House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was assault.

Topics

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Madam Speaker, in my position as chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, I have become aware recently that there is work going on in the other place to address this issue to ensure that the delays we saw when it came to this bill do not happen again and that bills that pass unanimously in the House of Commons, like private members' bills, should be given a time limit within the other place to ensure we have efficiency so the elected representatives and the will of the people is satisfied.

I look forward to working with the senators who are looking at making these changes and improvements so private members' bills are treated like government legislation and given the priority they deserve as well, especially when there is unanimous consent across party lines. It is not often we have that and there should be no reason for lengthy delays such as what we saw with this bill.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my colleague again on both her speech and on her earlier answer to my question.

My question pertains to Crown copyright. The Speaker of our House has the ability to say where Hansard and our committee testimony can be protected by the copyright powers given to him under the Crown copyright. The same goes in every province, where the courthouses can set up how they will let their rulings be accessible to the public. For example, in some courthouses, people must present their requests in person, which COVID-19 makes very difficult. Other provinces allow all the documentation to be available online. Right now we do not have that.

Instead of the member talking about the investments the government has made, does she believe that the federal government can make a useful measure and help this issue to step forward so every citizen in Canada will have the same access to the same level of documentation? Actually, there is a bill on the Order Paper by an NDP member to abolish Crown copyright. Does she believe this would be a good thing for our citizenry?

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it is not really on the topic of the debate tonight. I would be interested in looking into the matter and developing a proper stance on it. However, without having been able to study the issue, understand it completely and weigh the matter, I do not think giving an opinion would necessarily be fair.

The issue we are talking about today is one that we have been trying to work on for a very long time, but there has been very little improvement in this area. We have seen improvement in a lot of other areas of law. I really hope we do better for the victims of sexual assault crimes. At this point, only 5% of sexual assaults are brought to the attention of authorities and of that 5%, only 12% ever result in convictions. These are extremely sad numbers and we must do something—

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share with the House how she would describe the benefits of this bill if she were speaking to one of her constituents. I think her speech was thoughtful and covered a lot of examples. She offered a lot of insight, but I think a lot of times my constituents want to understand how this will touch their lives or how this will touch those who have been victims of sexual assault or sexual abuse. I am wondering if the member could share that with us today.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Madam Speaker, honestly, a lot of my speech today is inspired by the people I have met in this role and of course by my past experiences and reading about the experiences of others. The experiences I have shared today are no different from the experiences of my constituents and I am sure of the member's constituents.

I am speaking from my constituency office right now, and often there are women right in the seat in front of me who want to talk to me about the violence or the sexual abuse that has occurred in their lives, whether at a workplace or at home. I do not know why some people feel more comfortable coming to a woman. I have also had people from other ridings come to me to talk about the matter.

Many times they make the decision not to report. They make the decision not to go forward to trial. However, there are many who do report, which takes a lot of courage. I always advise them to report the matter. I think it is the most important first step they can take, but many do not go to trial because they have heard stories over and over again about the insensitivity they would face at trial. I think that is going to make a big difference—

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate on Bill C-3. I have really appreciated the opportunity to hear many of the excellent speeches given by colleagues on all sides about this important piece of legislation. For me, it certainly underlined the importance and value of Parliament.

When we have these discussions about listening to victims and understanding what survivors have experienced, it gives us an opportunity to recognize those situations. I think the debate itself, not just the passage of the legislation but the conversations that come out of it, provides a great deal of benefit as well.

Some of the points about process have been particularly important. Picking up on something that my colleague from Brampton North said earlier, many good ideas come forward from private members' bills, but opportunities to bring private members' bills all the way through the process are relatively limited. I was involved in a private member's bill that received unanimous consent in the House and in the Senate, but in slightly different forms, and the reconciliation never took place before the next election.

I appreciate the fact that this has now become a government bill, but it does underline a bit of a structural challenge: It is much harder for us to move good ideas forward that come from members of Parliament who are not in the government, even if the ideas have very wide support across this place.

I had the opportunity to speak in support of this bill at second reading, so I want to briefly summarize some of the points I made at that time. I will then take my arguments in a bit of a different direction. I want to talk a bit about building up confidence and recognizing some of the limitations of this bill. I have the honour of serving as the shadow minister for international development and human rights, so I also want to share some thoughts about the international context we are operating in when it comes to combatting sexual violence and what lessons we might take from this conversation for our engagement internationally. I think there is a lot there. I think there is a lot we can learn from and apply to our international development and to our work on promoting human rights around the world that specifically comes out of this conversation.

