea, and if it is something that is for the betterment of Canadians, let us do it. Back then, the government of the day said that it supported the bill, and when that did not work, we ended up bringing in a government bill. The previous bill not only passed in the House, but it also went through the committee stage and on to the Senate. There was plenty of opportunity for good, healthy debate.

Sex assault is a very serious issue. Again, I suspect that all 336 members have something to say about this very important issue and the impact it has on our society. All of us, I am sure, have something to share with the House. However, if we look at all the private member's bills and all of the government's proposed legislation, we see that, mathematically, it would be impossible for every member to talk about every piece of legislation.

It was not possible even when we sat during the summer in a different forum in the House. At the end of the day, there is a limited amount of time, and the official opposition knows that. Those members understand that, last Friday, if they wanted to, they could have passed the bill. This is a very important issue, which all members of Parliament are very passionate about, and it could have actually passed last Friday.

What would have happened had that taken place? Well, we would be debating Bill C-5, the national day for truth and reconciliation. I have heard from some that the Conservatives might not support that piece of legislation. I am hopeful that the majority will, but I suspect that there will be huge demands from the Conservative Party that we debate that piece of legislation. When it comes to legislation inside this chamber, the only way we get the Conservatives to pass it is to either bring in time allocation or shame them into doing the right thing.

At the end of the day, when we look at what we have before us, I challenge any member to indicate their opposition to this legislation. As I pointed out, the very essence of the issue is of the utmost importance to all Canadians. I am sure that there is not a member in the House who would speak about this legislation not passing, and we recognized that years ago when the interim leader of the Conservative Party brought it forward.

I would like to challenge my friends across the way. I have been affiliated with House leadership teams for a while now, and I can tell members that, at times, we need to allow bills that have unanimous support to go through the process.

I know a member of the opposition can stand up in a righteous way and say that every member should be able to speak to this legislation, I am not going to deny that. If members want to speak to this piece of legislation, let them speak to it, but we must remember that not every member can speak to every piece of legislation; it is not possible. We cannot do that and the Conservatives know that. It does not take much to put off any piece of legislation, because after we debate it, with all 100 members speaking between questions and answers, and the speeches themselves, which are a half hour for the first five hours, then 15 minutes afterward, we could be speaking for weeks on this legislation, and all because the Conservative Party does not want legislation to pass so it can criticize the government in the future for not passing legislation. If we try to pass legislation, the Conservatives ask why we have to bring in time allocation.

The opposition members need to come to the realization that if they do not want time allocation, if they want to see a consensus, and if they behave like this, that is what they will get. I am focusing on the Conservatives, At the end of the day, what I would like to see, and I did it when I was in the third party, is support for the government of the day with respect to certain time allocations, because I believe that unfortunately at times we need to bring in time allocation. I would like to think that on this piece of legislation we do not need to bring in time allocation; rather, what we could do is recognize the fine work that has been done to date on this legislation.

Maybe it is because I am eager to get on to Bill C-5, which is about truth and reconciliation and one of the calls for action. I understand the Conservatives will be demanding a lot of time for debate on that legislation. I would think that call for action is something there is a great deal of interest in with respect to finding out where the Conservative Party is at. We know where MPs are at with respect to this piece of legislation. I would suggest the members opposite in the Conservative Party will no doubt want to continue to talk about this debate. I will no doubt be one of the first to remind them in the future why it is we did not get as much time to debate Bill C-5, because I suspect they will not provide us the opportunity—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is making repeated reference to Bill C-5. I wonder if, even though the rules of relevance are loosely applied in this place, we ought to speak to the bill that we are debating. We are talking about Bill C-3. We have heard a lot about Bill C-5, so if the member does not want other members to speak to it, perhaps he could actually speak to Bill C-3.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member might not necessarily like it, but there is a direct link that I have made between Bill C-5, which in all likelihood is going to be the next item for debate, when I focus my attention on the importance of Bill C-3 and getting it passed. There is a direct link between the two issues, and that is what I have been referencing.

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

We will resume with the member's speech, and I would remind the parliamentary secretary to focus on Bill C-3.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is contribute to an ongoing debate, when I know the Conservatives are anxious to see this bill ultimately pass.

I will leave it at this. I would ask my Conservative friends to support what is a very good idea, something that has been debated not only inside this House, but the House of Commons on Parliament Hill. There has been a great deal of debate. Everyone is in support of it. We have seen legislation pass relatively quickly inside this House. We even saw it with reference to this piece of legislation in another session with another bill number. Therefore, I implore my Conservative friends across the way to give serious consideration to allowing Bill C-3 to go through so that we can debate Bill C-5, as I am very much interested in hearing where the Conservatives might fall on the important issue of reconciliation.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, that was an unfortunate display we just saw from the hon. member as we are discussing a bill as important as Bill C-3. He spent virtually no time on the bill and spoke only about delay.

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member. Maybe he could answer a question for me. Prorogation of Parliament, according to Marleau and Montpetit, results in the termination of a session. Prorogation is taken on the advice of the prime minister, and the effect of it is to terminate all business, including the work of committees.

