Debates of June 15th, 1995

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always try to abide by that principle, but I thank you for this reminder. So, through the good offices of the Chair, I reiterate my invitation to Reform members.

It may be in order to remind the House of a number of facts. On several occasions during the debate, some members claimed that it might be detrimental to the public interest to recognize, in clause 718.2, the principle and the concept of sexual orientation. What is rather surprising with this position is that it implies that the concept of sexual orientation is something new and that it sets a precedent.

Yet, if you look at the Canadian case law, you will see that the administrative courts, as well as the ordinary courts of law, have had to deal with the concept of sexual orientation on a number of instances. In fact, the whole issue started exactly 18 years ago, with the Quebec charter of rights. Quebec, ever the leader in the social sector, was the first province to legislate and provide, in its human rights code, specific protection based on sexual orientation.

If you were to ask every opponent of the legislation to mention one case where an ordinary court of law, or an administrative tribunal, established a link between the concept of sexual orientation, which the legislator seeks to protect by including it as a ground for illicit discrimination, and any of the perversions to which some members of this House referred, you would not find any such example. This is why such an attitude is so deplorable.

Let it not be forgotten that what the Minister of Justice and his government wish to offer is very explicit protection, so that when the courts are faced with the situation where a person has been the victim of violence because of sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual, they shall, in determining the sentence for homicide, cruelty or assault, take into consideration any aggravating circumstances, based on legislative principles that are very, very clear.

In other words, a person found guilty of such offences will receive a stiffer sentence. That is the main focus of Bill C-41.

This has led to all sorts of comments which, out of respect for you, I will not dignify with a response. People said, yes, but there is a problem. There is a problem of a legal nature. Members of the Reform Party in particular kept saying that sexual orientation had not been defined. They said that there was a danger that the courts would not be able to properly enforce the law without a definition of sexual orientation.

And yet, none of the detractors of the bill has stopped to wonder why it also does not define freedom of worship or religious freedom. And what about national origin? Somehow we have managed. After all, we live in a society where, in the past, people have set themselves ablaze in the name of religious freedom, in the name of freedom of conscience. There are also people who have committed acts of cruelty, as well you know, in the name of religious freedom.

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, there are even colleagues who have made remarks that, in my opinion, are certainly pushing the limits of politeness, as well as the limits of democracy, in this House, in the name of religious freedom. None of the bill's detractors rose and asked that religious freedom, or national origin be defined.

Why this unhealthy obsession with one of the explicit motives of discrimination, as if it could open the door to recognition of what is obviously in the realm of perversion? Some not so great minds even went so far as to make a connection with paedophilia. You really have to be pretty ignorant and pretty far removed from any understanding of the term sexual orientation to make that kind of connection.

Anyone who has some concept of psychology or psychiatry knows perfectly well that homosexuality has no connection with paedophilia. Homosexuality has no connection at all with paedophilia, and it is comparisons like these that tarnish reputations and they are also most unfortunate from a legislative point of view.

Let me quote a few facts that truly demonstrate that the decision of the Minister of Justice to introduce this legislation was, without a doubt, a most fortunate, responsible and democratic decision.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in the United States says that according to a study they carried out three years ago, so this is a relatively recent study, one gay out of five-one gay out of five, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I may glance briefly towards the other side, one gay out of five, and one lesbian out of ten were physically assaulted. We are not talking about empirical research. This is a study conducted by an authorized group in the United States, often used as a point of reference by our Reform Party colleagues, and they have information that has helped us understand statements made by people belonging to the gay community.

We are told that one gay out of five, so this means we are talking about 20 per cent, one gay out of five, and one lesbian out of ten say they were physically assaulted.

We also have information on the situation in Canada. The study was made in New Brunswick, and if I am not mistaken, New Brunswick is not very far from Nova Scotia, and in Nova Scotia there are a number of parliamentarians who are very concerned about the gay community. I will not name names.

In any case, in this study, which was carried in New Brunswick, which is not very far from Nova Scotia, we read the following: 82 per cent of gays and lesbians who responded to this study were at some time in their lives victims of physical violence.

At 82 per cent, we should start to be alarmed. There is absolutely no way anyone could call that a fringe movement or an isolated incident. I do not know whether our Reform colleagues are aware of this study. I do know that it would behoove them to take a gander at it. Then maybe they would even understand why there is a need for this legislation. Once again I ask what is the basic principle? The basic principle is that we are still living in a society that does not accept these realities, in Quebec and in Canada, but I must say more so in English Canada. Permit me to demonstrate how we, in Quebec, have a real head start on the rest of Canada when it comes to this issue.

The crux of the matter-and I would have hoped that my Reform colleagues would have been more concerned with this issue-the crux of the matter is that the very fact of being gay or recognized as such by a certain number of people in society makes people the targets of violence. If one makes the effort to read the studies which have been done, it is obvious that this is not a mere coincidence; it is not a figment of imagination; it is not an oddball occurrence.

You all know as well as I do that there is no doubt that this law will be passed; the official opposition is going to help it along. I would even say that we are going to contribute to its passage-I am choosing my words carefully-, I believe every last one of us will be behind it. However I do not want to go too far.

