Debates of Nov. 16th, 2020

Judges Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are barriers in place or stereotypes or myths that have fed systemic racism. Racism is very hurtful. Sometimes it is unintentional, yet it occurs. Sometimes it is intentional, and we need to recognize that it does not matter. All racism hurts. As leaders of our communities and as parliamentarians of whatever political stripe, we all have a role in, first, recognizing its existence and, second, doing what we can to fight racism on a number of fronts. I personally believe the best way to fight racism is through education and cross-cultural awareness. I hope that at some point we will see more of a discussion about racism on the floor of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess my question closely resembles the one that we just heard from the Bloc Québécois, and it does focus on the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination”. We did have a bit of a debate about these terms at committee. Ultimately the committee decided that adding reference to those two terms was important when we were talking about social context. I, for one, am glad we did.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on why it is important that we have this very important federal statute making explicit reference to systemic racism and systemic discrimination. Furthermore, because we know that amending legislation is not going to be the end-all of solving this problem, what further steps is the federal government prepared to take to truly meet and fix systemic racism and discrimination in our justice system, while acknowledging that we must also work with the provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we need to look at the social context of our communities. We can see racism in certain areas more than in other areas. Dealing with the issue of racism is indeed fairly complex, but it is achievable if there is a political will to have an impact on the issue.

The member referenced the provinces. I would argue that school boards, municipalities, the provinces, Ottawa, indigenous leaders and the many other stakeholders all have a role to play in dealing with systemic racism. To me, the common threads for resolving it in the long term are education and tolerance. Those are the types of things we need to focus attention on when looking at the broader picture or the social context in which it occurs.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, as he is always very passionate about this issue.

The idea of putting social context, systemic racism and systemic discrimination into this bill is important. It is about cultural competence and cultural safety. This is a process that the health care system in British Columbia has been implementing for training doctors and medical professionals. This system is moving to other places in the country because it is important that people understand social context and how discrimination works in an institutionalized way.

In what other areas under federal jurisdiction should we see this kind of cultural competence and cultural safety implemented to train and educate people? We could do this, for instance, regarding indigenous people in this country, given the systemic racism they face and the colonial history they have had to deal with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the spectrum for providing supports and cross-cultural awareness could be wide enough.

During the early 1990s when I was an MLA, the Manitoba Intercultural Council provided a report on combatting racism. One of its recommendations said that cross-cultural awareness is best achieved through education in the broader sense. I still believe that today.

The member asks what the federal government's role is. I believe it is to demonstrate national leadership on the issue. We do that through the actions we take. For example, we proposed this particular piece of legislation and appointed a minister of diversity.

There are different things we can do that will have an impact, whether it is on the military, civil servants or the judicial system. In fact, there are all sorts of things the government can do, and it is important to take these into consideration for legislation. In addition to legislation, we should also be looking at monetary ways of doing things and working with other jurisdictions and appealing to them.

Health care is an excellent example. We had an incident in the Province of Manitoba when I was an MLA a number of years ago. An indigenous person who was sitting in an emergency room was deceased for hours. I cannot recall the exact number of hours, but I believe it was 20 hours or so. He sat in an emergency room for hours and no one noticed he had passed away.

It is there, it is real and it would be nice to see it dealt with.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act, at report stage, which would mandate, among other things, education for judges on matters related to sexual assault and would require judges to provide a written reason for their ruling in such cases.

It is now the third time the bill has returned to the House in one form or another. It was first introduced in 2017 by the then-interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, but it died in the other place when the writs were dropped for the 2019 election. The current Minister of Justice reintroduced the bill with changes that were recommended by the other place in the first session of this Parliament. However, it too died on the Order Paper, when Parliament was prorogued.

In both previous instances and at second reading, the bill received unanimous support from all parties in the House. I believe that for proposed changes like these, no matter how small, to receive unanimous support not once but three separate times in two different Parliaments speaks to their importance and necessity.

