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

1:15 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member opposite for his contributions at the justice committee. I will confess that my recollection of the witness testimony during the study was that witnesses did talk about systemic racism and systemic discrimination.

I will say to the member, point blank, that when we are talking about a bill that deals with the interaction of women who have experienced sexual assault and sexual violence, given the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry, I think systemic racism and systemic discrimination need to be front and centre in any training of judges being sensitized to these important issues.

Would the member agree with that simple concept, given the increased awareness of these issues vis-à-vis systemic concerns in Quebec in light of what happened to Joyce Echaquan in the health care setting? The health care setting is very similar in that regard to the justice setting.

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Madam Speaker, I would first like to apologize for forgetting to wear my headset during my speech. That was my mistake.

I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, some witnesses said that they were the victims of racism in a judicial process. That is clear, particularly for indigenous people. We have seen that happen many times in many court cases where the court was not sufficiently aware of these issues. I agree. Again, I am not saying that racism does not occur. What I am saying is that we did not hear from experts on how systemic racism should be defined, for example, but yet we are still introducing that notion into the bill. We are using words like “systemic racism” in the bill when we do not all agree on what they mean. That is currently the topic of a major discussion in Quebec.

I am still not sure how I would define “systemic racism”, and since I am still unsure, I am even more hesitant and disappointed about it being introduced into this bill. That is what I was saying.

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague on the justice committee. I will have to disagree with him on the point of systemic racism and systemic discrimination. It is borne out by numerical data, by policies and practices and by organizational culture.

What does my colleague say when even the Quebec human rights commission makes reference to these terms? What does he think his stance says to Blacks, indigenous people and persons of colour within Quebec who have a very different view than he has on the terms “systemic discrimination” and “systemic racism”, especially when they are going through the justice system?

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Yes, there are people in Quebec who are victims of racism and discrimination of all kinds, such as discrimination against women or ageism. There are all sorts of discrimination and there is racism. We have seen it. We deplored recent tragic events. I am thinking about the indigenous woman in Joliette who was hospitalized. We deplore that incident and we are working to address it.

The Government of Quebec is working on these issues. We are aware of that. However, once again, there is no consensus on this topic. The Government of Quebec did not acknowledge the expression “systemic racism” as something that pervades Quebec institutions. While some talk about institutionalized racism and others of individual racism, no one talks about the racism of the institution.

Who is wrong, who is right, I cannot say. I am not saying that it does not exist. I am saying that there is no consensus. I understand that the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse has an opinion on this. The party in power in Quebec has an opinion and the opposition parties have other opinions.

It is the same thing here in Ottawa. The parties do not agree on this. Some parties have a different opinion and some individuals within the parties may not agree with the majority opinion of their party.

Before introducing such a complex notion into legislation, we must hear from expert witnesses and ensure that we are all saying the same thing and that we all understand the expression the same way.

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

Given that many of my colleagues have risen on this subject—I want to thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for all his work on this issue—it will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois feels that passing this bill is in the best interest of the public and, more specifically, victims of sexual assault.

The Bloc Québécois supports this initiative because it is a step in the right direction. This will enable victims of sexual assault to trust the legal system and to feel understood and supported. We often get the sense that people are wary of these institutions, that victims lack trust and do not think it is worth turning to the justice system. That lack of trust is dangerous, but parliamentarians can find solutions because confidence in our institutions is essential, especially in such sensitive cases.

Requiring judges to be educated about the experience of victims of sexual assault, whom I prefer to call survivors, will not fix everything, obviously. However, it is an essential first step toward making sure our courts improve the way they handle this type of situation.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the thorough and rigorous work done by our counterparts in the National Assembly. Through serious work and in the spirit of sincere co-operation, elected officials, and women in particular, are committed to turning this growing distrust of institutions into trust. They are doing this through concrete and intelligent actions. These elected women in Quebec have mobilized many relevant experts and are sharing ideas to bring about profound change in the way survivors are supported in the justice system, and this is a great example.

These elected representatives from the four parties in the National Assembly have managed to rise above the fray and set partisan politics aside in order to study different paths. Does this call for a separate court specializing in sexual offences, for example? In other words, should there be a court specifically dealing with these issues, with lawyers who specialize in these matters, where sexual offence cases could be dealt with in a very specific way?

Do we need special shelters for victims, like the ones in South Africa, where psychosocial services and legal advice could be provided? For some survivors at least, such a place would have the advantage of being more suited to their needs than a police station.