It still remains that a lawmaker is sending a very clear message to the Canadian public with such a law. What it is saying to the Canadian and Quebec public is that we will not tolerate that any people in our society are molested or attacked, because we are a democratic society, a society which believes in the equality of individuals. Our belief in the equality of individuals goes so far that we even accept that this equality encompasses the expression of different sexual orientations. We believe in this so strongly as a society that we will not tolerate that some people are attacked or molested because of this difference.

Whenever this happens, we will take deterrent measures. To deter people from doing this, the lawmakers must demand that the courts impose much more severe sanctions against those who do promote repression. Do you have to be a genius to understand that? Is this beyond comprehension? Does one need a Ph.D. to understand this kind of thing? I do not think so, but it takes two things some members of this House may lack. The first is an open mind, a simple and solid openness to difference. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask of some parliamentarians.

The second is tolerance, tolerance permitting the understanding that there are people, who-for all sorts of reasons, something innate or something in their personality- nevertheless differ in the way they experience their sexuality. We are asking parliamentarians, who are legislators and who must set the tone, to be open to this. Unfortunately, it is asking too much of certain colleagues, and, I imagine, that they would have to justify their position to their electors.

I said earlier that I thought there was an openmindedness in Quebec that is not always found elsewhere. If I had to explain it, I would say there are two reasons for it. The first is that, on the whole, as a society, we condemn violence. I think that, on the whole, as a society in Quebec, we recognize that there are gays and that they continue to be victims of violence. There is no attempt to beat about the bush or to hide behind this reality, which means acknowledging the facts.

Why then can Quebec claim, take pride in, a certain openmindedness not to be found throughout English Canada, although I know very well that parts of the country are very open to this. The reasons are twofold. The first is that members from Quebec, in dealing with this issue, do not ask their electors to take a moral stand. When Quebecers deal with these questions, they see that violence is committed against members of a certain group, known among other things as gays, they take a stand on rights. They take a civic stand.

They do not ask a majority or a minority to impose morals. As you know, the foul-ups that occurred during debate on this issue in this House came from members who, in my opinion, rose in this House to talk about moral values, as though there was only one set of universal moral values that must be instilled in everyone.

We as parliamentarians know, from travelling a little here and abroad, reading a little, watching television and taking the trouble of talking with people, that there is no single set of moral values, no single religion. There are numerous sets of moral and ethical values guiding individuals. This is a good thing, and not only in Quebec and Canada.

If we as parliamentarians want to successfully navigate this debate without questioning anyone's motives and with a minimum of good faith, we must stay away from moral judgments. We must restrict ourselves to legal matters, because our first duty is to make laws, to legislate. Mr. Speaker, since you are indicating to me that my time is up, I will conclude by asking all members to make a highly democratic and tolerant gesture by supporting this government and the Minister of Justice, whose courage I commend, and voting unanimously in favour of Bill C-41.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for very clearly stating that we are not debating morality in the House. We are debating criminal law and how we want our sentencing bills to be now and for the future.

He has clearly expressed the views that have been a consensus across the country. It is not just the gay, lesbian and bisexual groups that are in favour of this legislation. It is the United Church of Canada, B'nai Brith, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations and the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.

I know the member is from Quebec so I will rely on some of the material that has been forwarded by Quebec. I specifically rely on the Quebec human rights commission, November 1993, which convened the first public inquiry into discrimination on violence against gays and lesbians. The hearings received a fair profile in that province and across the country. They acquired that profile because 15 homosexual men in Montreal between 1989 and 1993 were murdered. That was the trigger which started the debate in that province.

Other debates went on in Vancouver, Toronto and across the country with the police forces.

We have the Ottawa police chief saying he is in favour of this legislation, we have the metropolitan police force. We need this legislation everywhere. What I want to know from this member is what other experiences does he know about that go on every day in the lives of gays and lesbians for the hate motivated section of this bill to be necessary for all of Canada?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question and, more importantly, for actively supporting this bill. I know that she sits on the committee which reviewed this legislation. The hon. member very appropriately mentioned that, two years ago, the Quebec government appointed, through the Quebec human rights commission, a travelling commission of inquiry which came to the following conclusions.

First, it found that some 20 people had been killed because of their sexual orientation. Moreover, about one hundred of those people who testified before the commission had been victims of physical abuse.

The hon. member is also right when she says that, ultimately, all this takes place in everyday life. As a member of Parliament, I often meet people who are homosexuals and who tell me that they were intimidated.

These cases do not all involved physical abuse or death, but the hon. member is quite right when she says that there is still this widespread idea that you can bash people who are gay, because they may look effeminate, or because they openly show their orientation.

The only reasonable way to change that attitude is to provide some deterrent, through bills such as this one.

Again, as parliamentarians, we should ask ourselves this question, which I direct in particular to our Reform Party friends, through the good offices of the Chair, of course: What is so upsetting about our Canadian society saying that it will not tolerate reprisals against homosexuals, against the expression of one difference, among others?

Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that when a person is comfortable with his or her own identity, with his or her own sexuality, that person will accept the fact that there may be differences. With all due respect, I think that we must question the well-being-and I choose my words carefully-of some members of this House who show no tolerance toward the expression of that difference.