We have heard from victims of sexual assault and have come to understand that it is among the most destructive acts that anyone could ever experience, leaving a deep wound in their lives and damaging their confidence, their self-worth and their ability to trust and to experience emotional intimacy. Sexual violence is so destructive to the human person that it is considered a war crime if used as an act of subjugation.

Sexual assault is also a betrayal. In over half of cases, the victims know the perpetrator. It could be a family member, a friend or an authority figure. It is a betrayal of the inherent trust we place in each other to respect and care for one another as human beings. It is a betrayal of the human condition in place of being treated like an object.

We have also heard that individuals do not react to this betrayal in the same way. Some react in anger or pain, fear or denial, perhaps trying to forget the betrayal because the reality is too painful for them to bear, or believe that admitting they are victims would somehow change who they are. For some, admitting that someone they love and trust is capable of such violence is unthinkable, and others continue to live in fear of their abuser, fearing that telling anyone or changing anything might make things worse. Compound this with the knowledge of what they will be up against should they choose to report an assault.

Our justice system has fallen behind our understanding of the impact of these crimes on the lives of the victims and how they react. Instead, it relies on outdated stereotypes that deeply harm women and men who have experienced sexual violence.

As the minister noted in his remarks at the beginning of this debate, there is no room in our courts for harmful myths or stereotypes. We have all heard of the insensitive and grotesque comments by judges during sexual assault cases, including the appalling comment that was the impetus for Ms. Ambrose to introduce this bill. While we have heard these comments, I am convinced that we do not fully understand the devastating impact they have on those who have experienced sexual assault.

As noted by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock in her intervention, our justice system rightly relies on the legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty, which is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 11. This has proven itself to be the most resilient form of justice in history and has protected citizens from government tyranny through the burden of proof. However, it is that same burden of proof that revictimizes those who have experienced sexual assault. It cannot help but do so.

When victims appear in court, they are forced to relive the worst day of their lives over and over, whether it is in statements to police, in conversations with prosecutors, in courtrooms or in cross-examinations. They watch as someone undertakes to find contradictions or mistakes in their testimony, using any small error, discrepancy or perceived character flaw to convince a jury that the entire story is not credible or, worse, is a slanderous lie.

Through this entire process, they may feel like they are poked and prodded and treated like a piece of evidence. I can only imagine what is weighed and measured as one contemplates filing a report. Is it any wonder that the justice department estimates that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported?

In acknowledging that our justice system is not perfect, we must continue to hold fast to the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, while at the same time doing everything we can to improve how victims are treated within that system. This is not to say there are no supports for victims already in place. It is quite the opposite.

Police do receive training to help victims as much as possible. Support groups provide assistance in whatever way is necessary, including 24-hour personal availability. Prosecutors learn how to care about the person, not just the case. Does it not then make sense to ensure that those aspiring to be judges have similar training?

If the purpose of the bill to improve the interaction between sexual assault survivors and the judiciary is realized, then it will go a long way in helping to restore their confidence in our justice system.

As I referenced earlier, Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require that anyone eligible to be appointed to be a judge undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It includes a subsection to clarify the establishment and topics of seminars that must be attended.

Finally, Bill C-3 would require judges to provide in writing the reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. Victims would no longer be left guessing about the reasons for a particular ruling. This would also go a long way in increasing the trust in our judicial system by shedding light on the decision-making process itself.

Rona Ambrose spoke about the importance of this bill when it was first re-tabled and how it went beyond partisan lines, stating:

Supporting victims of sexual assault and improving our justice system and building confidence in our justice system is one of those issues. From the very beginning, this has been about all the MPs in the House, no matter the stripe, putting partisanship aside.

It is important for Parliament to remain focused and committed to doing just that.

I would like to thank Rona Ambrose for first introducing the bill, the Minister of Justice for reintroducing it and the justice committee for its thoughtful study on its contents.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her excellent speech. In my opinion, she has the best last name of anyone in the House, but let's move on.

Something was added to this bill in committee. Systemic racism and discrimination were added to the subjects that should be addressed during the mandatory seminars. Members can be for or against that. I personally believe that systemic racism exists. Residential schools are the most obvious example of systemic racism in our history. However, that was not the objective of the bill when Ms. Ambrose introduced it.

