Bill C-51 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to amend, remove or repeal passages and provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional or that raise risks with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as passages and provisions that are obsolete, redundant or that no longer have a place in criminal law. It also modifies certain provisions of the Code relating to sexual assault in order to clarify their application and to provide a procedure applicable to the admissibility and use of a complainant’s record when in the possession of the accused.
This enactment also amends the Department of Justice Act to require that the Minister of Justice cause to be tabled, for every government Bill introduced in either House of Parliament, a statement of the Bill’s potential effects on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that is one of the greatest motivating factors as to why the government is willing to move forward on this particular issue.

If I conclude just on the rape shield provisions, “to include communications of a sexual nature or communications for a sexual purpose”, these Criminal Code provisions provide that evidence of a complainant's past sexual history cannot be used to support an inference that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity at issue, or that the complainant is less worthy of belief. That is often referred to as the “twin myths”. This is one of the greatest motivating factors for the government to move forward on this particular piece of legislation, along with the charter and the concerns that I have raised earlier.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place once again to speak in the debate around another Liberal omnibus bill, which this time happens to be a justice bill. I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

It has been mentioned already today that in the past election campaign, the Liberals promised there would be no more omnibus bills. They also campaigned against the use of time allocation, and yet time after time the government has used time allocation to move legislation forward.

I am pleased to speak to a bill that received so much input from my constituents over the summer, especially those with strong religious beliefs. The bill does not pick and choose one religion; it will affect all religions.

Bill C-51 was originally introduced by a Liberal government with a section containing what many people thought was an assault on religious freedom and beliefs. As we have heard today, the Liberal government planned to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code pertaining to the protection of religious officials and the freedom to worship peacefully without disturbance.

Canadians know that Conservative members have always supported religious freedom, and the protection of those freedoms. It was the Conservative government that brought forward the office of religious freedom. That office promoted religious freedom around the world. Andrew Bennett served as ambassador after a long period of time with Foreign Affairs, and he did amazing work for our country and for the whole concept of religious freedom.

In Bill C-51, the Liberal government proposes to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code pertaining to the protection of religious officials. There was a response in my constituency office and across the country, and pastors and others involved in religious freedom expressed their deepest concerns.

I am very pleased with the work of Conservative members of Parliament who sat on justice committee during the hearings on Bill C-51, including the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the member for Niagara Falls. Many other Conservative colleagues put considerable effort into the issue of protection of all religious officials and the freedom to worship peacefully without fear of disturbance during religious services. The member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands does great work on the whole religious freedom file. I want to thank the many witnesses who testified before committee and provided submissions. I want to thank them for standing up and defending religious freedom in Canada. Their voices were heard.

I commend the Liberal government for backing down on its attempt to repeal section 176. The government realized where amendments should be brought forward and accepted them, so we commend it for that.

It was disconcerting to note that the current government included in Bill C-51 a dismissal of the importance of religious freedom in Canada. The Liberals announced their belief that the disruption of a religious service was not serious enough that it should be protected in this legislation. Consequently, people responded again. At committee, the government tried to ignore it and said it was not going to happen. By November of this year, Liberal members on the justice committee agreed to allow section 176 of the Criminal Code to remain operable.

This was a victory for all faith communities in Canada. It was an important victory, because hate crimes with respect to religious communities happen all around the world.

Hate crimes are on the increase and, unfortunately it is the same here in Canada, whether it is the Jewish faith, Judaism, attacks on synagogues, the Christian faith, or the Muslim faith.

Bill C-51 was introduced by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada just days before the parliamentary recess, on June 6, 2017. Clause 14 of Bill C-51 proposed to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which makes it a crime to unlawfully obstruct, threaten, or harm a religious official, before, during, or after performing a religious service. Again, we heard about it all summer. Later, I will read what section 176 did.

Why is this important? I want to go back to a quote from former Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker. It is a quote that all of us should take note of and appreciate. He stated:

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

His pledge was to stand up, not just for direct assaults on religious freedom, but against the erosion of religious freedom. This is the way that Canadians have lived for decades.

The Liberal government has been very selective of its new sunny ways in who it respects. Worse, the Liberal government tried to reduce the security of religious Canadians by burying its repeal of section 176 deep in an omnibus justice bill. More than 65 interfaith fellowships or leaders, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, one of the 65, sent a joint letter to the Minister of Justice on October 31, 2017. It very much brought forward the concerns it had.