They are also considering the issue of access to services that are already available but not well known and underutilized, such as shelters for women who are victims of domestic violence.

Although their report and detailed recommendations have not yet been tabled in the National Assembly, their work has resulted in the passage of Bill No. 55, which has now eliminated in Quebec the time constraints on civil proceedings against an alleged assailant. This is major progress and, once again, a step in the right direction that will ensure public confidence in the judicial system, no matter the case.

I am proud of this type of constructive action. This important progress reaffirms my belief that politics can lead to concrete, important and results that speak of compassion and that we can look after our fellow citizens. I invite all elected members in this House to undertake this type of constructive work.

At the end of the day, Bill C-3 will ensure that all judges hearing the evidence will have had training. In other words, these judges will have had to reflect on the stereotypes and myths surrounding sexual assault, as well as on the thought process of survivors. These are examples. We hope that every judge will be fully informed when dealing with sexual assault cases. Judges will therefore be in a position to do what they do best and get justice for victims.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, because it has been debated many times in the House and has widespread support.

We are surprised to see that we are still debating this issue here today, since it is so important.

Let us not forget that the idea of providing judges with proper training on sexual assault law has been on the agenda here since 2017. The bill died on the Order Paper during the previous Parliament while being examined by the Senate.

Just one short month ago, I heard colleagues from all political parties clearly and unreservedly support the swift passage of Bill C-3. That rarely occurs in the House. That is why this bill should be passed quickly.

Bill C-3 is necessary because we have lost count of the number of reports of judges who have made inappropriate comments during sexual assault trials or who have rendered decisions that do not take into account the realities of victims.

I spoke earlier about myths and stereotypes. I will now give a few examples.

In one unfortunate case that has now become well-known in Quebec, a judge implied in court that the victim was flattered that an older man was interested in her. We are talking here about a 49-year-old man who licked his victim's face and groped her. She was a minor. That is one example.

Another example is the judge who questioned the credibility of a young survivor's testimony. The judge said that the girl had failed to describe the sexual acts in question accurately enough. He wanted a young girl to use grown-up words to describe the despicable acts she had been subjected to. A young woman cannot be expected to know all the words to describe what happened to her or to have noticed certain details about those sexual acts. That attitude is inappropriate and has no place in either a schoolyard or a courtroom.

As the mother of three girls, just talking about these two cases disgusts me.

In conclusion, I want to take a moment to honour the brave women who are making the effort to go to court, put together a case, be thorough, patient and courageous, and discuss and speak out publicly against these problems. The Bloc Québécois and I stand with them. Together, we will ensure, once and for all, that institutions actually listen to them and that justice is served.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to ask about the parliamentary secretary's comments earlier. The parliamentary secretary said that although the bill recommended judges who were currently on the bench do this training and asked judges who were being appointed to make a commitment, there would not be a way of publishing who had or had not participated in this training.

We understand the importance of respecting judicial independence, but I am curious to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether this would constitute a limitation and how we might respond if it came out that many people did not do the training.

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I know some members of the Quebec bar are worried about that issue. I have confidence in the independence of the judiciary. Judges must commit to taking this training. Quite frankly, I hope new judges will take this training willingly and enthusiastically, because it is crucial. They need to get with the program, and I encourage them to do so. I think public opinion and society will encourage them to take this training and keep pace with our society's culture and values, which include protecting women against sexual assault.

1:25 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. I have a question for her regarding what will happen with judges at the provincial level.

The topic has already come up in this debate. It has been noted that Prince Edward Island is the only province that has already moved in this direction in terms of training for judges.

Is the member in a position to ask our provincial counterparts and Premier Legault's government if the same kind of training could be brought in at the provincial level in Quebec to combat sexual assault and help victims in these difficult situations?

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Obviously we are not going to ask Premier Legault to make a law. Every province is master of its own legislation. However, this issue is of great concern to Quebec's National Assembly. Members of the National Assembly have worked on this important subject.

Every province has to debate this subject and get its own legislature to agree on laws and rules that will promote better defences and protections for women who are victims of violence or sexual assault.

1:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, could my friend provide her thoughts on the importance of seeing the federal legislation moving forward and how provinces across the country could look at ways in which they could incorporate it into provincial jurisdiction, which would go a long way in further advancing this cause?

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, the question from my colleague across the way is very similar to the question I just got.

All the provinces are watching the debates in the House of Commons. It is up to them to make these choices and decide to debate these issues in their own legislatures to provide women with protections and defences through better training for judges.

It is up to them to decide, and I believe they are capable of making the right decisions.