I would simply like to know whether my colleague agrees with me that this addition only detracts from the objective of the bill.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, not having been in committee, not having been part of the deliberations around the bill and contemplating amendments that would be made to it, I rely on my colleagues who were at the table to put thought and due diligence toward any amendments that would be presented to legislation at committee.

I did look at the term “social context”, knowing that was part of the bill. I looked at the definition of it. I have heard today, through others who have made interventions, that “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination” are terms that were included and that the committee decided to reference both in providing clarity to the term “social context”. I would imagine that if there were issues with it at committee, those issues would have been raised and duly noted.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her heartfelt remarks and her support for the bill. I hope maybe the member could speak to her thoughts on the impact of the bill being passed, not only on the justice system itself but on those who are victims of sexual assault.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to reiterate that I believe when Ms. Ambrose introduced the bill in the last Parliament, she was responding to issues she saw within our judicial system that needed to be addressed. This bill will go a long way to building confidence and trust in our judiciary and judicial system by victims of sexual assault, knowing that judges have agreed to and have undertaken the kind of education that will help them understand the social context in all the issues when making their rulings in these cases.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, we cannot lose track of the reason the bill was introduced in the first place. Sexual assault is such a horrendous crime and for too long judges and the justice system have not really given it its due. It has made it very difficult for women to come forward when they have been assaulted. If we add systemic racism to that, it makes it even more difficult for many women who are racialized as well. It is about time the bill was passed.

What does the member see as the benefits of the bill for women across Canada once it is passed?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I went back and reviewed the speech that was given by the minister when the bill was introduced in the House. I also went back to a couple of speeches made by colleagues on this side of the House. It is my understanding that the bill was designed to enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system, in particular, the confidence of survivors of sexual assault.

I know the minister made the observation that it was hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable in the criminal justice system than the women who found the courage to report sexual assault. It is my hope that not only will they have the courage, but they will be rewarded with a system that is actually responsive to them.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to once again speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code regarding training for judges on sexual assault.

At first reading, we heard amazing speeches from engaged and passionate parliamentarians across party lines. I agree with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in his remarks this afternoon that these rounds of debate demonstrate a level of co-operation within our minority Parliament that I too appreciate and would love to see more of.

I would like to use my time today to speak to the opportunity I had to participate in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in tabling my first amendments as a member of Parliament.

As a member of an unofficial party, the opportunities to get involved in these important matters are both broad and limiting. In a three-person caucus, I hold 10 critic files and monitor 10 committees. As I am a member of an unofficial party, my opportunities to be involved are at the discretion of different members. I am not a regular face on the justice and human rights committee, however, I was welcomed and treated with respect, and I wish to formally thank all members for their hospitality.

I also want to thank my incredible team, especially my parliamentary agent, for working hard and being committed to promoting rights.

I will also take this moment to celebrate that one of the four amendments I tabled was accepted. I sincerely appreciate the support and feedback I received in this venture. More importantly, I am thrilled at what this amendment means for Canadians, for women and for victims of sexual assault. It is a meaningful step toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada.

I tabled three other amendments that echoed those put forward by my Liberal and NDP colleagues. I joined in their concern for adequately clarifying social context, as it can and does include a variety of subjects. My team and I listened to organizations and advocates. We considered it essential to understand the intersection of systemic oppression and gender identity, and the dynamic it plays in the perpetuation of sexual violence.

I was alone, however, in addressing the need to include indigenous voices in the development of training seminars and in recognizing the impact of the failures within the justice system on indigenous peoples. My amendment to section 60(3) of the act as detailed in Bill C-3 ensures that indigenous leaders and representatives of indigenous communities will be included in consultations to develop seminars for judges related to sexual assault law.

With this in place, seminars on matters related to sexual assault law will be developed after consultation with indigenous leaders and representatives of indigenous communities. It enshrines indigenous leadership up front, not consultation after the fact, which we have seen time and time again. It embeds meaningful recognition that indigenous women and girls face rates of sexual assault three times higher than non-indigenous Canadians.

