Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-41.
There has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation being disseminated about this bill. Unfortunately, a lot of the verbal shadow boxing around Bill C-41 has almost entirely focused on one phrase in one clause in the overall bill. The term sexual orientation seems to have piqued the interest of many narrow minded individuals whose sense of reason has been drowned out by the self-righteous pontificating about the so called provision of special rights to designated groups and individuals.
Last week an impatient man approached me in my constituency office. He asked me whether I was going to vote yes or no for that "same sex benefits bill and special rights for gays". I proceeded to try to explain to the gentleman that he had it all wrong, that the legislation was not about same sex spousal
benefits or special rights for gays and that it had more to do with protecting individuals from hate motivated violence. The man stormed out of my office before I could get a further word in edgewise. That is exactly the kind of intolerance and confusion that underlines most of the opposition-especially from the third party in this House-to provisions in Bill C-41.
For the edification of the man who stormed out of my office last week and for many others like him, many to be found in the third party opposite, who may have forgotten or perhaps never took the time to find out what Bill C-41 was actually all about in the first place, I want to highlight for them the main objectives of this legislation along with some of the compelling yet often misunderstood and ignored portions of this bill.
Some of the most significant provisions of Bill C-41 are those related to enhancing the rights of the victim. This bill includes an unprecedented amendment to section 745 of the Criminal Code that would provide victims of violence with the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the criminal justice system by presenting victim impact statements when convicted criminals apply for early parole consideration. This would ensure that victims of violent crimes have the opportunity to speak out about the harm done by the offender.
Quite frankly for me, and I know for another member at least in this House, maybe that is not enough. To my way of thinking, section 745 should be rescinded. But that is what is in the bill today, and it has gone a lot further than what members opposite, especially in the third party, are proposing. Therefore, the victim's experience will now be taken into account at the very least when deciding whether the parole ineligibility period of an offender should be reduced.
The bill also encourages tougher sentences for the abuses by offenders in positions of trust or authority. It encourages alternatives to fines for those unable to pay them and provides for stricter penalties for offenders who breach probation and provides cost effective alternatives to those expensive and often unnecessary formal court proceedings. Furthermore, the bill will allow judges greater leeway to impose certain conditions on an offender to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
This bill follows through on the government's commitment to Canadians who have so passionately expressed the need for meaningful and progressive criminal justice reform. It should be noted that Bill C-41 adds a statement to the Criminal Code that provides clear direction from Parliament on the purpose and principles of sentencing.
The reforms provide a balanced and sensible range of options that address the public's need for safety, the victim's desire for restitution, and the important principle that serious offenders should be dealt with more severely than minor or first time offenders.
This legislation clearly indicates that the purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society and to promote respect for the law by imposing just sanctions.
The statement sets out objectives for sentencing, which include protection of the public, rehabilitation, promoting a sense of responsibility among offenders, making reparations to victims and the community, and deterring crime. These objectives are guided by the idea that a sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In this regard, the courts will be required to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances associated with a particular crime.
Accordingly, the proposed statement of principles indicates that when an offence is motivated by hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim, this must be considered as an aggravating circumstance. On this point, people have asked why hate motivated crimes warrant harsher sentences than non-hate motivated crimes, suggesting that such provisions and the use of the term sexual orientation would grant special rights and magical privileges to non-heterosexuals. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that use of the term sexual orientation would encourage a homosexualist agenda, if you can believe it. Quite frankly, this is surely and simply ludicrous.
As stated by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, we are talking about the criminal law here. We are talking about crimes motivated by hate. To say that including sexual orientation in Bill C-41 is encouraging a lifestyle is like saying that because we have included religion we are encouraging people to become Catholics.
Hate crimes are distinct in that they are not only an attack on a single individual, they are also an attack on an entire group in our society. For example, if someone paints graffiti on someone's house, that person would probably be charged with mischief and the house owner would likely be the only victim. But if someone were to paint swastikas on one of the five synagogues in my riding of Hamilton West, the victims would include all members of the Jewish faith. Try to understand that, members opposite.