If I were in the shoes of some Reform members, I would ask myself some questions.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin in my comments to the member by simply stating that as an individual person, as a member of Parliament, as a member of the population of Quebec, and as a Canadian, I have more than ample respect for him. I wish him no ill. I honestly do.

I am going to make a statement that is going to sound as though it is very ridiculous. I am going to say-and I am with my friend from Wild Rose on this-that I want to have fat people included in that list. I really do. I could tell members experiences of how when I was a youngster I was attacked and beat up because I was fat. I have been like this all my life. So I want to be on that list. I want to make sure that people cannot attack me because they have this prejudice against fat people.

Of course members are going to say no, that is not necessary. Then I am going to ask why they hate me so and why they are so fatophobic. Now I have just said something that everyone in this House recognizes as being quite a ludicrous statement simply because it is not based on fact.

Number one, yes, I did get beat up. That does not mean that my being beat up was any more important than another kid who was beat up because he had an even funnier face than mine.

I remember another time being quite vilified because I was a farm kid and I attended a city school. We have differences, and sometimes kids can be cruel. That does not mean that we now have to start specifying this person, this group; that person, that group. What we need to do in order to reduce those differences is to start treating everyone the same.

When I say to my hon. colleague opposite that I have respect for him as an individual, I certainly have no intention of checking out what he does after he leaves this place. That is his choice. I neither fear him nor do I wish him any harm. However, I want to say that not one member of the Reform Party in the country will say that because of the choice he made he is now fair game for being beaten up. I am totally opposed to that. When I hear of individuals being beaten up because they are homosexuals I decry that as loudly and as vigorously as I would when anyone else is beaten up, for whatever reason.

It is time that we as Canadians started applying the rules of justice and the protection of law equally to everyone across the board. I want to assure the hon. member that I do not dislike him. I am not picking on him. I am simply saying that he stands together with all of us on an equal ground.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that among all of my Reform colleagues, he is by far my favourite. However, I do not know whether I should be jumping for joy or crying after what he just said because, with all due respect, my colleague rose in this House and said: "I do not dislike the hon. member", all the better. However, he also said: "What we need to do is to start treating everyone the same".

You will understand that at face value, such a statement betrays a lack of sensitivity, because, if we acknowledge that in Canadian and Quebec society people are being molested solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is no way we can agree with our colleague's conclusion that we have to treat everyone the same.

This is like the kind of reasoning that used to be widespread a few years back, and I am choosing my words carefully. You will nonetheless understand to what point this example, regardless of how absurd it was, is worth calling to mind. I remember very clearly the debate that was raging in our society a few years back in which some people used to say: "Whenever a person, in general a woman, is raped, we must take into consideration whether she provoked the attack". And they said, some very sensible people included, even men of law, that the punishment for raping a woman

should vary, depending on how provocative she was, for example, if she was wearing a short skirt.

I never subscribed to this point of view. What our colleague is saying, is: "I am ready to accept homosexuality only if these people are treated the same as everybody else and only if we do not acknowledge, at this moment in time, that they are being systematically discriminated against and are being targeted for violence". This is contradictory, this is a paradox, this is illogical and cannot be. That is why we have a bill before us like the one that is before us today.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing, and other acts in consequence thereof. It is a criminal law bill directed at hate motivated crime.

First, I want to commend the work of the Minister of Justice, who has responded to the call of Canadians for the need to reform our sentencing process by establishing a clear framework of provisions to guide the courts in our country.

We have before us a criminal law bill directed at hate motivated crime. We have before us comprehensive legislation that for the very first time gives Canadians a say in the purpose and principles of criminal sentencing.

In these very challenging times, it is now necessary to provide clear guidelines for the courts to protect society to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to promote their sense of responsibility, and to provide reparation for sometimes irreparable damage, both physical and emotional, done to victims and the community.

Rules of evidence and procedure have now been set out in this bill, along with alternative measures to prisons and conditional sentences to be served in the community under strict compliance with conditions ordered by the court.

This bill works in partnership with the community to rehabilitate offenders while at the same time protecting the public from those criminals who have committed serious and violent crimes.

The strength of this bill is clearly evident from the support it has garnered across the country, despite what we might hear in the House.

I represent an urban riding in the greater Toronto area where people want only to live in peace and safety. In Etobicoke-Lakeshore we are firm believers in crime prevention measures as a method of improving safety in our community. As a community we are working very hard to eliminate crime. I give as an example the hard work of the Etobicoke Crime Prevention Association, which has succeeded in making our community more aware of crime prevention. I would like to read to the House the tip of the month published in its May 1995 newsletter. It reads: "A key element in preventing crime is public education through a variety of means. Let the public know that prevention is possible. They are capable and it is worth their while".

The sentencing reforms contained within Bill C-41 will indeed make the efforts of all Canadian communities worth their while. Our government is committed to restoring safety to our homes, our streets, and our communities. Bill C-41 is a clear indication of this commitment. We want to give Canadians back their sense of security by working hard to implement policies that will reduce and help to prevent crime in Canadian communities.

Canadians have asked for changes to the criminal justice system and we have responded with reforms that enhance the rights of victims and encourage respect for the law.

When we talk about public education we want to make sure that people have all the facts. What has been happening across the way today has not been all the facts.