We cannot continue to ignore the prevalence of sexual violence and its impacts on indigenous, Métis and Inuit women. I believe that this is essential. This section explicitly mentions the need for involvement of indigenous leaders and representatives in the development of these seminars.

This amendment is consistent with the spirit of the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it represents a significant act with respect to the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I will celebrate this win, but with a commitment to continue to push from all angles for ways to ensure that the dignity and rights of indigenous peoples are upheld in this country.

I received interesting comments about this amendment. They suggested that it was perceived as being too complicated to explicitly highlight indigenous peoples in the bill and that it is a slippery slope to begin to name different groups. I was taken aback by this, especially considering that same week we had debated in the House a bill that would have indigenous peoples recognized in our citizenship oath, distinctly recognized as the first peoples of this land, as a critical step on our path toward reconciliation.

Therefore, I reject the notion of it being a slippery slope to include indigenous leaders and representatives in this amendment. It is never my intention to exclude when highlighting indigenous peoples. It is, rather, the opposite, and it is within the world view that I was taught, which is an inclusion of all life and all peoples, including 2-spirited, Black Canadians and other people of colour.

Additionally, this amendment was never outside the realm of possibility, as its intent was included in the way forward in the RCMP sexual assault review and victim support action plan. This is where the RCMP outlined its commitment to the development of a sexual assault training curriculum, including mandatory education about the history of colonialism and racism in Canada, the role of racism and sexual assault myths and misconceptions.

The plan includes training being developed in consultation with front-line workers, survivors and organizations that reflect a diversity of backgrounds, including Black and indigenous women and girls, transpeople and non-binary people. I would go even further to suggest that, if we include indigenous leadership and representatives at all levels of government and in all sectors in Canada, we will all be the better for it.

I wish to end tonight by sending my condolences, love and prayers to the family of Chantel Moore. They are dealing with yet another immeasurable loss while awaiting the report from the inquest into her death. We cannot take these issues lightly. We cannot ignore that, as conversations about consent and violence against women have evolved generationally, so too have conversations around systemic racism.

As we empower today's bench with the education they need to assess questions of consent and rape, so too must we empower them with an understanding of systemic racism and the way those issues intersect. By passing Bill C-3, we tell the women of Canada, including indigenous women, that they matter, that we believe them and that we will do everything within our power to ensure justice for crimes against them. No longer will a biased judgment from an uneducated judge prevent this from happening.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I think all parties in the House agree that this bill should move forward. I know that in Quebec, there have been some all-party discussions on a special court for sexual offences, an idea proposed by Véronique Hivon. What does my colleague think of this idea?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

I think that is an excellent idea, and I think it works very well for Quebeckers. I would be very interested to see that in other jurisdictions as well. Perhaps we could draw a little from Quebec's lead and use this model in other places.

However, for now, Bill C-3 and what we are working on today in Parliament is something to be very proud of as Canadians. Certainly, there is more work to be done. I do not think there is anything bad in further investigations into these kinds of issues.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. colleague and her incredible speech. I want to thank her for bringing this issue forward and including it in this important bill.

Are we not getting tired of trying to explain to people what systemic racism is? People should just accept the fact that it is there, that sometimes it is unconscious and that is why it is systemic. We now need to move forward and accept that racism does in fact exist and it is systemic.

When it comes to women, that systemic racism adds another layer of trouble to get through and make our voices heard, to have the justice and dignity we deserve. What are my hon. colleague's thoughts?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind words. I know that we both care deeply about these issues.

Absolutely, I am frustrated with having to define what systemic racism is for individuals who refuse to accept it. I see this on social media any time we put something out about this kind of issue. People will say that this is an American issue, that it is not happening in Canada, and that we should stop bringing it up because it is making it an issue.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

That is racist.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Exactly. We have a responsibility not only to acknowledge it, but also to do something about it. To get bogged down in a debate about whether it exists or not is just ridiculous. It is a waste of our time.