My question for the hon. member is this: Who is the prime minister whose advice it was to prorogue Parliament, thereby requiring a restart on all business in this House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in my home province of Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative premier, Brian Pallister, did the very same thing. He prorogued the Manitoba legislature.

The Prime Minister has recognized, as this government and some other members have recognized, that we need to be very much focused on coronavirus, as well as the health and well-being of Canadians and our economy. That is something that justifies the need to prorogue, reset and put into focus what is important to Canadians in all regions of our country.

I believe that the Province of Manitoba, after proroguing, is reading its throne speech today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will elaborate on my colleague's comments.

We are here to debate Bill C-3, an important bill that will help victims of sexual assault. My colleague just said that prorogation made it possible to turn the page and focus on the economy. Let us talk about the economic victims: women.

This summer, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We met on an emergency basis to study the impact of the pandemic on women in particular. The Liberal government decided to prorogue Parliament and our work was stopped. We had an important report to give to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, but we were unable to complete it. We have to start from scratch.

Does that really help the victims of COVID-19?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if the member was to pose the question to the Minister for Women, she would probably have no problem providing a two- or three-minute answer discussing the types of things that we, as the government, have tried to do. We are working with different levels of government, municipal and provincial, and the many different stakeholders to minimize the negative impact of coronavirus on women and girls throughout the country. We take the issue very seriously.

The member raises a good point by posing that particular question. That is one of the reasons we needed to prorogue, so that we would be able, through the throne speech, to refocus and ensure we are talking about the coronavirus. If members read the throne speech, they will see that some of the answers to the questions the member just posed can be found right in that document.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to me that we have unanimous support for this bill, and I would love to see this pass as quickly as possible, but I am disappointed that we have had to go back to the beginning. The Liberal government's decision to prorogue Parliament had many impacts, and one of them was restarting and slowing down the progress on important bills from the last session, such as this one.

When I spoke on this bill last February I mentioned that, like it is for many Canadians, this is a deeply personal issue for me. I am one of the one in three women who have experienced sexual assault in their lifetime. That statistic is staggering, but for most women it is not surprising. Yesterday, Tanya Tagaq, the incredible artist and Inuk throat singer, said, “Every woman I know has to carry the memory of at least one unreported sexual assault”.

I am curious if the member has an answer for women like me who have to carry that story. Why did his government prorogue Parliament? Why did they slow down the progress of bills like this? How can he stand in defence of a government that prorogued Parliament for what seems like no good reason?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the member's willingness to share her story. Throughout the debates over the years, we have heard many personal stories. Hearing the stories and comments first-hand inspires me to work harder and make sure we do the right thing.

As for the prorogation, one of the nice things about the House of Commons is that we have the capacity to put it aside, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. We have the ability to unanimously pass this bill if the political will is there. If we were to ask the member who just posed a question, I suspect she would support that political will. I believe most people in this chamber would support that political will, because we see the passion, whether it is from the member who just posed a question or from other individuals who have been profoundly impacted by this particular issue.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, in light of the prorogation and the fact that the committee receiving this bill does not even start for two weeks, would the member not agree that it is worthwhile to have a discussion on an issue that is so serious for one is six people in Canada and that educating new members is also worthwhile?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are all sorts of things that could be done to pass this bill sooner rather than later. There are many ways it can be done, and I would encourage the member and others to consider that.

At the end of the day, many pieces of legislation are absolutely fabulous and deserve hours and hours of, if not endless, debate. However, time does not necessarily allow for that to occur. When we have the opportunity to do something good on an issue that is unanimously supported in the House, why squander that opportunity? As I said, if we wanted to, we could have passed the bill last Friday.

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

Madam Speaker, I can maybe understand why some members are complaining that the debate is going on too long, but for the member for Winnipeg North to complain that other people are talking too much on a particular piece of legislation is something I never would have expected.

I know the member across the way is not new to this place. He spends a fair bit of time in Parliament, as he has over the years. I think he knows that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, to a significant extent, to schedule the debates that occur in this place. We know, for instance, that the government's euthanasia legislation removing safeguards is scheduled for Friday and the following Monday. The government has a choice over what bills it wants to schedule and when. If moving this bill forward is a priority of the government, it could schedule this bill more frequently than it has.

What we have seen from the government, though, is that no legislation has been passed this year, except for spending bills, and that the House has barely sat, sitting less than 40 days since the last election, with a prorogation of Parliament and the complete suspension of Parliament prior to the prorogation, other than the committees. The House has barely sat, and it is a pattern of the government to demand that we quickly pass legislation in the very short windows that it prescribes, and then it shuts down Parliament.

How do we know that it is not the intention of the government to again shut down Parliament as soon as possible after some of this legislation moves forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in part, the member makes my point.

I must say at the outset that I do enjoy very much the opportunity to address the House. I am often afforded the opportunity, and I do appreciate it.

Having said that, there is important legislation that I would love to see debated, such as the assistance in dying legislation and the reconciliation legislation, but I suspect that there is going to be a great deal of demand to make time for that. We will have at least two opposition days—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.