I will now proceed to give what I perceive to be the clear facts in this legislation and emphasize the benefits these reforms will mean to the protection of all Canadians.

With the passage of this bill judges will henceforth be required to give clear reasons for sentencing in all cases. This clarity will benefit the public and will assist later in potential appeals trials.

The bill also gives consideration to offences committed in breach of trust, usually against children and increasingly in cases of violence against women. These vulnerable individuals who lost this essential and assumed protection in society will now find it in the courts.

This legislation will also benefit and consider the victims of crime, whose suffering and anxieties for so long have been pushed aside.

The statement of purpose and principles will allow for reparation to the victim or the community while at the same time forcing the offenders to take responsibility for their actions.

This means first of all that financial restitution can now be audited to compensate for loss of property or damage inflicted on an individual. I know that many seniors in my community who have been victimized by theft will be very pleased with the introduction of this provision.

Financial compensation by the offender in the case of less serious crimes often encourages rehabilitation of the offender. In the legislation, amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code will give victims of violence the chance to voice the effects the offender's crime has had on their lives during their hearing for early parole.

It is about time the victim's experience is given greater emphasis. The statement will play a key role in the determination of the release of violent offenders back into society. Fines will now be officially recognized as part of the sentencing process. The fact is that many offenders are in prison for non-violent crimes simply because they are not able to pay the fine levelled on them.

Consideration will now be given to these individuals and fines will be imposed based on the offender's ability to pay. Inability to repay will result in other penalties such as probation or community service.

For those who have the ability to pay, fines will be strictly enforced. The system of fines will result in decreased costs of running our institutions. The community plays an important role in this bill, especially under the provision that allows for alternative incarceration.

Under strict supervision, a less serious non-violent offender who has been determined to pose no danger to society could serve the sentence within the community in some way. Counselling, probation, fines and community service will be part of a more effective rehabilitative approach to minor and first time offenders.

Limited funds could be spent protecting the public from more serious and violent offenders. Prison will be reserved for their rehabilitation. This legislation will prove beneficial to communities because it contains measures that will ensure the culture of hate is not permitted to flourish in this country.

Hate crimes are an unfortunate and insufferable reality in our society. The fact that people are specifically targeted because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation cannot be ignored or purposely be swept under the carpet.

Police bias crime units have reported that crimes motivated by hate are on the increase. We must also keep in mind that this probably does not include the many hate crimes that go unreported because of an individual's fear or historic mistrust of authorities.

Have you ever stopped to think, Mr. Speaker, about how traumatizing it is to victims, knowing that they have been specifically attacked because of who they are and what they look like? This is a very personal attack because you cannot change these aspects of yourself.

Canadians have expressed their alarm at the intolerable increase in this type of violence. The government has responded by introducing these amendments that will allow judges to impose stiffer sentences on those who have been convicted of a crime motivated by hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.

Working with the community to improve education in combination with stiffer sentencing measures will result in a better co-ordinating response to hate. Section 718 which got much discussion across the way specifically comes into play after a person is convicted of a crime motivated by hate toward a specific group.

The government recognizes the need to replace the vagueness that currently exists in the sentencing process to protect the groups that are being senselessly and violently targeted.

History has taught us that we will only suffer as a society if violence, intimidation and fearmongering toward any group is tolerated. Ours is a society of equality and Bill C-41 will offer a solid deterrence to all people who threaten human life.

Sentencing practices should be a reflection of Canadian values and this legislation mirrors the values of equality and democracy quite clearly.

There is great support for this bill because the people of Canada know that in combination with other elements of our crime prevention package, change will come and the risk toward safety will lessen.

Sentencing reform, amendments to the Young Offenders Act, parole and corrections reform, the creation of a crime prevention council, greater control of firearms will go a long way toward making our communities safer places to live.

In addition to all this we will continue our efforts to reform the social programs, implementing more effective measures to combat poverty, lack of education, unemployment, illiteracy. We are making progress toward a safer, less violent and more progressive society.

Bill C-41 will guide us in that direction. Let us show tolerance and support this bill.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. parliamentary secretary had a wide ranging look at this bill in her speech.

There are some comparisons that I might make to the comments she has made. I have in my hand a report from the Canadian Police Association, a group that was lauded by the justice minister for its support of Bill C-68.

In the introduction to the report, the association says this:

Bill C-41 with a few exceptions is unwieldly, complicated, internally self-contradictory, duplicitous and what is worse, almost all of it completely unnecessary for anyone with any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of Canada. While it would attempt to codify basic sentencing principles, eliminating this most basic judicial discretion, at the same time it would bestow huge new discretionary powers to a whole range of persons within the justice system.

The common thread in these new powers is that all are to the benefit of the offender in the sense of non-custodial consequence for criminal actions.

Where sentencing reform calls for protection, this bill offers platitudes. Where it calls for clarity, it offers confusion and outright hypocrisy. Given its previous life as Bill C-90, [from the Tory administration] it is in no way a creature of this government yet if passed, it will certainly be identified as just that. It will almost certainly cause the already skyrocketing criminal justice budget to expand further still, in particular, the fastest growing component of that, namely legal aid.

When all is said and done and when one considers the truly great challenges the justice system faces in real crime prevention and protection of the public, it is tragic that this bill occupies debate while other legitimate issues are ignored. This, too, will be the legacy for the government should this bill be passed into law.