I am thankful that we are seeing more and more people coming out to acknowledge and understand what it is, but the work is still there for the actions to eradicate it. Once again, I thank the member for drawing attention to that.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Fredericton for her speech. I would also like to thank her for her tireless advocacy on these issues of systemic discrimination, for seeing it for what it is and for understanding it. Cultural safety and cultural competency are things that all professionals need to learn in every profession, and I think that the amendments that the hon. member has put forward to this bill are valuable. I am pleased to see that the committee has supported them and they have been included in the bill.

I do not have a question in particular. I just wanted to thank the hon. member for her work. If she would like to comment further on any ideas she may have on how we can better train all professionals in this country to understand systemic racism, I would appreciate that.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, before I came to the House of Commons my work was in education. I worked in anti-racism education and in indigenising curriculums in our public spaces and in our schools. That work will continue. I am so honoured to have the opportunity to do it from this vantage point, but this is a commitment that I made a long time ago. I do believe that education is the key to eradicating systemic racism in our communities, and we all need to call out the overt racism that we are seeing, so there are many layers to this, but it takes all of us.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canada Revenue Agency; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Infrastructure.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can see it is no exception to the previous times this bill was before the House. All the parties are very much in support of us doing more.

Today I rise in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This bill is a key step to ensuring that each individual who interacts with our justice system is treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve. I am eager to see this important bill continue to move through the legislative process.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to ensure all newly appointed provincial superior court judges take part in training on social context and sexual assault law. This bill also proposes that, when the Canadian Judicial Council develops seminars on sexual assault law, it does so following consultation with groups that counsel sexual assault survivors and organizations that support them.

Bill C-3 also seeks to have the council report to the Minister of Justice on the seminars offered related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, the bill would require judges to provide reasons for their decisions under certain sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

This would be a great step forward at this time. The House is not necessarily aware of all the judges going through the currently available programs, so having this transparency would be a great step forward.

Today I would like to focus my remarks on the importance of social context training for judges. In particular, I would like to address how the social context education provisions in Bill C-3 would help ensure an inclusive justice system that is free of systemic racism and systemic discrimination.

Individuals who appear in court are more than claimants, respondents or witnesses. They are not just names on a legal document or faces in a courtroom. An individual's engagement with the justice system is deeply intertwined with their life outside the court. They bring with them to court their experiences, their stories and their context. To ensure that all people who engage with the justice system are treated respectfully, fairly and equally, judges need to understand the realities of individuals who appear before them. Bill C-3 recognizes this need.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about certain cases that have come to light recently. When we speak about the realities individuals face in the social context of their upbringing, the religious or ethnic group they belong to, or how they were raised and the socioeconomic impacts they have had to live with, we do not know a person until we have walked a mile in their shoes. That is a commonly used phrase, and I do not think we expect judges to know all the social contexts people come from without training. It is not a knock on anyone's intelligence per se, but we can benefit in many roles, even as parliamentarians. I know my team and I have benefited from the knowledge we have learned from having to take the GBA+ analysis course annually.

In many of the stories I went through in preparation for today's speech, I saw a common thread linking victims together. They felt like going through our criminal justice system made them feel like they were the criminals. They felt they were on trial. This happens because of either how their work, family or society treats them after they come out, but also particularly because of how our justice system treats them, with the comments made by judges and the faulty decisions that have happened in so many trials. It is very important for us to take a moment to highlight those and understand them a bit better.

In a particular trial I read about a woman was raped over a 15-hour period by her brother-in-law. She screamed at times, she fought her attacker and, at times, she said she stayed quiet out of fear. As a result, in the trial, the judge questioned her credibility because he said her inconsistent behaviour was not credible. Why did she fight it off at times and why, at times, did she remain quiet out of fear? It goes to show that when victims come forward, they are the ones who are put on trial and their actions are put on trial.

