Debates of Feb. 19th, 2020

Judges Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Calgary Skyview to the chamber and congratulate her on her maiden speech in the chamber. It is an auspicious occasion, and it is also important to be giving a speech on such an important topic that affects literally all of us in this chamber and all of us around the country.

I would put to her a question similar to the question that I put to her colleague. When we look at judicial training, we see what we are trying to do at the federal level, and we see a bit of a checkerboard at the provincial level. She is a member of the bar, as am I. She practises in a different province. Alberta, among nine other provinces, does not have any form of mandatory training with respect to sexual assault awareness or social context education for its judges.

If she has conviction about the importance of this kind of bill at the federal level, would she share that conviction at the provincial level and encourage provincial counterparts to get on board with this important issue that addresses the concerns of women in the justice system?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I echo my colleague's comments that any education and any training is a good thing. I am all for that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I offer congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary Skyview on her first speech.

I put a similar suggestion forward in my question to the parliamentary secretary about people within the Immigration and Refugee Board. The hon. member has raised an excellent point about people on parole boards. However, the government has structured the bill around judicial discretion and the Judges Act.

I think we really have to ask the government to consider it, because at the amendment stage before committee, we will not have the scope to bring in other legislation and other bills. At this early stage, there is so much support for the bill as written and concern that it should extend beyond judges to others who make basically life-and-death decisions, as the hon. member's question so rightly points out, without adequate understanding of the context, the risks and so on.

I am hoping that we might find a way through this at this early stage of looking at Bill C-5 to broaden it beyond the federal Judges Act to include other categories of adjudicators, such as parole boards and immigration review boards. My sense is that when we go to committee for clause by clause, amendments such as the ones we are discussing here will be ruled out of order, as beyond the scope of the bill. However, the government could still change it.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a question better put to the government, as to whether it is willing to make the amendment at this point, but I am in favour of involving education and training for parole officers and Parole Board members.

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

Madam Speaker, the other other day, the leader of the New Democratic Party stood up and made the suggestion that through unanimous consent we would pass this legislation all the way through. I thought it was quite encouraging to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party. We are all familiar with Rona and the fine work that she did. It was initially a Conservative private member's bill.

Could the member provide her thoughts with regard to that sense of co-operation that I made reference to when I questioned the parliamentary secretary responsible for the legislation about the overwhelming consensus to see this legislation pass through.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, training and education to help bring a change in society is important. The whole House was in favour of that and so is our party. That is where we stand on that.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-5.

Our party supported the previous version of the bill introduced by the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, our colleague Rona Ambrose. After eagerly supporting it, I even sought the House's support for a motion calling on the Senate to fast-track the bill, since we were nearing the end of the parliamentary session. Unfortunately, what we feared came to pass: Our colleague's bill died on the Order Paper. We hope Bill C-5 will not suffer the same fate and we are eager to support it.

Bill C-5 is important. It is a short bill, just a few pages long, on which we all seem to agree. Despite its apparent simplicity, this bill is critically important since it concerns the public's confidence in its judicial system.

Everyone knows that the judicial system is the backbone of any society. What will people do if they no longer trust their judicial system? They will take justice into their own hands. The extreme actions we occasionally see that we cannot abide would only multiply.

As lawmakers, it is our responsibility to ensure that our judicial system is credible and meets with the approval and has the support of all or the vast majority of the population. It is my view that passing this bill as quickly as possible would be in the interest of justice, those involved in the justice system, and the rule of law that we are responsible for protecting.

What impact will it have? The answer is simple. We are talking about the education of judges.

My Conservative colleague just reminded us of the situation that recently unfolded when an individual was released even though, in our opinion, he never should have been. It is a specific case, but it clearly illustrates a problem in our society. We are ill-informed and we often make decisions based on stereotypes, images or preconceived ideas about certain situations.

The issue that Bill C-5 addresses, that is sexual assault, is one that we are particularly ill-equipped and poorly trained to deal with and our judgment in such matters is often biased.

I know quite a few judges, and most of them have a sterling reputation and are intelligent people of goodwill who show courage in the rulings they make, rulings that make sense and that are made in the interest of justice 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, mistakes are occasionally made that damage the image of justice and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

It is up to us as lawmakers to rectify the situation and restore public confidence. We have to make sure our judges have all the tools they need to do their work with the high degree of professionalism they bring to it now and want to keep bringing.

In virtually every case, a judge must assess the credibility of witnesses, the victim and the accused. Often, this is where a judge can be influenced by preconceived notions not out of malice but as a result of their experience and our culture.