In concluding this report, the Canadian Police Association says that:

Bill C-41 is confused, contradictory and in large part wholly unnecessary. It is a blatant example of what a former Liberal member of the justice committee described as smoke and mirrors legislation. It is put forward as meaningful sentence reform but it is only that in the sense that it will generate endless litigation with huge attendant costs for little or no purpose. It is a blatant example of our worst tendencies in criminal law amendment in that it is impractical, badly drafted and will produce results wholly inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of Canadian sense of what needs to be done.

It is a bill that was not created or refined in any sense by the political response of elected members of the government who will be responsible to their constituents once its results are made clear as they will be.

In these days when so much needs to be done to prevent crime from occurring in the first place and to provide protection to society from those chronic violent offenders, Bill C-41 is and will be an embarrassment.

As I think about why the government is putting forward Bill C-41, I am compelled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister what is the justification for this bill. I can only assume that it is to assuage the interests and the demands of the politically correct movement that you so capably represent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Once again I remind the House not to refer to one another as you. Interventions should be made through the Chair.

I also remind the House that the hon. parliamentary secretary has only one minute left to respond.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

I do apologize.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I accept his apology because that is the kind of person I am and this is the kind of debate that brings out the worst in members as we address those issues that face society.

We are talking about the kind of society where there is respect for diversity, where there is respect for the individual. We are talking about measures that have within them preventive, rehabilitative and other measures.

The bill before us would ensure the function of our communities, as I said in my remarks, and would ensure the safety of every individual within society regardless of race, colour, creed, nationality, age, sex or sexual orientation.

I think the member has difficulty with this. I can quote from other sources that speak in very positive terms to the bill.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-41, first because I believe this bill is very important in protecting and promoting the rights of victims and second, because there are many misconceptions about this bill. Yes, the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the bill has caused some people concern. Some of my constituents are concerned. They fear this may somehow promote a homosexual lifestyle or it may result in restrictions on religious speech or change the Criminal Code to make things such as pedophelia acceptable.

First I would like to address those questions. Bill C-41 is a sentencing bill. Its aim is to deal harshly with offenders who commit serious crimes and to provide educational or community service programs for non-violent offenders.

Section 718 of the bill proposes that aggravating circumstances should be taken into account in sentencing. The bill outlines that if the crime is committed because of hatred or where an offender abuses a position of trust, this hate or abuse of power shall be considered an aggravating circumstance and therefore will be dealt with more harshly.

The bill outlines that hate crimes can be committed based on hatred for someone's race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.

I want to state clearly that I believe hate crime is intolerable in any form and we must take proactive measures to remove hate from our society. I strongly support measures which will send a clear message that crimes based on hatred will not be tolerated but will be punished harshly.

However I am a strong believer in the family and I am also concerned about the potential erosion of family values through the use of the term of sexual orientation. Based on these concerns and those of some of my constituents I wrote to the Minister of Justice and asked these questions very clearly: Does the bill have any effect on the issue of same sex benefits or adoptions? Could the courts interpret sexual orientation to include pedophelia or other deviant forms of sexuality? In regard to same sex benefits and adoption the minister has clearly stated the bill is not relevant to those items. Cases have recently been before the courts on these issues but Bill C-41 has no affect on same sex benefits.

There is also concern over setting a precedent by using the term sexual orientation in legislation and opening the door to future extension of many other items, those promoted by some of the members opposite.

I want to reassure my constituents that the use of the term of sexual orientation is not new in our justice system. In fact it has been around since 1977 and presently is included in the human rights legislation of eight provinces.

The second question I addressed to the minister was whether pedophilia and other sexual behaviour could be defined as sexual orientation. Again the minister replied in the negative. The Criminal Code clearly describes and provides for offenders.

The minister pointed out this is not new legislation; it is not ambiguous and does not include criminal acts such as pedophilia. I heard some of my church congregations in St. Catharines expressing some fear that freedom of speech might be removed. Again I was assured by the minister, quoting from his letter: "The provisions of the bill do not and cannot prohibit people from holding beliefs or from talking about them within their churches, congregations or communities. The bill deals with people who act on certain bias or hatred to commit crimes. It will not affect freedom of expression".

Recently one of the congregations wrote to the minister to express its concern and support concerning Bill C-41. I am reminded the church believes it is obligated to struggle against injustice. Its letter to the minister:

Our mandate is to support the church in God's mission of bringing about an inclusive and participatory church and society, striving to protect the rights and meet the needs of all, including those who are marginalized on grounds of race, culture, sex, family and economic status, age, belief, sexual orientation, and disability.

The focus of Bill C-41 is to improve our sentencing laws and define their purpose. The bill deals with victims, crimes motivated by hate, other rehabilitative provisions for some offenders like community service, and probation, fines and updating the rules of evidence and procedure.

Bill C-41 is particularly important to me because it deals with the rights of victims of violence. It is unfortunate but our justice system often seems to protect the offender while ignoring the victim. The bill takes important steps to outline the importance of respecting and protecting victims, one small step forward.