We do not see this in regular physical assault cases. For example, if somebody is punched or beaten in a bar fight, we never question the victim. Why were they not able to duck a punch? Why were they not able to run away? Why did they not do better to protect themselves in that moment? I have never heard those types of remarks made by a judge or authority when it comes to those who suffer physical violence unless, at times, it comes in the form of domestic violence. I think we have come a long way on domestic violence, but we hear those types of statements made at that time too. I fear that when it comes to the issue of sexual assault and rape cases, we just have not gone far enough. We have not progressed in our society to where we should be.

In another case I was looking at, a woman was screaming “no” when she was being attacked. She tried to crawl away. She was fighting the person off. However, the Superior Court justice said that it was very curious that nobody heard her cries and that there were no witnesses to testify that she was crying out. Once again, whether someone is quiet or crying out during an attack, it seems that in case after case some insensitivity, stereotype or rape myth was commonly used in these trials.

Another really important case I came across during this pandemic was from my own community. I come from a South Asian background, particularly Punjabi, and my parents immigrated to this country in the 1970s. In the case I came across, this family also immigrated to British Columbia in the early 1970s. I do not think it is unique to South Asian culture, but many cultures find shame in the act of sexual assault. The shame is not necessarily put on the perpetrator the majority of the time, who is often a male perpetrator, but the shame is put on the victim. I have seen it in popular Bollywood movies I watched growing up.

In the case I am going to talk about, the girls involved just released a documentary that I would highly suggest people watch. It is called Because We Are Girls. In this documentary, three sisters were victims of sexual assault from the age of 11 onward for a lengthy period of time. They suffered daily abuse at the hands of a family member. They often go back to think about why they did not speak out at that time, why they were not able to bring the issue up to their parents, or why they felt shame. Often, there are cultural influences people go through. I know our justice system, and many people, would ask why they did not come forward sooner or why they waited until their adult years to finally speak out about the terror they had been through. They go through that in this documentary. They are three girls from the Pooni family, and they really explain the terror they went through.

The three sisters were Jeeti Pooni, Salakshana Pooni and Kira Pooni. They had a cousin named Raj Rana who also brought forward claims of sexual assault.

They grew up in a very traditional family, one that worked really hard to give themselves, their family and their daughters a very good life, which every immigrant family tries to do. Immigrant families work hard to succeed here in Canada and along with success, they want to be able to raise happy and healthy children. With that comes the need and desire to hide these incidents when they happen, because they know that if these incidents come out, they would not just bring shame on their whole family, but perhaps their whole community. Therefore, the need to hide this is even greater among immigrant families.

In this case, I want to talk about the influence of many films they talked about, where the heroine would be raped in a certain scene and then commit suicide because she had become impure. She was going to bring disgrace and shame on her family, so she would jump in a river or use another means of committing suicide. These films are really tragic.

One does even not realize, when watching a lot of these old movies, how often these references are made, how women are made to feel subservient and that good women would remain quiet and listen to the authority figures in their lives, who are generally men. When men in women's lives have some authority over them, as men in some cultures tend to have, it is very difficult for survivors in those cases to come forward. It is extremely difficult.

I want to give credit to the Pooni sisters who brought their story to light through this documentary and went through the horrors of the judicial system for approximately 12 years. In 2006 they first reported the abuse to the authorities, and it was not until 2011 that the perpetrator was charged. The trial did not begin until 2015, and then a verdict in that trial was not reached until 2018. Many years went by.

During 11 years of going through the system, many comments were made to these individuals. The judge found one of the sisters to be too aggressive and too evasive when she was asked questions at trial. At times, the women testified that they really felt it was so difficult to have to relive their horrors and nightmares. Each time there was a delay in the case and the case would be brought back, or when there was an appeal, they were made to testify again.

When there is a long period of time in between proceedings, there are bound to be inconsistencies and details people forget or may recall that they did not recall last time. For a lot of victims of sexual assault, one of the coping mechanisms is to block the assault out and not think about it. When something happens to women at a very young age, it becomes even more difficult.

There is definitely insensitivity within our process to not be able to understand what a victim goes through. In some cases I have seen, if the witness's timing is off by an hour in how they recall events, the victim is not successful at trial. Also, as in the Pooni sisters' case, because there was too much raw emotion in their testimony, the judge found that to be a very negative thing. At times there is just no winning, depending on the inherent biases the judge may have at any given point.