The bill in front of us, Bill C-3, requires those seeking to become judges at the federal level to agree to undertake education with regard to sexual assault law and social context, essentially committing themselves to becoming aware of and educated about issues around sexual assault. This is aimed at responding in particular to cases where judges have made some very insensitive comments and—

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpretation has been working only intermittently or not at all for a while now. It is impossible to understand.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I do not think the member is wearing the proper microphone for the interpreters. The interpreters cannot follow him.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I do have a lapel mike on, which is right by my mouth, so I can try to adjust it.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The interpretation does not work at all.

The hon. member would not have his headset, would he?

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I do, but it will probably take me about five minutes to transfer the set-up. If another member would like to speak in the meantime, they could.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to do an exchange, giving the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville the opportunity to do his speech now?

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

November 16th, 2020 / 5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Madam Speaker, I know that technology can always be a challenge, and we want to make sure that our interpreters are able to hear what we have to say so that it can be provided in both official languages.

Today I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. This is a critical piece of legislation that is necessary to ensure that judges understand the context in which offending occurs.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require candidates seeking appointment to a provincial superior court to commit to participating in training related to sexual assault law and social context. Thanks to amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, candidates must also commit to participate in training on systemic racism and systemic discrimination. The bill would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure that those knowledgeable in the field, potentially including sexual assault survivor organizations, are consulted in the development of this new training.

The bill would also assist in ensuring transparency in judicial decision-making by amending the Criminal Code's sexual assault provisions to include a requirement that judges provide reasons for their decisions, either in writing or in the record of the proceedings. This requirement complements existing legal requirements for reasons including specific obligations for judges to provide reasons in sexual history evidence and third-party records application hearings.

Allow me to explain why these amendments are so critical to a fair and effective response to sexual assault, which we know disproportionately impacts women and girls. Canada has come a long way in this regard. We have one of the most robust sexual assault legal frameworks in the world, but we must not forget the myths and stereotypes to which Canada's existing legal regime responds, nor the fact that those very same myths and stereotypes persist to this day. For example, pre-1983 sexual offending laws were repealed and replaced with “affirmative consent”, the model we have in place today.

The previous laws accepted as a fact, first, that a complainant who fails to resist is consenting and, second, that a complainant who consented to sexual activity with the accused before an alleged sexual assault likely also consented to any subsequent sexual activity. It is hard to believe that this was in place before 1983 until changes started to be made, like the changes that we are looking to make through this bill.

We now know that myths and stereotypes like these are false and distort the court's ability to seek the truth. We also know that these myths and stereotypes have a detrimental impact on victims, who are overwhelmingly women and girls, and that their impact is compounded when they intersect with other discriminatory stereotypes. In particular, they deter women and girls from coming forward to denounce their assailants, which means that those assailants cannot be held accountable.

Statutory rules of law and Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence now clarify that myths and stereotypes about sexual assault victims have no place in the courtroom, yet we continue to hear that such myths and stereotypes persist. Allow me to expand on examples I have just noted.

We have known for quite some time that a failure to resist is not the equivalent of consent. More than 20 years ago now, in its 1999 Ewanchuk decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the accused's belief that “silence, passivity or ambiguous conduct constitutes consent is a mistake of law, and provides no defence”. That can be found at paragraph 51.

That rule is reflected in all of the Criminal Code's provisions that relate to consent, sections 273.1 and 273.2. Thanks to former Bill C-51's sexual assault amendments, which were enacted in 2018, this important principle has been further clarified. The provision that limits when an accused can raise the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent is now clearly limited to situations where there is some evidence that the complainant communicated consent affirmatively through words or conduct. That is found at paragraph 273.2(c).

More recently, in its 2019 Barton decision, the Supreme Court of Canada aptly renamed this defence as the “defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent”. I understand that many now refer to Canada's sexual assault framework as an “affirmative consent” model. This means that failing to resist is not relevant to the issue of whether the complainant consented or whether the accused believed the complainant consented. However, in 2014, the Alberta case of Wager, a trial court judge asked a sexual assault complainant why she did not squeeze her legs together if she did not want to engage in sexual activity she alleged was a sexual assault. This is unbelievable. It is unheard of that someone would make a comment like that and that we would hear it from a judge.