I will very quickly read part of section 176 in the act, because it is important for Canadians to get the perspective of it. It states:

Every one who

(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or

(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)

(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or

(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This provision protects the pastor, the clergyman, the rabbi, the imam in leading, and it protects the individuals who participate in such services. It is important to note, again, that Liberals felt this was unacceptable. In unison, members from all faiths came together.

Bill C-51 has other points. First, it deals with sexual assault provisions. It would clarify and strengthen certain aspects of sexual assault related to consent, admissibility of evidence, and legal representation for the complainant. It would repeal or amend a number of provisions in the Criminal Code that have been found unconstitutional by appellate courts. It is a housekeeping measure. As the previous member suggested, it is good to see that there is support in this place for some of those measures.

I will close by saying that this is the way it should end up. It should end up where Canadians first of all stand up for what they believe is an assault on their way of life, where we take it to committee, make those amendments, and where governments are then willing to allow those amendments to come forward.

I thank the Conservatives for bringing forward the amendments, and all other parties for accepting them. Although the bill may not be perfect, we hope that the measures that have been amended and are coming forward will pass.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add that I am relieved that faith leaders had the opportunity to offer their perspective. I am pleased that the minister and our government have reinstated that clause in the legislation.

I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech about protection of religion freedom. Would he share his opinion on a woman's right to cover her face because of her religious beliefs? The previous Conservative government wanted to deny women that right. Would he please comment on that?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but the question is absolutely not true. We have never said that we would not allow a woman to cover her face, her head, or to do anything such as that. The only question is, if someone is taking a pledge of citizenship, or having their picture taken for a driver's licence or some form of identification, should they be able to conceal their identity?

I know there are massive concerns around that, but, as far as accommodation, we recognize that people have differences of opinion within their faith. I will stand and defend the right of Muslims to worship in the way they choose, the Christians, the Jewish faith, the Sikhs, and Hindus, whoever. I may not understand all their forms of worship, but I will defend their right to worship, as long as it adheres to the law in a peaceful way.

Common sense also asks us what we would expect. I have a Hutterite colony in my constituency, whose members took great offence to posing for a picture for their driver's licence. They felt that they should have driver's licences, but they would not be willing to pose for a picture so that an officer could identify them if they were caught. They said it was a religious thing. We have to find balance somewhere. We have to be able to find common ground. The member is wrong in saying that we do not believe in a woman's right to cover her face.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in talking about the bill, my colleague touches on a number of different aspects of it dealing with sexual assault, with religious freedom, with a range of different things that are, frankly, disconnected. Aside from the particulars of the provision, I am curious for his thoughts on whether this constitutes an omnibus bill, and how he feels about the fact that we are seeing many omnibus bills from the government members, who railed against omnibus bills when they were in opposition.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes there may be reason for an omnibus bill. I do not believe that this was one of those times. Sometimes there may be other measures that are brought into a budget. The problem was that in the last election, the Liberals railed against the few times that we brought forward omnibus bills. They said they would not bring forward omnibus bills. They are now bringing forward bill after bill that are omnibus bills.

They said time allocation or closure was a measure that should never be employed in the House of Commons, yet how many times have we seen the government do exactly what they said they would not do in the last election? They said in the last election that they would have a very small $10-billion deficit; it is over a $20-billion deficit. It is the broken promises that are the issue.

Is this an omnibus bill? Yes, I believe it is. The Liberals brought different measures into the bill. There are other omnibus bills that they have brought forward and will bring forward, and the public will judge them. On whether it is a bill worthy of passing, it is one thing to make a promise and live up to it, but if they are not going to promise it, it is pretty hard to ridicule someone later on for doing it. The Liberals are backing down on their word once again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, The Environment; the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Justice.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity today to join the debate on Bill C-51. It is quite clearly an omnibus bill dealing with a wide range of different provisions with respect to justice. I am going to comment on some of those provisions, but at the outset let me quickly comment on the fact that what we have before the House is an omnibus bill.

I am not one of those people who says that any omnibus bill represents the end of the world, but there are some people on the other side of the House who took at least something close to that position in the last Parliament. I remember being asked about this during election forums in my riding. I said very clearly that there is an appropriate use of bills containing a number of different kinds of provisions, but also an inappropriate use of them, and that, ultimately, we cannot necessarily codify exactly what these will look like in every case. It is the kind of thing that reasonable people should look at it and judge.