Thankfully, at one point in April 2018, the perpetrator in this case, Mr. Virk, was found guilty of four of the six charges that were laid against him. However, in June 2019, before he could be sentenced, the defence asked for a stay of proceedings due to all the court delays and the fact that the defendant was not able to get a speedy trial. Of course, not being able to get a speedy trial was something the victims suffered from. According to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, people are guaranteed a speedy trial.

There are a lot of flaws in our system and educating judges will be one step forward, but efficiency is definitely needed within our courts system. Efficiencies will be very important for us to be able to provide witnesses with relief so they do not to have to live their horrors over and over again. It will also provide a speedy trial for defendants.

After the stay of proceedings was granted, it meant there would be no sentencing even though this man had been found guilty of four of the six charges. It also means the perpetrator is still out there. The perpetrator is still able to offend. Other people could become victims. The perpetrator does not have to sign up and be on the national registry. A petition on change.org was signed by many Canadians around the country to have an inquiry into this trial, which is a good idea. We need to inquire further as to what missteps have happened in this trial and in many other similar trials.

The good news is that the Crown appealed the stay of proceedings. There was a hearing on that appeal on November 5. We do not know what the outcome of that hearing is and I do not think we will know until spring of 2021. Therefore, going from 2006, when these three young brave women came forward about the rape and the horrors they experienced in their childhood, to 2021, they are still living it day in and day out.

They have become role models for many other women who have suffered in silence, many other women who do not have the strength to come forward. I have met many women like that as well. I have to commend the Pooni sisters. They have become great role models for their children and for other women in their position.

I would like to thank Rona Ambrose for bringing this bill forward originally. It is unfortunate that the bill sat in the Senate for two years when there was unanimous support for it in the House of Commons. Elected members of Parliament truly want to see change in this area, and there was a lot of delay in the Senate.

I am really hopeful that the bill will see the same type of cross-party support this time around and that we will see a speedier decision in the Senate. Together, we must work to ensure Canadians have access to a justice system that is responsive, inclusive and free from systemic racism and systemic discrimination. This bill is an important step forward toward those goals and I am eager to continue to work with my colleagues to move Bill C-3 forward.

I would suggest that those who are interested should watch the documentary Because We Are Girls. It gives great understanding as to what sexual abuse victims go through. We can do a lot better.

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

Madam Speaker, I will certainly review the documentary. I appreciate the member's intervention today in talking about many of the cases, both close to her riding as well as across the country, where there is a tendency in these things to cause shame. There are better ways, and this bill is part of it.

I have one thing I would like to ask the member. The bill would correct where there is a set of standards right across the country. Every jurisdiction, every province have their own administration of justice. There is an issue that we found at the industry committee in the last Parliament, where Crown copyright allows courthouses a fair amount of control over which documents are made public and to whom they are given, whether they are online or whether people have to go in themselves and request those documents.

We could also be discussing how we could make the system more open and available to our citizens. Does the member believe that we should also be looking at other ways to improve our justice system to ensure that every Canadian receives the same level of justice, whether it be from a more informed judiciary or from a more informed citizenry?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. There are many other things we could do to improve our judiciary.

A couple of things I would like to highlight are the investments our government has made. In budget 2018, we provided funding for targeted investments to help eliminate gender-based violence and harassment, while promoting security of the person and access to justice. This included $25.4 million over five years to boost legal aid funding across the country, with a focus to help support victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Budget 2017 also saw investments in this area so judges could have training and professional development, which focused on gender and cultural sensitivity.

I agree that this is only one step and there is so much more to do. However, the federal government is a great place to start. We should lead in this area. We should talk to our provincial counterparts so they will also make the necessary changes and we will not have victims reliving their experiences. If a trial judge gets it wrong, the victims have to relive it, at every single level, until they get to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is not efficient and it is not how our system was intended to work.

We should get it right the majority of the time and as quickly as possible.