Pam Damoff

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the hon. member. Both times this bill has come to the House all parties have agree to move it quickly. It did get to the justice committee in the last session.

It is beyond time to get this bill passed. While we have more to do, I think it is very important that we work quickly on it.

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member: It was a pleasure for us to work together at the status of women committee.

Sadly, this bill was held up in the Senate the first time around by a group of Conservative senators who did not want it passed. Despite the best efforts of the Hon. Rona Ambrose to try to change their minds, they refused to let the bill pass.

There is always more work to be done, and I look forward to working with the hon. member to ensure that we really do make strides when it comes to survivors of sexual assault and those who have survived gender-based violence.

[Judges Act, October 7th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent.

Today I speak in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

This bill has had the support of the House on two previous occasions, but despite all-party support has not yet become law. Listening to debate last Friday, it was obvious the bill continues to serve as an example of ongoing parliamentary collaboration and one which we should all take pride.

I want to start by recognizing and thanking the Hon. Rona Ambrose for her initiative on this critical issue. Her bill was the first legislation to be studied at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The collaborative work we did at committee made the bill stronger, and I am happy to see that the government has incorporated amendments from that study into this bill.

At the time Ms. Ambrose introduced her private member’s bill, several high-profile rulings had shown Canadians some judges did not understand sexual assault law and were relying on myths and stereotypes when issuing their rulings.

Members of the House will recall when former Alberta Federal Court Justice Robin Camp asked a sexual assault complainant why she could not “keep [her] knees together” during her alleged rape. Because of his comments, the Canadian Judicial Council launched a review into Justice Camp’s conduct and concluded that he “acted in a manner that seriously undermined public confidence in the judiciary.” Following the review, Justice Camp resigned.

Ultimately, Bill C-3 is about assuring Canadians that judges who are elevated to federally appointed positions have a desire to understand the myths and stereotypes that have been present in Canadian society for far too long. The federal government should appoint judges who acknowledge that learning is a lifelong process and value continuing education. This is a bill created to ensure that no other sexual assault complainant will be subject to condescending, humiliating and disrespectful conduct from a federally appointed judge.

Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to require that a candidate seeking appointment to a federally appointed judicial position attest to participating in training related to sexual assault law and its social context. The bill would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure this training is developed after consultation with those knowledgeable in the field or other individuals or groups it considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivor organizations.

These amendments are designed to ensure that newly appointed superior court judges are fully apprised of the law in relation to sexual assault and on social context. Moreover, the bill is possible because of the already outstanding work the National Judicial Institute, the body responsible for creating judicial education in our country, has done, with help through federal investment, in developing comprehensive continuing education for judges on sexual assault law and its social context.

Finally, the bill would amend the Criminal Code to require that judges provide written reasons or enter them into the record of the proceeding for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

I have talked about the social context of sexual assault, and I would like to provide a clearer definition of social context.

Quite simply, social context means the immediate social or physical environment in which one lives affects how one sees the world. The experience of an affluent woman who has survived sexual violence will be different than the experience of a woman who is homeless. The experience of a white trans-woman will be different than the experience of a cisgender indigenous woman. The experience of a gay man from Toronto will be different than the experience of a straight woman living with a disability in Amherst, Nova Scotia. The experience of a judge trained in myths and stereotypes about sexual assault will be different than a judge who has never received such training.

Importantly, in the context of the debate on the bill, social context affects how different people view the criminal justice system and how the criminal justice system views them. This is why it is my hope that at committee the bill can be expanded to clearly articulate the need for training, not just on sexual assault law and social context but on the need for training on anti-racism.

This summer, our country came to understand that systemic racism existed in all our institutions. In 2017, at the beginning of the #MeToo Movement, our country came to understand that systemic sexism existed within all our institutions as well.

Jennifer Koshan, professor of law at the University of Calgary, made clear in her testimony at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that “not only does the law change, but social context can change”. This is why requiring that a candidate seeking appointment to a federally appointed judicial position attest to participating in training related to sexual assault law and its social context is so important.

Bill C-3 addresses a long-standing problem: the influence of myths and stereotypes in sexual assault law. As hard as it is today to imagine, prior to the reforms that began in 1983, a husband could not be convicted of sexually assaulting his wife. Sexual assault convictions required testimony from someone other than the victim. Victims had to raise a hue and cry before the assault and report it shortly afterward or they would not be believed. Victims' sexual reputation and prior sexual activity could be used to attack their credibility.

Reforms were enacted to address these and other evidentiary rules through the 1980s and 1990s. For instance, in response to concerns from survivors and women's organizations, amendments commonly referred to as the “rape shield” provisions, which govern the admissibility of the complainant's prior sexual activity, were first introduced in 1983 and then amended in 1992. These provisions are designed to protect survivors from the introduction of evidence of their sexual history, which had been used to infer that they were more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in question or were less worthy of belief. The provisions also place restrictions on the use of sexual history evidence for other purposes unless specific criteria are met.