We have also known for quite some time that a complainant's prior sexual conduct is not relevant to the question of whether she consented to sexual activity that she alleges is a sexual assault. Originally enacted in 1983, the sexual history evidence provisions, sometimes called the “rape shield provisions”, were amended in 1992, almost 30 years ago, to ensure charter compliance. These provisions were upheld as constitutional in the Supreme Court of Canada's 2000 Darrach decision. They directly target two myths. The first of these is that a complainant who is sexually active is more likely to have consented to an alleged sexual assault. The second is that she is less worthy to be believed in respect of her claim that the sexual activity was non-consensual. These are sometimes called the “twin myths”.

The sexual history evidence provisions require an accused who wants to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual conduct to bring an admissibility application to the court. The court then plays a gatekeeper function at the admissibility hearing to prevent the evidence from being admitted to infer one of the twin myths. Former Bill C-51 strengthened these provisions. Specifically, it clarified that communications for a sexual purpose or whose content is of a sexual nature constitutes sexual history evidence, which is found in subsection 276(4).

In the Barton case, the trial court had to determine whether the sexual activity that caused the death of the victim, Ms. Gladue, was consensual. In this case, evidence of prior sexual activity with the accused was admitted without the judge holding a hearing on whether it was appropriate to admit this evidence as would usually happen. In addition, numerous statements about the complainant's status as a person who provides commercial sexual services were admitted, as were statements about her ethnicity. I want to be clear that both the Wager and the Barton trial court decisions were overturned on appeal because errors of law were made. It provides a measure of comfort to know that such errors are corrected on appeal. However, that fact may not offer much comfort to the victims in such cases, or in the case of Ms. Gladue, her loved ones. When the law is misapplied, appeals follow and perhaps even a new trial will be ordered. This can significantly lengthen the criminal justice process.

What can we do about this problem? How can we help our criminal justice system function fairly when addressing one of the most complex human interactions? We can support Bill C-3, which would assist in ensuring that judges have the education they need to understand sexual assault law, those most impacted by sexual offending and the social contexts in which sexual offending occurs.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech. Everyone here is in agreement. I do not think anyone is opposed to this bill. I would like to pick up on my colleague's remarks by talking about myths and stereotypes.

Some judges may have certain stereotypes. That is not too hard to imagine, given examples like the one my colleague shared about the Alberta judge who told the poor victim to squeeze her legs together. This bill may put an end to outdated cultural constructs and stereotypes. However, it seems to me that the Liberal government is introducing a new myth and new stereotypes by selecting judges from a list of Liberal Party donors. That could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Does my colleague think we need a more rigorous process to preserve public confidence in judicial neutrality?

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak about the stereotypes that still exist and persist in our society. When it comes to the courts, they should be completely neutral. They should be listening to the evidence and not be subject to those stereotypes that we have heard about, which have been in the courts for decades.

This legislation cannot come too soon. This will be an opportunity for our judges to truly understand and, as I just heard one of our eloquent members from Brampton say, to walk in someone else's shoes, to walk in her shoes. To understand and put those stereotypes aside is important for our courts, and it would make a more robust system for us here in Canada in addressing these horrific crimes of sexual assault.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I was sitting on the justice committee when we made the amendments to the bill. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is important that the bill now includes specific reference to the terms “systemic racism” and “systemic discrimination” when talking about social context.

Also, could the member talk about how much more needs to be done than just this legislation and how he will pressure his Minister of Justice to do more? What more could the federal government be doing to ensure that we are addressing these profound issues in our justice system?

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the work he has done over many years and for his advocacy when it comes to victims of sexual assault. He has been very vocal, very impactful, very passionate and has brought so much to the table.

When Bill C-3 has been studied and debated here in the House, we would see almost wraparound services for the victim, which is part of this bill and would have an impact by providing those extra social services and those opportunities that come with community-based supports. I know the member has spoken about that and how important it is to him. I fully support him on that, and we want to see Bill C-3 pass.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the government has reintroduced this bill that we all agreed to in its original form in the last Parliament. Credit is due to the Liberals for doing so.

In the member's speech, he addressed the issue and talked about trust in the justice system. I would like the member to answer the question that was put to him by the Bloc member a moment ago, about the impact of seemingly having political influence bear on the judicial decision-making process at appointment.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON

Madam Speaker, we have to be very proud of the justice system that we have here in Canada. What we try to do in this chamber every day is continue to make it better. By desensitizing the courts, by being able to address where we have found, as we have just heard, systemic discrimination, where we know that there are stereotypes and myths that—

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate, I am going to go back to the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Bill C-3 Judges ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you, the House and especially the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for his flexibility and assistance with this. I appreciate the opportunity to continue the remarks that I was making.