That is exactly the kind of situation Bill C-5 seeks to address by providing better training for judges and raising awareness for everyone, including lawmakers, about the reality of sexual assault. How do victims react to given situations? Why do they not remember or remember inaccurately? Why do they misinterpret the events surrounding the assault? There are many important elements here.

If we want the justice system to work properly, we need to make sure the courts have a firm grasp of these issues. When asked to assess the credibility of a witness, a judge must have sufficient academic and practical knowledge to deliver a judgment that is sound and, above all, that all Canadians can trust.

It is normal for rulings to be overturned. Every day, rulings are handed down by the courts, and every day, rulings are overturned by the court of appeal. Sometimes the decision is two against one, as the judgment is not unanimous. Those cases go to the Supreme Court, which also often quashes appeal court rulings. Those judgments are not always unanimous either.

We cannot expect judges to deliver unimpeachable decisions. There is just no way. They would have to be superhuman. That will never happen. However, we can expect them to provide reasons for their decisions and make credible decisions. Ultimately, the public can always wonder whether the judge was right or wrong, but they will trust the judge. That is our goal.

That is what Bill C-5 proposes, and we are okay with that. We believe this is essential in our current justice system. For all of these reasons, and for the reasons cited by all of my colleagues over the past few years, we will be voting in favour of Bill C-5, and we hope it will be passed as quickly as possible.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his comments. I congratulate him on being elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a few days ago. I know that he is a member of the Barreau du Québec. I would like to note the same thing I pointed out to other hon. members in my previous interventions.

There is a system for training judges, but the real training ground for criminal justice in Canada and Quebec is at the provincial level. Judges from Ontario and Quebec are not subject to the same training and education requirements.

I would like to know whether the hon. member will join us in this great challenge of promoting the awareness of judges at any level, even in his own province, Quebec.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just said how sensitive we are to this issue of credibility in judicial decisions. I am not going to change my mind just because we are changing jurisdictions.

I also want to congratulate my colleague and I am pleased to work with him at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

That being said, I would like to point out that provincial matters are provincial matters. I am not going to try to influence provincial legislatures, especially Quebec's. We are rather protective of our jurisdictions. I think that is essential for ensuring the credibility of judicial decisions and parliamentary activities. It is important that we respect provincial jurisdictions.

If the National Assembly of Quebec felt it was necessary to change the rules for appointing judges or anything in the judicial process, that would be done in Quebec City. I will avoid any comment or anything resembling a directive that might be given to the National Assembly.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his speech.

Obviously, the NDP is pleased that Bill C-5 is moving forward. This bill contains some worthwhile measures, such as training to encourage the judiciary to be more aware of all of the complex issues related to sexual assault and sexual violence.

However, I am a bit concerned that we are not taking this further. We also need to implement a social assistance system to help victims of sexual violence. Right now, there are so many women, including in Quebec, who are falling through the cracks.

The Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes in Quebec has indicated that approximately 20,000 requests for emergency shelter from women who want to protect themselves and their children are rejected every year due to lack of space.

It is good that we are providing better training for magistrates and judges, but there are women who need help and they do not have a bed or a room. If they are forced to either return home to a dangerous situation or to be homeless and live on the streets, then we are not much further ahead.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this urgent need in Quebec society.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He is quite right. We have a serious problem. I am experiencing it in my riding, in many contexts.

There are not enough spaces in women's shelters for victims of violence. There are not enough soup kitchens for the poor, for people who live on the street. Those services are seriously underfunded.

We need to address this problem. Time and time again in the last Parliament, my colleagues in the NPD and the Bloc Québécois proposed additional funding for the provinces in that regard. I still support that request.

This needs to be done. That money must be transferred to avoid jurisdictional fights. This is hurting us at all levels, particularly when it comes to infrastructure investments.

As for these tagged funding envelopes, they need to stop. The provinces have real needs. The federal government needs to get the necessary funds together and transfer them to the provinces. We need them in Quebec and we know how to spend them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

Considering the consensus and support this bill has, is there any way we could pass it faster?

I doubt I will hear anyone say anything against this bill's objective throughout this debate.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Members will recall that, just recently—last week if memory serves—the NDP moved a motion to pass this bill quickly, and we voted in favour of that motion.

For some reason I did not quite understand, our Conservative colleagues did not support it. I believe they wanted to amend it. I will not get into the details because I was not privy to those discussions, but we completely agree that Bill C-5 must not suffer the same fate as Bill C-337, which languished in the Senate and died on the Order Paper.