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a very real honour to be joining once again in the debate on Bill C-3. I am glad that this morning the House saw fit to pass the bill at report stage by unanimous consent, and get it to where it is now, at third reading. I hope that in short order the House can pass the bill because it still has half of its journey left: through the Senate. There is a real interest from many sectors of our society to see this legislation enacted in law so that we can take a small step toward restoring confidence and transparency in our justice system, because so many people who go through the justice system currently have a lack thereof.

It is important, given we are now at this stage of the debate, to acknowledge the hard work that has gone into getting the bill to where we are today. That starts with an acknowledgement of the work done by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in the previous Parliament, whose private member's bill formed the nucleus of what we see before us today. It is a testament to her leadership and her acknowledgement of a problem in our justice system that led to a version of the bill being passed unanimously in the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, which unfortunately got bogged down in the Senate. We see it before us now in the version of Bill C-3, a government bill. The fact that we are at this stage and considering it for third reading is a great place to be.

I also want to acknowledge the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, whose testimony helped guide the committee to make the recommendations and amendments that it did. Those amendments make the bill stronger. They acknowledge some of the areas where witnesses had problems with various definitions. The witnesses included members of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. We also had the National Judicial Institute and the Canadian Judicial Council appear before the committee. I believe that their combined testimony helped inform the committee.

I also want to acknowledge what a pleasure it was for me to join my colleagues again on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. That is a committee I am very fond of, and one that I had the privilege of being a member of in the previous Parliament. It is a committee unlike any other within the House of Commons, given the gravity of the situations it regularly looks at. The legislation often involves weighty matters like the Criminal Code, which have very real consequences for people in everyday situations.

It is important to highlight some of the specific recommendations that the committee made: the amendments that were made to Bill C-3. I want to focus my remarks today specifically on how the reference to social context was made to include a reference to systemic discrimination and systemic racism.

Before I go on, it is important to read into the record a few of the quotes from witnesses at committee. I will start with the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers. He said:

The second concern we have revolves around the lack of definition of social context. If the amendments are to proceed as drafted, we urge the committee to think about the differential impacts of the law on the bodies of indigenous and black people. More specifically, when it comes to sexual assaults, whether in regard to victims or as accused, stereotypes about black and indigenous people lead to differential treatment under the law. These have different impacts on our bodies and our communities.

This was continued by Ms. Rosel Kim, who represented the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. She said that the previous version of the bill that made its way to committee was problematic in not having specific definitions of what social context was.

While the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund wanted a bit more specific definition of what social context meant, I believe what the committee arrived at is a proper term. It serves to encompass many different forms of discrimination and racism.

A lot of what the witnesses reported to us at committee had to do with stereotypes. We know how different actors who go through the justice system experience things. It is different based on their backgrounds. This was repeatedly said at committee. For example, Ms. Rosel Kim said:

As relates to social context, I think that it would be helpful to have a definition of what social context means. I know that the mandate letter has signalled certain things like impact of trauma and unconscious bias. We would like to see the fact that social context is linked to factors that have led to systemic inequality that have exacerbated these harmful myths and stereotypes in Canadian society.

All of the testimony about systemic racism and systemic discrimination is backed up by the evidence. I want to put a few examples on the record because it is really important to form the basis of the conversation that we are having today.

We know that, for example, disabled women experience sexual violence at about three times the rate of non-disabled women. We know that women with disabilities, those who are institutionalized, aboriginal women, single women and women who are unemployed or have low incomes are at a heightened risk of sexual assault. We know that seniors also experience far higher rates of sexual assault than non-senior women. The way these are reported to police and dealt with by our justice system, and the harmful myths and stereotypes that are brought to bear, are precisely why Bill C-3 is needed: to have these important conversations, support and training so we can ensure at least our federally appointed judges have this background and understand the social context of the cases that come before them.

I want to take this opportunity to zero in on some of the comments made by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. The committee meeting that was held to discuss this bill was not in camera. It is all on the public record for everyone to see. It took place on October 27. A large part of the debate at committee centred on the word “systemic”. My colleague from the Bloc was fine having the references to “racism” and “discrimination”, but not the reference to the word “systemic”. That is problematic for a number of reasons.

First of all, if we want evidence that systemic racism exists, we need only look at the numerical data. We know racialized persons are not being treated equally by our justice system given their percentage of the population, how many of them end up incarcerated and the treatment they receive. We also need to look at the ways policies, practices and decision-making processes are brought about, and the organizational culture of our justice system.