The bill deals with the protection and promotion of the rights of victims. The bill contains a statement of sentencing purposes. The present Criminal Code does not contain a statement outlining the purpose and principles behind sentencing. The new bill would fill this void by including a statement providing direction to the courts on the fundamental purpose of sentencing.

The statement would include as part of the objectives of sentencing providing restitution to victims or the community. In addition, sentences should promote a sense of responsibility for offenders and include encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to victims or to the community. The statement would outline the importance of maintaining a peaceful, safe society.

The second way the bill provides for the victims of violence is through victim impact statements. The bill allows victims the opportunity to speak of the harm done to them or the loss they have suffered because of the offender. These statements will impact the sentencing of offenders and in deciding whether an offender should be discharged in a section 745 parole hearing.

In the past the parole board has refused to allow victims to put forward information. This is important to me because as I am sure all will agree the information on harm done to a victim by the offender is relevant to the offender's parole. The victim's experience will be taken into account and they will have a chance to speak, which will have an important impact.

The third way the bill deals with the protection and promotion of the rights of victims is in the area of restitution. The bill helps to provide compensation in cases where there is family abuse. Costs for moving, temporary housing or child support may be awarded when the victim is a wife or family which must move from their place, for example when the father is the offender.

I would be remiss if I did not speak on this bill today. I understand and have experience with hate and discrimination and what it can do to an individual. It is a devastating, destructive force that must be dealt with very harshly. I have seen and lived through periods when a name like mine was something excluded, something different and dealt with differently. I understand what can happen in society as a result of having a name like mine.

We must start making the rights of victims a priority. I hope in the future the justice minister brings additional bills to the House to improve the consequences of what victims have to suffer in society as a result of violence taken.

I have noted that the chief of police in Ottawa-Carleton, this area, strongly supports it. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities have written in support of the bill.

A vote for this bill is a vote against discrimination and hate toward individuals and groups. Expressions of hate should have no place in Canadian society and the bill sets out a commitment to fighting hate motivated crimes.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. If a woman is sexually assaulted that is a terrible crime. If she is violated because she is a lesbian why should that crime be treated more seriously? That is the key question here which we have not had answered by any of the debate from that side of the House. That has to be answered. If that is not answered this legislation should not be put in place.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill talks about sex and the various areas the judges can rule on. Too often I have seen in court cases in which the law is not defined. There is a wide discrepancy from one coast to the other in Canada.

The bill puts more into the system so judges can make the decisions. When there is a sentence they will be guided as to whether it was hate motivated, yes or no. That is what is important. We are trying to get the message out to people that the government will put in stiffer laws whenever there is hate motivated crime. That should be pretty clear.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, he has not answered my question. Why is the one crime more serious than the other?

What I can see happening in our court cases is that this will simply be another make work program for lawyers. It will add a dimension to trials. They will be able to argue a crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Rather than focusing on the facts of the case, that a crime was committed and that the behaviour was not acceptable, they will have another dimension added to all of these court cases. What drives this legislation? Was it possibly designed by lawyers? Was it designed by people like that who may benefit?

Our court trials are already expensive enough. We do not need another dimension added which this legislation will add.

The question that needs to be answered is if a woman is sexually assaulted is that not as serious as if she is violated because she belongs to some category?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, anywhere there is discrimination or motivated or planned hatred it does not underscore what the member opposite has put in as an example. If it is a motivated hate crime, sentencing should be dealt accordingly.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself debating a bill restricted by time allocation brought in by the government and its cohorts in the Bloc Quebecois.

When time allocation was introduced for Bill C-41, Bill C-68 and Bill C-85, the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs said the government was forced to do so because the Reform Party had introduced hundreds of amendments aimed solely at stalling the passage of the bill.

When we look at the amendments introduced at report stage on Bill C-41, we see there are a total of 25. Of those 25 amendments only five were Reform Party amendments. How can the secretary of state possibly claim that by submitting five of the 25 amendments the Reform Party was trying to stall Bill C-41?

How can the government possibly claim time allocation was necessary to get the bill passed when it was tabled at report stage on March 22? The government has had almost three months to get the legislation passed.

It is not the Reform Party causing problems for the government on the bill, it is a few Liberal backbenchers causing the government so much anxiety it had to invoke time allocation to get the bill passed with as little debate as possible.

On the quality of debate, I raise some comments made by the member for Vancouver Centre. I am glad to see she has rejoined us so she can hear me. I am bothered that the member for Vancouver Centre had the audacity to question the member for Crowfoot whether he had read the entire bill. I do not recall seeing the member for Vancouver Centre sitting in the justice committee for months and months listening to witnesses or going through the bill clause by clause, trying to make it into something better.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said this bill is a law of hate motivated crime and that was the sole intent and purpose of it. Maybe these individuals should take a few minutes off and actually read the bill and find out it is about a lot more than hate motivated crime. The member from the Bloc who spoke should do so as well. This bill is about sentencing. It is about alternative measures. It is about breach of trust by public officials and section 745, so much more than hate motivated crime. Having sat through months of testimony on Bill C-41 in the justice committee, it is a shame that many of the aspects of the bill about which I have spoken have been overlooked because of the words sexual orientation being brought into section 718.2 of the Criminal Code and of having an enumerated list of qualifiers.