We are hoping for swift passage of Bill C-5.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if it is the will of the House at this hour to deem that the bill has achieved second reading, third reading and report stage. We could send it to the Senate as currently drafted and move to a different bill to deal with the immigration review board, the Parole Board and the other issues that are probably outside the scope of this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gesture that has been made by the former leader of the Green Party. She understands and appreciates the significance of the legislation we are debating. It is always encouraging when politicians of all political stripes recognize the importance of gender training and education. We will have a better system as a direct result of this legislation.

My question for the member is similar to the question I asked other members this afternoon. It is not often that we get virtually unanimous consent for a piece of legislation. I suspect that Bill C-5 could receive the support of all 337 members of Parliament and possibly the Chair, although I do not think there will be a tie vote, so the Speaker will not have to vote.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how encouraging it is when all parties get behind legislation such as this?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I obviously agree that the unanimous approval of a bill has incredible significance and bearing.

In my view, the justice system is the backbone of our society. I have said so from the start. Knowing that all parliamentarians share this view and that Bill C-5 should be adopted tells me that we have a strong backbone. We have what we wanted, that is, a consensus among Canadians.

The judicial system is one that the entire population supports and trusts.

The fact that we, in this place, are saying that we all want to pass Bill C-5 leads me to believe that we could not do any better.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the House's granting me that privilege.

I want to start my speech on Bill C-5 by acknowledging the incredibly important role that judges play in our justice system. These are men and women who are put in very difficult positions. They have to weigh incredible amounts of evidence before them and make judgments as to whether beyond a reasonable doubt a person is guilty of the crime that the Crown is putting forward as an argument.

Judges know that their decisions one way or the other are going to have life-altering impacts, either on the accused or on the person who brought the complaint before the justice system. The debate today should not diminish the important role that judges play in our society.

I also want to take time to acknowledge the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the previous interim leader of the Conservative Party, for the work that she did in the 42nd Parliament with her private member's bill, Bill C-337.

I am happy to see that the government has brought the substance of that bill forward in this 43rd Parliament as Bill C-5. Judging from the character of the speeches so far, there is unanimous agreement that this bill needs to be passed, perhaps not through all stages as quickly as we would like, but I have a strong feeling that after today's debate the justice committee will be getting to work on this bill in short order.

We are supportive of the intent behind Bill C-5, particularly its intention of ensuring that victims of sexual assault and gender-based violence have confidence in the judicial system.

We know that complainants in sexual assault cases are often provided with inadequate social supports. They receive inadequate information about the court process, and they are often confronted by a system that ignores their wishes.

We should acknowledge that Bill C-5 would not solve those problems. It is an important step, but there is an entire systemic approach we need to take to ensure that complainants of sexual assault are coming to a system that they can have confidence in. That confidence needs to be built, and there is still much work to be done.

We need a systemic review of the judicial system when it comes to sexual assault to stop survivors from being victimized, victim-blamed, not informed and very badly supported by policing and justice systems.

The statistics underline this story. Statistics Canada estimates that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. We know that one in three women will experience sexual violence in her lifetime. For me that is a particularly personal statistic, given that I am the father of three daughters.

I do not want anyone to become one of those statistics, but that is a fact of life in our society. It is not limited just to women: We know that one in six men will experience sexual violence in his lifetime as well. In 82% of cases, the offender is known to the victim. We know that 28% of Canadians have said that they have experienced workplace sexual assault or violence.

I got to know a transgender person in my riding very well over the previous campaign, and I know the courage it took for him to come forward and be a part of my campaign, and to speak openly about the situation that transgender Canadians face in our country. They face nearly twice as much intimate partner violence in their lifetimes as women do, and that is an area that we definitely need to pay attention to as a society.

I also want to acknowledge that my Conservative friends have raised some concerns as to whether the scope of this bill could be expanded to include other areas that fall under federal jurisdiction, most notably the Parole Board of Canada.

We have also seen that the actions of the Immigration and Refugee Board deserve some scrutiny. Perhaps that is something that the justice committee, in its wisdom, can take note of and ask the appropriate questions of the witnesses who come forward to offer their expertise on this particular bill.

I was a member of the 42nd Parliament and remember with great pride, back in 2017 when we were deliberating Bill C-337, that it was great to see the House move a unanimous consent motion in March of that year to get the bill referred to the status of women committee. The status of women committee did some good work on the bill. It had five meetings, heard from 25 witnesses and reported that bill back to the House with some slight amendments.