We need only to listen to the voices of Black, indigenous and racialized persons, because they are the ones who have been leading this conversation through their organizations and as individuals. They are the ones who have been telling not only Parliament, but the government and broader Canadian society, that there is in fact a systemic bias in our justice system and that systemic discrimination and systemic racism do exist. It is particularly important that we name those terms and reference them specifically in this bill. If we do not, we are simply whitewashing it and ignoring the fact that this is a very real experience. It is important and we have to acknowledge it.

Systemic racism is, of course, inherent in institutions other than law, but it certainly involves law. It reinforces other spheres of society, it raises questions about all aspects of law, and so on and so forth.

In this conversation about Bill C-3 there have been questions about the role of Parliament and the role of judges. Some of the concerns we have heard in write-ups about this bill have particularly focused on whether Parliament is overstepping its bounds with respect to judicial independence. Of course we have to respect the very important role judges play in our society. One of the pillars of our democracy is the idea of judicial independence. We do not want to arrive at a place where there is even a perception of political interference or control in how judges render their decisions. They have to necessarily be independent of Parliament. They have to be able to understand the facts of law and the facts of a case, and make a completely impartial decision based on those. Therefore, when Parliament is examining a bill that is going to be amending the Judges Act, I think it is only reasonable that questions of this nature arise. What I would say to those critics is this. If we look at the very careful language of the bill we now have before us in the House, the way the bill is currently written gives independence to the National Judicial Institute to tailor its programs in a way that is completely separate from any kind of political or parliamentary interference.

What we are stating as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, which is an entirely legitimate role for us to play, is that we, on behalf of our constituents, are finally acknowledging the problems that exist in the justice system. These are borne out by the unfortunate comments we have heard from judges during trials and deliberations, and the harmful myths and stereotypes they have bought into when making their decisions. We, as the people's representatives, are communicating through a federal statute that we want to see these acknowledged. We believe it is important for them to be acknowledged. We have to name them and actually see them written down in the training that judges take. That is where I believe Parliament's role legitimately ends. Now it is up to the training the judges themselves organize to take that message from Parliament to the next step so we start to see the training that is necessary.

I do not want to spend too much time talking about this bill. From the debate we have seen in the House today there is fairly good support for it. If I'm reading the room correctly, I hope we can get to a vote soon and see this bill passed unanimously by the House to get it to the Senate. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that this one amendment to a federal statute was going to fix the problems. Do not get me wrong: I think it is an important step. That is why we will be supporting the bill. The changes we need to make to the justice system as a whole are going to require far greater resources than just a legislative fix. I really hope a main topic of conversation with the federal Minister of Justice, when he is speaking with his provincial counterparts, is how we tackle these other systemic problems.

I already talked about how myths and stereotypes have extremely negative impacts. We absolutely must make sure the voices of people who have been marginalized by our justice system are heard. They must be actively listened to and acted upon. We need to see those financial resources. We need to see that active commitment to making sure we are striving for equality before the law. There are many organizations out there, including women's organizations, LGBTQ organizations and organizations representing Black and indigenous persons of colour, that are only too willing to step up to the plate to show the government where these fixes need to be made.

I will end my speech with a quote from Michael Spratt, a well-known lawyer in the Ottawa region. He has frequently been a witness before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. When speaking of this bill, he recently wrote in Canadian Lawyer magazine:

Step down from your ivory tower with me for a view from the trenches: where complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports; where complainants are almost always provided inadequate information about the court process; where the legal education of lawyers (both Crown and defense) is too often seen as an expensive obligation and not a learning opportunity; and where the wishes of complainants are often ignored.

Maybe we can start by tackling these problems.

This is a fitting place to end my speech. What we have before the House right now is a good bill. The work that was done at committee honoured the testimony that we heard from witnesses. I am pleased to offer my support to this important legislation. I hope we can send it to the other place quite soon so we can see the bill finally receive the royal assent it deserves so we can take this important step.

1:45 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his contributions at the justice committee in this Parliament, but also in the last Parliament. I also thank him for outlining actual evidence we heard at the committee study. This kind of speech elevates the tone of the debate, and we need exactly that from all parliamentarians.

What struck me was something we heard in the last Parliament from none other than Senator Murray Sinclair. When he was in front of the heritage committee, he said that systemic racism was what was left when all the racists were gotten rid of. What he meant by that was we had to look at the culture, the norms, the mores and the rules that were in place with respect to understanding a systemic problem as opposed individual acts of racism.