Also in 1992, a clear definition of “consent” in the context of sexual activity was introduced in the Criminal Code and limitations on the accused’s ability to raise a defence of mistaken belief in consent were enacted. The Supreme Court of Canada has provided guidance on the application of the sexual assault provisions, making it clear that consent must be affirmatively expressed through words or conduct and cannot be implied by submission, passivity or a failure to protest.

However, despite the robust legislation in place and the clear rulings from the highest court, myths and stereotypes about sexual assault survivors still creep into the courtroom and into judicial decisions. Identifying solutions to these ongoing challenges has been a priority for our government and, indeed, a matter of ongoing concern in Canada.

Our government introduced Bill C-51 in 2018. With its passage, the changes clarified a number of principles that were already covered in the law, notably, that an unconscious person cannot consent to sexual activity; an accused cannot rely on a mistaken belief in consent where that belief is based on a mistake in law, such as consent obtained through force; sexual history evidence must never be used to infer consent; and, finally, the admissibility of evidence of a victim’s private communications made for a sexual purpose must be determined through the rape shield provisions.

In addition, Bill C-51 provided that victims could make submissions and be represented by counsel in sexual history evidence or rape shield proceedings and that the admissibility of victims’ private records that were in the hands of the accused be determined through a process similar to that of the rape shield and third party records proceedings.

Our government has also modernized the judicial appointment process to bring greater diversity to the bench. During testimony in 2017 at the status of women committee, Professor Carissima Mathen said, “That's been a somewhat unheralded earthquake in the world of judicial appointments.... The innovations that have been done around judicial appointments...have been quite remarkable.”

Canada’s—

[Judges Act, October 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the hon. member for her leadership at the Status of Women committee, both as a member of the committee and, more important, as chair of the committee, where she did tremendous work. She has now moved on and that is a real loss to that committee.

We were both part of the committee when we originally studied this bill. We know that most sexual assault trials are held at provincial courts. I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of the federal government providing leadership on training for federally appointed judges and if she thinks it sends a message to the provinces to follow suit.

[Judges Act, October 2nd, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being vice-chair of the status of women committee when we studied this bill originally.

During testimony, Prof. Carissima Mathen said:

That's been a somewhat unheralded earthquake in the world of judicial appointments.... The innovations that have been done around judicial appointments...have been quite remarkable.

I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the importance of ensuring that we get the right people on the bench, not just training but ensuring that we have the right people and that we have a broad diversity of people being appointed to the bench.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from my constituents how important the programs were that we rolled out to keep them safe and provide funding to them as they faced unemployment. I wonder if the member can speak to how his constituents benefited from the programs that we have rolled out since March.

[Aphasia, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the following is a typical opening to an aphasia program like the one I visited in Burlington led by Carly.

Checking in: this afternoon, I am a 10 because on Saturday I took part in the Halton-Peel Community Aphasia Programs' virtual Talk, Stroll and Roll to raise money to support this amazing program. Today is Thursday, October 1. Today's theme is aphasia awareness. Ninety-five per cent of Canadians do not know what aphasia is and the challenges faced by those living with it.

Aphasia is a language disorder that affects the ability to communicate. It is most often caused by strokes that occur in areas of the brain that control speech and language. Aphasia does not affect intelligence, but it makes speech jumbled, fragmented or hard to understand, which can be frustrating. Words that my friends with aphasia have used to describe themselves include outspoken, friendly, trustworthy and adventurous. I would describe them as resilient and courageous.

[Point of Order, September 30th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

During the vote the screen on my tablet went black and when I used my mouse to bring the screen back, the video had stopped. I did not turn it off, but there were technical issues, so it went off on its own. I want to put that on the record, because my video was off but I certainly was in front of the camera the entire time, and it was not anything I had done to turn the camera off.

[Indigenous Affairs, September 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that indigenous business owners and their communities face unique challenges and have been disproportionately impacted by the current situation. That is why we took action to support indigenous businesses to respond to the hardships that have been amplified by COVID-19. This includes investing $423.8 million to support local businesses and ensure business owners have access to the support they need to get through this challenging time.

With this support, indigenous communities and business owners will have the flexibility they need to respond to their unique economic needs through this difficult time.

[Terry Fox Run, September 25th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago a brave young man embarked on a marathon of hope to find a cure for cancer. Terry Fox inspired a nation. On September 20, Canadians from coast to coast to coast celebrated the 40th anniversary by taking part their way. While this year's Terry Fox Run was different and distant, it still remains Canada's largest one-day fundraiser for cancer research. People still get cancer in spite of the pandemic, and the need for cancer research remains just as important.

My colleague, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib., walked in honour of her late husband, Arnold Chan. Survivor Lisa Moody joined her family for a 5k walk in her neighbourhood. Team Darrell raised over $14,000 this year while logging over 6,000 kilometres. In Oakville, we are hosting an art auction, which members can check out at oakvillechallenge.com.

As Terry said, “Anything is possible if you try.”