OTTAWA -- A proposal to ensure judges are trained to deal with sexual assault cases sparked fireworks at a House committee Tuesday morning, when MPs turned their focus to the previous government's record rather than the private member's bill they're studying.
Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose appeared at the status of women committee to take questions about her private member's bill, which would require anyone appointed to the bench to have already undergone comprehensive education on the topic of sexual assault, including training on myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complaints.
It would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to report on continuing education on sexual assault law, and require courts to provide written decisions in sexual assault cases, rather than oral rulings.
"Everyone knows someone who has gone through this, and rarely do we know someone who actually took it to trial," Ambrose said.
"Women don't even want to go to the police. Why? Because they feel humiliated and ashamed. It should be the defendant, it should be the perpetrator that feels ashamed and humiliated, and yet we have a system that, right from the get-go, women feel their character is under assault."
Liberal MPs on the committee spent little time on the content of the bill, instead questioning Ambrose about the previous government's judicial appointments and why she hadn't brought forward a similar bill when she was a part of the Conservative cabinet.
Pam Damoff, the vice-chair of the committee, asked Ambrose about former justice from the Federal Court earlier this year, following outcry over his handling of a sexual assault case. Prior to his Federal Court appointment, Camp presided over a provincial court case where he referred to a sexual assault complainant as the defendant and asked her why she couldn't just "keep her knees together" to prevent her alleged rape.
"That was in 2014. And yet former minister of justice Peter MacKay appointed him to serve in the Federal Court in 2015," Damoff said.
"And that was after he made those statements."
Ambrose cut off Damoff's question.
"Are you suggesting that Peter MacKay is responsible for that? Look, these are grown people who accept an appointment after applying," the Conservative interim leader said.
"The least we could expect is they don't make comments like that. And when they do, no matter if a Liberal appoints them or a Conservative appoints them, they should be held accountable."
Ambrose also warned Damoff to be careful about what she said.
"You have no idea what some judge might say or has said or done that your government might appoint. These people are supposed to be capable of doing the job," Ambrose said.
Understanding 'not present right now'
Ambrose addressed a number of concerns about her bill, including a fear that training may bias judges in favour of sexual assault complainants. The idea behind the training, she said, is that lawyers can be appointed to the bench from a specific area of practice that may have little to do with criminal or sexual assault law.
"That someone would say that somehow this would bias the system is ludicrous. We're talking about basic knowledge of the law in sexual assault and then, furthermore, a level of comprehension and understanding around rape mythology and stereotypes, language, all of these things. It's not present right now," Ambrose said.
"If you go through something as horrific as a sexual assault and you take it as far as to go to trial, I would hope you at least have someone presiding over the trial that understands the law."
The bill doesn't deal with sitting judges -- only those who want to be judges -- and Ambrose was also asked whether her bill should extend to those who are already on the bench.
"We were very careful working with the drafters to not infringe on judicial independence. Unfortunately, Parliament can't tell sitting judges what to do," she said.
"The reporting items that we've put in this bill, that's another way to impose a level of transparency and accountability on the current sitting judges ... on the kind of training that's available and how many people have taken it."
The House unanimously agreed last month to fast-track Ambrose's bill, sending it directly to committee rather than holding second-reading debate. It was NDP Leader Tom Mulcair who put forward the motion to fast-track the bill, making clear the party's support for the bill.
The Liberal position is less clear. Speaking at the committee last month, Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef avoided directly answering a question about whether she would vote for the bill, but hinted that she won't.
"An independent judiciary is fundamental to Canada's democracy and ... it's separate from executive and legislative branches. We actually have no jurisdiction to mandate this training," Monsef said in response to a question from Conservative MP Karen Vecchio.
"I look forward to watching the bill be presented in the House and to making a thoughtful decision then."
Asked to be more specific, a spokesman for Monsef provided a statement that outlined a number of budget measures to support victims of violence and sexual assault, including $2.7 million over five years for judicial education and training, but still didn't say whether she supports Ambrose's bill.
"Since September, my colleague Jody Wilson-Raybould, minister of justice, has been working with the National Judicial Institute to develop training for judges, including creating comprehensive sexual assault training initiatives for both provincial and federal judges," Monsef said in the statement provided by her spokesman.
"We’ve proposed a feminist federal budget, which we hope Ms. Ambrose will support."
A spokeswoman for the Canadian Judicial Council said the council's annual meeting is this week, at which mandatory education for new judges will be discussed.
"The council fully expects to be invited to attend [the] parliamentary committee to discuss judicial education in Canada," Johanna Laporte said in an email to CTVNews.ca.
"Canada has an excellent judicial education program and council will be happy to tell Canadians more about it."
Ambrose drew a clear line from the problem she sees to the solution.
"Judges are just lawyers who are appointed to the bench. And they don't come with all the training."
