Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion about trusting judges. A key aspect of this bill that has not been touched on much is the power of judges to stand aside jurors. Normally, they can only do this in the context of personal hardship, but this bill would amend the Criminal Code so that judges can stand aside jurors to ensure a more representative jury.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his speech. I want to touch on the point he made at the end of his speech about how many judges we have appointed. We have already appointed 31 judges in Quebec, the province my colleague represents in the House. He knows full well that we inherited a flawed system from the Conservative Party.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for his contribution to today's debate, and for his ongoing concerns about human trafficking. It is an incredibly serious issue, and I thank him for raising it in this chamber repeatedly. I have one comment and one question.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, by way of a comment, I would indicate to the member opposite that federal-provincial-territorial conferences have been held about this very issue, responding to the Jordan decision, which was rendered two years ago. There have also been extensive consultations around the country, both in person and online, to hear from Canadians.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question. The first comment would be in respect to the hon. member opposite's references to the reduction in penalties for a bawdy house. In fact, that shows a lack of understanding of the bill. The bill actually proposes to repeal the bawdy house provisions.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contributions to today's debate, to all debates in the chamber and to committee deliberations. I have a couple of comments and then a question. The member commented on the lack of amendments that were accepted. Almost 50 amendments were accepted at the committee stage, including several from members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for his contribution to today's debate on Bill C-75. I would offer two comments and one brief question. The first comment is that the term “intimate partner” is used in this legislation for a deliberate reason. It is a more expansive term than just “spouse”.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important contribution to the debate on Bill C-75. She outlined an important component of the bill, which is the access to justice component. I would like her to comment on another component of the bill that addresses an issue for the community she represents in Montreal and the community I represent in Toronto, and that is the overrepresentation of certain groups in the justice system.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I take issue a little with the member's comments with respect to judicial appointments. The track record of this government is that we have appointed 238 new judges. Last year, the minister appointed 100 in a single year, which was the most in two decades. Because we had to overhaul the Conservatives' old process, which was not merit based, it took a great amount of time.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I compliment the member for his work on the justice committee and also in his role as special advisor on LGBTQ2 issues. We are nearing the one-year anniversary of the historic apology to the LGBTQ2 community by the Prime Minister on November 28 of last year. An important component of that apology was the expungement of records.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, as an individual who sat in on those committee meetings, I would ask the minister if she could elaborate on the extensive analysis that was done after that 27 hours of deliberation by the committee. Perhaps she could comment on the committee amendments that were accepted, specifically with respect to paralegals and with respect to routine police evidence, two issues that I know are near and dear to the mandate of this government and the mandate of the minister in terms of increasing access to justice.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite and salute her contributions to Canada while serving in the foreign service in the past. While I am tempted to ask her a question about the disenfranchisement of all of the Canadians abroad under the previous government while she was serving those Canadians abroad in El Salvador, etc., I want to ask her about Bill C-75.

Criminal Code  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Kitchener—Conestoga a question with respect to the constituents he represents who are members of the LGBTQ2 community. Those constituents are directly affected by this bill in two important regards. We have removed the vagrancy and bawdy house provisions, which brings the bill into conformity with constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I will start with a comment and end with a question. Hybridization occurs regularly throughout the Criminal Code. It did under the previous government's watch, and it continues to occur today. Over 100 offences are already hybridized. Hybridization is about giving the Crown attorney a choice to proceed summarily or to proceed by way of an indictable offence.

Criminal Code  Madam Speaker, I am quite troubled by some of the comments of the member opposite. I appreciate the fact that there is an effort to simplify vocabulary and make things understandable for people in the chamber and those watching on television. However, the reason the definition of “intimate partner violence” is entrenched in law is because domestic violence and violence between sexual partners is a very troubling and problematic matter about which all parliamentarians should be concerned.