I hear the member opposite. I agree with his perspective on what we heard and also the direction of the bill. However, I will put to him something that he raised earlier in this debate, which was it needed to extend further, including to those other levels of government. The member is a representative from British Columbia. The British Columbia government has enacted a number of progressive pieces of legislation.

What are the member's thoughts about different areas, including his province of B.C., moving forward with this? Is this a cause that the member would champion with respect to the training of provincial judges in B.C.?

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I will be raising these issues with my provincial counterparts. I am lucky enough to have the premier as a constituent of mine. No other member of Parliament of B.C. can claim that.

In the recent provincial election, I was very glad to see our mutual friend, Murray Rankin. He is now an MLA-elect, representing the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I know from his decades of experience on justice issues, but also as a previous member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, that he understands these issues only too well. With David Eby, the attorney general of British Columbia, I would be more than happy to take up these conversations to see where B.C. can improve its own laws and processes.

Given what we have seen from the provincial government over the last three and a half years, I expect we will see some pretty impressive, progressive updates on this. I will be happy to have that conversation with my provincial counterparts.

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Madam Speaker, I think we all feel grateful that all parliamentarians support this issue.

As we look at this, we know that discrimination, racism, all these issues continue to be a significant concern for us in our court system. I think of one of the communities I represent, Port Hardy. Just recently it started moving toward having a system that would allow indigenous folks to be part of the decision-making process in a court system.

How can parliamentarians also do the work with local indigenous leadership in bringing forward steps to move toward a less discriminatory system for indigenous members of our communities?

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River has always been a fantastic advocate, particularly on indigenous issues.

What is important to acknowledge is that pre-contact indigenous people in what is today known as Canada had their own system of laws, their own justice system, and that was completely upended with colonization. A completely foreign way of doing the law was often imposed upon them, which was based on our own common law experiences that we inherited from England.

Therefore, if we are truly going to move forward as a nation, we have to acknowledge the pre-contact systems that were in existence for all indigenous communities right across the country. We have to find a way to work on that knowledge and their approaches to justice and incorporate them with our broader justice system. That is an absolutely important way of going forward. It will do wonders for our ultimate path toward reconciliation. As she and many indigenous Canadians would know, we still have a long way before us before we reach that.

1:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, although it is a little outside the scope of Bill C-3, one of the places where we see systemic racism is in the use of injunctions. I know he will have experienced, as a British Columbian, the use of injunctions to arrest indigenous protestors. However, when indigenous nations go to seek injunctions to protect territory, they are far less likely to be granted one than corporations that seek injunctions to violate indigenous rights and pursue projects like pipelines.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has some thoughts on how we might want to reform injunction law to deal with the systemic racism throughout our criminal justice system.

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raises an important point. I know that a couple of years ago she joined with the now mayor of Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart, to protest the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. It is quite interesting to note, as she correctly pointed out, the treatments that corporations get versus indigenous protestors who, in many ways, are there trying to protect what is rightfully theirs since pre-contact. These are their traditional and unceded territories. For these projects to proceed, it is important we have that full consent going forward.

It is an interesting question. It is certainly one about which I, as a Vancouver Islander, have been rightly concerned. I still have constituents to this day writing to me about these specific issues. Therefore, I would agree with her that, when we are talking about Bill C-3 and the stereotypes and myths that exist and are acknowledged in this legislation, it does allow us to open up a broader conversation about the justice system as a whole. That is why I acknowledged in my comments that this was a small but important legislative step. However, it is important that we follow through with further actions and commitments to make the justice system much better for all Black, indigenous and persons of colour because of the discrimination the frequently experience.

1:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I will advise him that unfortunately I will have to interrupt him so we can go to question period.

1:55 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, it is with pleasure to speak to this important bill. I am very proud that all parliamentarians of all political stripes have come together in support of this substantial legislation. The very idea of it originates from a former Conservative member of Parliament and interim leader, Rona Ambrose. It is appropriate to give her recognition for bringing this forward in private member's bill and the government and all members recognizing the true value of the legislation.

Ultimately, it was the will of the House of Commons in the last Parliament to see that legislation pass at third reading, with the unanimous support from all political parties. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the Senate of Canada was unable to pass it. Therefore, we now have, once again, the legislation but in a different format. It is government legislation, which speaks well to the government picking up on what was an important piece of legislation, which passed through the House once before, and reintroducing it as Bill C-3.

I was really encouraged once again by the comments of members on all sides of the House during second reading of the bill, recognizing the importance of it. A number of personal stories were conveyed. Members used previous court rulings, for example, providing what members of our judicial system had said and why so many people were offended.