This is to assure members of the House that the hard work on this bill has been done. We have a lot of witness testimony in the record, and I hope the testimony heard at the status of women committee back in 2017 will inform the justice committee and that we can take note of that when the justice committee is doing its work.

This bill seeks to correct the problems I have noted through rearticulation to judicial candidates on the current standing of sexual assault laws, namely the principles of consent, conduct of sexual assault proceedings, and education regarding myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants through training seminars.

That is because we have seen a record, through the actions of various judges, that this training is sorely needed. We have seen it through their comments during court proceedings and through referrals in their judgments, but we would be mistaken if we were to pinpoint this problem entirely on judges. We know that the police themselves have a lot of work to do and I know they are trying their best to achieve this, but we know from the complaints of victims that this work is ongoing.

The Senate, when it received Bill C-337 through its legal and constitutional affairs committee, did make some amendments. There was a lot of concern regarding the constitutionality of the bill. I understand that the government's version is much closer to, or a wholesale adoption of, what the Senate committee did to Bill C-337.

I know there is this ongoing battle between the legislature, the Parliament of Canada, and our judicial branch. Sometimes they can come into conflict. I know that Michael Spratt, a noted lawyer in the Ottawa region, has written about his concerns with the current bill, but I also know that Professor Emmett Macfarlane has said that Parliament is well within its rights to be legislating in areas such as the Judges Act.

I think this bill does a careful job, as is noted in the charter statement, of doing our best to respect judicial independence. This is really about setting up the training that exists. It is going to be overseen independently of Parliament. We will not have any influence whatsoever on what judges do with this training, because they are still going to be impartial and independent of Parliament when they exercise their judgment and bring forward rulings.

This bill, in particular, passes constitutional muster. I have read the wording of it quite carefully and I think Parliament has a role, as an expression of people's wishes and the changing norms of society, to express its will and make sure that the federal statutes of Canada reflect the changing mood of our country.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the government and all members for the unanimity that we are showing in the proceedings today. I think, though, that when we are looking at other issues plaguing Canada, particularly with respect to aboriginal rights, we still see a lot of systemic racism and very little understanding of what aboriginal rights and title mean. Sometimes this can be reflected in our federal court system.

In closing, my one offer to the government is that it look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly number 27, to see if this kind of training might also be mandated for judges and other parts of the justice system that fall under federal jurisdiction.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contribution to the discussion and for the expertise that he brings to bear on it, given his past involvement in the previous Parliament and the study of Bill C-337.

I concur wholeheartedly that constitutional infirmities were pointed out in the previous incarnation of this bill, through the hard work of people in this chamber and also in the Senate. In particular, Senator Dalphond worked very closely with the judiciary on language that would be acceptable, in terms of not encroaching upon that sacrosanct principle of constitutional independence.

I believe we have landed in the right place in formalizing the requirement to be sensitized to these issues but not traversing the line, which would be to actually influence the decision-making that is being done by particular judges.

I also observe wholeheartedly the point he has made about indigenous reconciliation and the TRC's calls to action. I wanted to ask him about the social context amendment that was made at the status of women committee, and how he feels that plays into that sensitization of the judiciary that is so required in this context.

Can he flesh out his opinions on that amendment?

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

Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that my memory of that particular aspect is a little hazy.

I do know that my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson, who used to be the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, was our status of women critic in the previous Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the very important work she did on that committee during that time.

This was originally a bill that landed in my lap as the justice critic. She took it, as the main critic, and ran with it. I salute the work that she did because I know that all members in the status of women committee carefully listened to the 25 witnesses who came forward during those five meetings, and there was some pretty heavy testimony.

I feel confident that the members of the status of women committee listened and faithfully observed that evidence, and I think the bill they returned to the House reflected that. I look forward to seeing what the present Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will do once this bill is sent to it, hopefully by next week.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to something related to this bill. On Vancouver Island we have the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and clinic. I just wanted to take this opportunity, with so many members in the House concerned with this issue, to highlight that this facility is so significant and should be replicated in communities across Canada.

It is the only facility where there is a rapid response team for sexual assault victims, whether they are women or trans people who are affected by sexual assault, and it has a clinic facility that saves our health care system and reduces costs. It has a perfectly equipped, private room designed to allow police to do perfect recordings of interviews, with proper camera work and proper recording devices, and collect forensic evidence in a comfortable setting that feels like home. The clinic feels like home.

I just cannot say enough about how impressed I am by the work of the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and clinic, and I do not know if my hon. colleague has had a chance to tour it. I would recommend it.