Bill C-3 prescribes a mechanism by which judges would be expected to go through a process of education when it comes to sexual assault law and social context. Additionally, it requires judges to provide written reasons in these cases. That will provide greater clarity about the way in which decisions have been made.

At second reading I spoke about that. I spoke about my support for the bill and I spoke about the importance of understanding the value, but also the limitations, of education, recognizing that education is not the whole solution. As C.S. Lewis pointed out once, education without character might simply serve to create more clever devils. When we think about how to create a society without sexual violence, or at least with substantially less sexual violence, we need to pay attention to those strategies that encourage the development of empathy, understanding, goodwill and self-control. These things, in addition to education and the provision of information, are sort of combined effects that work together to achieve the desired result. When individuals fully absorb the importance of justice and self-control, the way that they treat others will reflect that empathy. We will find that education of judges is not the only thing we need to do, and it is not the full and complete picture. That came through well in all of the remarks that different members were making.

This is an important step forward nonetheless for us to collectively underline the importance of awareness about sexual assault law and the social context for all of those who are going on to the bench. That is the general thrust of the remarks I have made in the past about this bill.

As I was thinking about the particular things I wanted to say here at third reading, the idea that jumped out at me, in terms of the importance of what we are doing with this piece of legislation, is the issue of confidence. It is the issue that when people have something terrible happen in their lives, they make a decision about whether or not to come forward to others and seek support in that situation. Whether they do so stems from the expectation they have about how they will be treated when they come forward. People need to have confidence in our justice system. They need to have confidence in our health system. They need to have confidence in our police. They need to have confidence in our legal professionals. If people do not have confidence in vital social institutions, they will be much less likely to come forward to share and seek assistance in the context of the challenges they are facing.

What we are trying to do with the bill is to make sure that judges are aware, and that we do not have the kinds of things happening to women and others in the court system that have happened in the past. Critically, the fact that we are doing this through legislation recognizes the importance of speaking and acting collectively to try to restore and strengthen confidence among people who are victims in the justice system.

Many of the things that we are doing through the bill could have been done without legislation. There could have been directives given, and I think the government has said that it is putting forward the importance of training in every case with an appointment being made. That is valuable. Given the time that has elapsed, it is valuable that the government is taking the steps that it can in the meantime. The value of acting in legislation in particular is that it is an opportunity for us to collectively communicate an awareness of these problems and a desire to resolve them.

It is to try to restore what has been, I think for a long time, a lack of confidence, and to try to create the conditions in which, if someone experiences horrific acts of sexual violence, they feel intuitively that if they bring those issues forward to the police and judges, they will be heard and responded to in a way that is empathetic, that treats them with justice and that seeks to treat the perpetrator with justice as well. We need to not only fix the problems that have existed, but we need to be seen to have fixed the problems that existed and thus restore a sense of confidence in the system.

Other members have cited these statistics before, but it is important to underline them again. The vast majority of sexual assaults in Canada, over 80%, do not get reported to police. We know that one in three women has been a victim. Many men have been victims as well, and the vast majority of victims do not come forward. I suspect that in many cases it is because of a lack of confidence in the kind of response that they will receive. This is something that we need to change not only by passing this bill, but also by speaking about these issues, by participating in this education and seeking to communicate the messages about the challenges and the need for change, as we are doing in the House today.

What I have seen as well in the last few years is the #MeToo movement. The willingness of people to speak out about their experiences has helped to contribute to a willingness on the part of others to speak about it. It has helped to build this sense of confidence. When people speak out and tell their stories and see that others are listening to them, it builds confidence and makes it easier for others to come forward.

Conversely, if people speak out and are not heard, if there are instances where complaints are made and there is not a proper process or is not meaningful accountability, that detracts from people's confidence. We have seen a lot of these issues play out in real time and it speaks to the importance of people being held accountable in every case, including, and perhaps especially, in very public cases. Not that there is not due process, but the processes are engaged in seriously, victims are treated with respect and justice is sought and achieved in an equal way that applies in every case.

About nine years ago, I was on the board of a local organization in my community called Saffron, which did and continues to do incredible work on education dealing with sexual assault and other forms of violence and bullying. It offers education to young people and parents about these issues. It also provides counselling to victims. The social context has changed a bit in the time since I was on the board for about four years prior to getting elected and now.

At the time, we would discuss as a board how we could raise awareness in the community about these issues, and maybe sensed that there was a real need for greater awareness. Today, there is much more awareness, and that has concrete impacts for organizations such as Saffron in my community that are doing this work. What it means is that more people are coming forward and seeking help.