The hon. member for Rosedale and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre raised the fact that the police were fully behind the bill. As other members have said, the police association is not behind the bill. When the justice minister was promoting his infamous Bill C-68, the gun control legislation, he held up the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association as institutions that supported the gun legislation and asked how Canadians could not support it. I will tell government members that the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association do not support Bill C-41. I quote the Canadian Police Association which stated:

Our criminal justice system is based on both a defining statute (the Criminal Code) and the case law which has been built up over years in its interpretation and application. Both aspects are cornerstones of our system.

This bill attempts to codify some, and I emphasize only some, of the basic principles of sentencing which evolved in our courts over the last hundred years or so-This bill's approach of attempting to redefine principles will result in endless litigation which will add millions of wasted dollars of expense to a system that is now struggling to make more efficient use of existing resources.

The Canadian Police Association represents police across the country, not just in Ottawa. It went on to say that it was compelled to articulate just how ill advised the bill was and to say:

The sentencing is far too important to be saddled with as poor an effort as this and it should be sent back to the drafting table with instructions to start again. At this late date we urge you to do the same thing and do whatever is necessary to not proceed any further on this bill.

Those are pretty strong statements from the police community that was so important to the government's support of Bill C-68 but is being totally ignored on Bill C-41. Why is its support so important on one bill and totally ignored on the other?

When Parliament passes amendments to current legislation it is usually done because it wishes to change the direction of the legislation or to make up for some deficiency in law. As was pointed out by the Canadian Police Association, the bill falls far short of that.

The amendment about which everyone has been talking this evening with respect to section 718.2 does not do it either. The amendment calls for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate to be deemed aggravating circumstances. Therefore a greater sentence would be applied. We have heard impassioned speeches from the government benches about the personal injustices and experiences they have had with respect to discrimination. I do not doubt that. I do not doubt there are many Canadians who have been faced with that.

The justice committee heard extensive evidence about what the courts have been doing for years. Before passing sentence the courts take into consideration all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The courts are already giving stronger sentences when they are based on hate or prejudice.

The motivation of the offender has always been an issue. Courts today frequently hand out more severe penalties for crimes committed on the basis of hate, prejudice or bias. If that is already the case, why do we need this section in Bill C-41? Are we in effect telling the courts that we are passing new legislation because we want them to maintain the status quo? There is one difference, which is that section 718.2 lists nine issues to be considered.

The justice committee attempted to determine if the list was exclusionary, that is if the basis for hate crime is not listed in the section can the court consider it to be an aggravating factor?

The hon. member across the way brought forward the fact that an amendment was made to it. Yes, there was an amendment made to it that added the similar factor. As is usual, in cases where lawyers appeared as witnesses some said that the list would not be exclusionary and others said that the list would be considered exclusionary. If it was not meant to be exclusive why would the government include a list?

It is obvious that people charged under this section will be arguing as to whether or not the list is exclusive. It is equally likely that in leaving the section as it is we as parliamentarians are leaving it up to the courts to decide whether something belongs to the similar factor. That is why the section should be deleted in its entirety. I have not heard one individual state that the courts as a whole have not been effective in taking aggravating factors into consideration for crimes based on hate, prejudice or bias.

As I said earlier, section 718.2 received the most attention but other areas deserve further scrutiny. One such issue is alternative measures. The concept of alternative measures is valid. I do not think there is anyone in the Reform Party who does not support the concept of alternative measures.

However the bill has left far too many unanswered questions. What is an alternative measure? We cannot answer that question because there is no definition. There are not even guidelines on what the provinces can decide is an alternative measure. Who qualifies for alternative measures? That is another question that we cannot answer. The bill just states that the person who makes the decision must consider it appropriate. Who is this person who is to decide if the penalty is appropriate or not? Again we do not have an answer. The bill does not stipulate who should be making these decisions. In fact the bill does not even state what type of crimes are appropriate for alternative measures.

One would think that the alternative measures would not be available to people who have previously been dealt with by alternative measures. The bill does not say that. It may be extremely difficult to determine if an offender was previously dealt with by way of alternative measures because there is no need for mandatory reporting of alternative measures. Nor is there a central repository to determine if alternative measures have been previously used. The sections dealing with alternative measures are just too vague to support.

Another serious issue that Bill C-41 fails to address is that of individuals in public positions losing their positions if convicted and sentenced to a term of incarceration. Previously a member of Parliament who was convicted of a criminal offence could only lose his or her position if sentenced to a term in excess of five years.

The justice committee accepted a Liberal amendment to this clause that reduces the necessary term of incarceration from five years to two years. However the committee rejected a Reform amendment that elected officials should be removed from their positions if they are sentenced to any period of incarceration. Perhaps it was a little too severe for the Liberals' liking but the zero tolerance was based on reality. Members of the RCMP who are convicted of a criminal offence lose their jobs if they spend even one day in jail. How could Parliament permit such a double standard?

We expect members of the national police force to have such a high standard of conduct that any incarceration would automatically result in the loss of their jobs. Yet when it comes to the standard of conduct of our own, the lawmakers of the country, we say that only incarceration in a federal institution for two years or more will disqualify an elected official. How can the government justify this contradiction?

However the biggest problem with Bill C-41 is not necessarily what is there but rather what is not there. Bill C-41 is tinkering when what is really needed is a major overhaul.