I recognize the importance of judicial independence and I think all members of the House recognize that importance. That something weighed heavily on the minds of individuals as we debated this very important topic. I want to pick up on the idea that this is federal legislation and that it only impacts federally appointed judges.

There is another important aspect of our judicial system, which is the provincially appointed judges. I was quite pleased when my daughter, an MLA from the province of Manitoba, raised the issue with me. She has an interest and would like to see this brought into provincial jurisdictions. I see no conflict by members of Parliament from whatever region, raising the issue, talking about the issue and encouraging our provincial jurisdictions.

Louis Riel DayStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, November 16, today, is Louis Riel Day. We pay tribute to the Métis leader and founder of Manitoba. We recognize his tireless advocacy for Métis rights and celebrate Métis culture across this nation. Louis Riel was a father of Confederation, bringing Manitoba into Canada. His contributions have not only benefited the Métis nation but our entire country.

Today, Canada and the Métis nation are committed to working together on a renewed government-to-government relationship. We have made historic investments to support a Métis nation-led post-secondary education strategy, recognize the contributions of Métis veterans during the Second World War and address the housing needs of Métis communities.

We will continue to work with the Métis nation to make a real difference in the lives of Métis. Today, I invite all Canadians to celebrate this day by learning about Métis history and culture as we walk the path of reconciliation together.

Saskatchewan Provincial ElectionStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to congratulate Premier Scott Moe on winning the recent Saskatchewan provincial election, the fourth consecutive win for his party.

My federal riding of Saskatoon West is home to six provincial ridings that have traditionally split themselves between the Saskatchewan Party and the NDP. Of particular interest to me is the southern part of my riding, the provincial riding of Saskatoon Riversdale, where the NDP incumbent MLA retired.

Saskatoon Riversdale has been an NDP monopoly since 1967, with the likes of former NDP premiers Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert representing it. However, the demographics of this area are changing. Many young families, new immigrants and people concerned about their financial future have settled in this area.

Now the riding has switched and Saskatchewan Party candidate Marv Friesen has been elected. I want to congratulate Marv Friesen and his entire team, all the volunteers, donors and supporters. We in this House know too well of the hard work and dedication required of them.

I say congratulations to Marv and congratulations to Scott Moe.

Max Gros-LouisStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Madam Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to former Huron-Wendat Grand Chief Max Gros-Louis. All members of this chamber and all Canadians are thinking of his friends, his family and the members of the Huron-Wendat First Nation.

He was a great leader and a passionate advocate for his nation's rights and culture. He served and represented his community as Grand Chief for more than 30 years. He was instrumental in creating dialogue and collaboration between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. As a frequent ambassador for indigenous issues internationally, he introduced the Hurons-Wendat people to the world and ensured that the views of Canada's first nations were made known.

His death leaves a great void, but his legacy will leave an indelible mark on Canada's history.

Max Gros-LouisStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, the Huron-Wendat First Nation is in mourning after losing Max Oné Onti Gros-Louis, a larger-than-life man whose life was interwoven with the history of the 20th century.

Max Gros-Louis was the Grand Chief of the Huron-Wendat First Nation on and off between 1964 and 2008. For 33 years in all, he was one of the greatest ambassadors for his people and one of the most recognizable advocates for first nations. He was a tireless activist who helped found a number of assemblies dedicated to promoting first nations' rights. His efforts earned him global renown.

I first met him as a child, and I remember him as a friendly man. One memory I will always treasure of this great man is from when I was a teenager and he would bring my family game that he had just hunted.

As the first member of the Huron-Wendat First Nation to sit in Parliament, I want to say Tiawenhk to Max Gros-Louis.

Housing in HochelagaStatements by Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to talk to representatives from Maison Oxygène, an organization in Hochelaga that provides support to fathers.

This year, Maison Oxygène celebrated its 30th anniversary. Every year, it provides shelter and support to more than 50 fathers and 90 children. It is the first shelter for struggling fathers on the Island of Montreal. It is part of the Carrefour familial Hochelaga, which also includes the Maison de la famille, the École hors murs and soon Les Glaneuses as well.

Today, we can count on 14 Maison Oxygène shelters across Quebec. It was to help organizations like this one that our government invested money in the first national housing strategy in Canada.

I am proud to be part of a government that advocates for access to housing, because everyone deserves to have a roof over their heads.

I am proud to represent all of Hochelaga's organizations, and I am proud that our government is there to help them.