Right after the #MeToo movement started, what I heard from people who were still involved with this organization in my community was that so many more people were coming forward and seeking counselling and support for events that had happened long in the past. In some cases these were decades and decades ago. People speaking out, being heard and listened to, gave others the confidence to seek counselling, seek support and try to work through and understand things that had happened to them that they maybe had not spoken with anyone about before.

When we do things like debate and pass this legislation, and when people speak out about their experiences, that can have a positive ripple effect of giving others confidence to come forward, to seek counselling, to make complaints and so forth. We can work toward ensuring that a greater proportion of victims of sexual violence is coming forward and that there is meaningful accountability. Ultimately, the result of more people coming forward will be a reduced sense of impunity and less victimization going forward.

It is important for us to acknowledge, in the context of this debate, that our justice system will never be perfect, that we work toward improvements and that we have the end goal in mind, which is ending all violence against women and against all people in general. However, we do not give people the false sense that we are ever going to pass one, or two or three bills and then have a perfect justice system that will respond perfectly in every case.

We should be impatient in our pursuit of reform and improvement, but we should also recognize that this work will never be completely finished, that those of us as members of Parliament, the people who work on these issues throughout the system, will continue to be engaged and work on these things for a long time going forward.

I always think it is important to underline, as we talk about combatting sexual violence, the fact that more and more young people, especially young boys, are accessing very violent sexual images on the Internet. Our country needs to have measures in place, things like meaningful age verification online, to address this issue. When we have very young boys learning about sexuality in a context which is very violent and absorbing images that shape their sense of what is normal, this has major implications with respect to subsequent acts they may commit and acts they may perceive as being normal.

I hope to see government action on that issue as well, that we will see greater exploration of the negative health effects that come from early exposure to violent sexual images online and appropriate legislative responses to that.

I know there was a motion from my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, in the last Parliament for a study on this issue at the health committee. I understand he may be speaking later on this evening. That motion received unanimous consent, but the health committee could have gone further. It ultimately comes down to the government needing to act on these issues.

We need to think about the kind of socialization that contributes to what many people have called “rape culture”. Some of that response has to include addressing this issue online.

In the remaining time I have, I want to speak a little about the international dimension. I have the honour of serving in our opposition shadow cabinet as the shadow minister for international development and human rights. For a long time, a big part of Canada's engagement internationally has been seeking to advance the rights of women and girls.

Members have spoken about Rona Ambrose's involvement in putting forward this bill in the last Parliament. She was also a big part of working with former Prime Minister Harper and others on advancing the rights of women and girls internationally as part of our development assistance. That approach got a bit of a name change under the Liberal government.

Frankly speaking, although not in every area, there has been a great deal of continuity in terms of initiatives that were started under Stephen Harper and have continued, with some modifications but not that many in the scheme of things, under the current government.

Part of our engagement internationally on the rights of women and girls should be promoting reforms to justice systems, helping to facilitate the development and strengthening of justice systems around the world. The quality of justice systems, the protection of young women from violence is a key part of achieving larger development objectives in countries that are struggling around the world.

There may be cases where parents are reluctant for their daughters to go to school if they feel they are not safe on the way to and from school or if they are not safe at school. These are the kinds of issues that are linked to questions of education and access to health care, if justice systems and safety are in place for women around the word.

I also am regularly contacted by people in Canada who are concerned about cases of sexual violence involving abduction of women from minority communities also associated with forced conversion. There have been a number of prominent cases of this in Pakistan recently where women from the Christian community have been abducted and there have been instances of forced conversions as well as forced marriages.

We see these cases in a number of different contexts and require a strong response, recognizing the linkages that exist between violations of religious freedom and the rights of minorities as well as sexual violence. Often, we see cases where women specifically from minority communities are targeted in countries that have relatively weak justice systems.

Canada's engagement in understanding the linkage between different human rights issues around the world is important. That is part of why I was a champion for leaving in place the Office of Religious Freedom. It was working in this space, recognizing the linkages that exist, for instance, between violence against women and violence targeting minority communities.

Also, we need to do more in Canada to recognize how online sexual exploitation is a growing problem in certain countries around the world, how the sexual exploitation of people, often of children, happens in a way that is linked to the demand for that kind of material in other countries, perhaps in Canada. It is so important for us in Canada to be willing to work with justice systems in other countries, building capacity to work together to combat online sexual exploitation where the perpetrators may be here—