I go back to the CPA letter which says that it should be sent back to the drafting table with instructions to start again. It is not just Reformers who feel that it needs to be scrapped; that is also supported by the CPA.

We need a sentencing bill that will lock up violent high risk offenders and keep them incarcerated until they are no longer a threat to the public. We need a sentencing bill that will provide offenders with a sentence that is a specific deterrent to them and a general deterrent to others. We need a sentencing bill that provides sentences that are commensurate with the severity of the crime, sentences that are applied consistently and with a high degree of certainty.

The justice system is suffering from a major lack of public support. If we are ever to regain the public's faith in the justice system, we must provide Canadians with laws that will really keep our streets and communities safe.

Bill C-41 is not the answer. I ask my colleagues on the opposition side and on the government side how they could possibly support such a poorly written document that will infringe on justice in Canada.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member personally addressed me in her speech I think I should not only respond but ask her a question.

The hon. member said that I was not present at all the hours and hours of committee meetings and I did not listen to the witnesses. One does not have to be there to comprehend, to be able to read the bill from cover to cover. That is very simple to do. It is also quite easy to get transcripts of the committees and understand them.

I did not only deal with them to get my knowledge. As a family practitioner for 23 years I have knowledge of what hate crimes do to people. I worked in emergency rooms and know about people who had come in beaten up because of their sexual orientation or because of their race in the city of Vancouver. I have a very valid reason for speaking the way I did.

If you discuss the abstracts of the bill, look at the fine points of clause by clause consideration and dot the i 's and cross the t 's but fail to understand the principles behind the bill or the very real part of the bill that will affect Canadians where they live, that will affect their lives in a very real and meaningful way, you have missed the whole issue completely.

Does the member understand the principles?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I go to the next member, by and large debate has been conducted in a very parliamentary way, but I remind members that because it is an issue about which there are some very strong feelings it is important for the interventions to be made through the Chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Does she fully understand why hate crimes should have aggravating factors? Hate crimes do not only hurt physically. Nor do they only hurt psychologically. Hate crimes leave a lasting effect on the individual. Hate crimes cause the continuing erosion of the self-esteem of a group that feels rejected by society. Members of that group have no sense of self-worth. It haunts them throughout the rest of their lives.

Does the hon. member fully understand that aspect of hate crime?

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that I fully understand the intent of the bill and the impact that hate crime can have on an individual. That is why I am pleased that the courts already take that into consideration.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is a medical doctor and not a lawyer, but perhaps if she looked through transcripts of trials and sentencing she would find that the courts now take that into consideration in sentencing. They already take into consideration that a beating might have been because a person was homosexual or because they were of another race. They already give more severe sentences based on that aggravating factor.

I appreciate that, but I recognize that this is already happening now and we do not need to codify it so there is more debate as to whether or not another group should belong to that list, that enumeration. And that will happen.

We had a case in Vancouver, which she is very much aware of, where it was the profession of an individual that caused him to be the victim of a shooting. He may or may not fall into this list. We will have lawyers debating back and forth and wasting court time when right now the courts would take that into consideration because there is not an exclusionary list.

I would suggest to the hon. member that already the courts take it into consideration, the judges take it into consideration. There is absolutely no need to put a law together to specify a list. I repeat that it is only one part of this legislation.

In case the hon. members in this House missed the point, this is also about alternative measures that are not defined, that are not specified as to who makes decisions, that are not specified on what crimes or what offenders qualify or whether they get alternative measures one, two, three, ten, or fifteen times. I think those things have to be addressed. We cannot pass a law for one clause; we have to look at the entirety. If the entirety of it is bad, we as legislators have a moral obligation to see it does not become law.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley complained in her opening remarks about time allocation, saying that it is not her party that is stalling and delaying.

I believe the hon. member was here yesterday when Canadians saw the Reform Party members wasting time deliberately with the way they were voting in slow motion and making a mockery of this Parliament. I call that a contempt of this Parliament. This is why we have to bring in time allocation. We have not brought in closure. They can complain about closure.

When we are dealing with members like this, I call time allocation good time management.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the allegations from across the floor, it is interesting that an individual on the government side could comment about needing time allocation when this particular legislation has been at report stage since March 22. If the government moves so slowly that it takes it over three months to get something from report stage to dealing with it, from introduction to dealing with it, I do not take any responsibility for that.

What we went through last night was giving every single individual in this House the opportunity to make their recorded vote, which is the parliamentary right of every member in this House. I will not apologize to the House or to anybody else for forcing the situation last night so that every member had the ability to be registered as voting for or against the amendments on this important legislation.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that in the statement of the hon. member she did point out that right now the criminal law is composed of the Criminal Code and the common law. All that is sought to be done by this amendment is to simply codify the existing common law-it is not changing the law-so the judges and lawyers will all be aware of exactly what the law is in a very succinct form so that-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member has the same amount of time to reply.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick.

They already have the flexibility, not looking just at a list but looking at all factors, whether they fall under a list of enumeration or not. The list of six or seven items is not just bias, hate, and prejudice. There are far more areas. This is an exclusionary list that is being put into law that will give lawyers more and more opportunities to suck money out of the economy.