The principle is that as many opportunities as possible should be created for debate and votes that are particular to specific individual issues. We should not have a situation in which we have a whole bunch of different, contrary, unrelated things in the same bill that are not in any way part of an overall plan moving in the same direction.

When the government does that it creates a situation in which there may be some aspects of the bill that are positive and some not, which creates a particular challenge for members of Parliament who are trying to decide how to express their support for certain provisions in the bill they may like, and their opposition to things they may have concerns about. However, it also creates an opportunity for the government to bury things in the legislation that actually deserve particular scrutiny.

I am going to talk about the changes to section 176 of the Criminal Code that were proposed. That provision was an example of one that would have had a very substantial impact, but was buried within a larger bill. It did not figure prominently in the government's communications about the bill. It was only because of the activism of the opposition raising awareness about this section that we were able to have it discussed at committee and, ultimately, see what seems like the willingness of the House to remove that proposed provision. However, regardless of one's views on the principle of omnibus legislation, we should hold the government accountable for the fact it has failed to live up to the standard it set for itself with respect omnibus legislation.

One of the provisions we see in the bill, I understand, removes the sections from the Criminal Code dealing with witchcraft. It makes sense for the government to do this. Witchcraft may be its only chance at balancing the budget in the near term. Some members may think this is uncontroversial. I actually discussed it with Mackenzie King this morning, and he has some concerns about this section of the bill. Ultimately, we decided it would only have a medium impact going forward, so I think we will just leave it there.

[An hon. member]

Don't give up your day job.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Do not worry, because I intend to be here a long time.

The particular focus of public debate on the legislation concerned section 176 of the Criminal Code, which presently still exists. Section 176 specifically made it illegal to disrupt a worship service, or attack a “clergyman or minister”. The original version of Bill C-51 sought to remove that section. That would have removed the only section in the Criminal Code that provided specific protection by criminalizing attacks on religious services or religious leaders. We heard a number of arguments in the course of the debate. Of course, the general thrust of the legislation, from the government's communications about it, was that the bill removes redundant or unnecessary sections of the Criminal Code. Some argue that these specific protections for religious officials and religious services were not necessary, because any of the things that are identified within that section in particular are already illegal. Disrupting a worship service might have been captured under trespassing provisions. Vandalism, obviously, is illegal anyway. Assaulting someone, whether a religious figure or not, is illegal anyway. Therefore, the argument was that section 176 of the Criminal Code is redundant.

Why do we disagree with that on this side of the House? We recognize in law that even things that are already illegal may need extra legal recognition to ensure that they are treated by the law in a proportionate way. That is, after all, why we have laws with respect to hate crimes. Anything that is not permitted under hate crimes legislation is probably something that is in fact already illegal, but I think all members of the House agree that it is still important to have hate crimes legislation recognize the proportionality of an offence, recognize that there is something much more serious, that should be treated more seriously, when individuals are targeted because of their background or identity.

There is something more serious about that than a purely random act of vandalism or violence. That is not to downplay the seriousness with which the law should treat a random act, but when individuals, institutions, or groups are targeted specifically because of their identity, that has a different and arguably much greater social effect, because it seeks to impede the practice of that faith, impede the living-out of that identity, and to create a climate of fear for people who are part of that identity. Therefore, when we have specific sections that deal with crimes that target specific groups, they help us to ensure that the law is treating crimes in a proportionate way that reflects the social effects of those actions. We can see on that basis that section 176 is not redundant at all but reflects an important social purpose of the law, which is to ensure proportionality.

Another reason why section 176 was not redundant is the that fact of this being in the Criminal Code sends a clear message that the law not only has practical effects but also pedagogic effects in demonstrating our commitment to religious freedom and to the protection of the practice of faith in Canada.

We also had people objecting to the section on the basis that the language implied that the section might only apply to certain faith communities. The section uses the language “clergyman” or “minister”, which obviously is gender specific but also implies that it only refers to a particular faith. Those who raised this objection were being somewhat disingenuous, because the reality is that this section is clearly interpreted as applying to men and women and to people of all faiths. Certainly, it probably makes sense to update and clarify the language with respect to that, to change the wording to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, but in reality there never really was a misunderstanding the way in which the law applies. Therefore, those objections were incorrect.

Many people over the course of the summer and early fall were actively engaged on this issue, signing petitions, and lobbying their MPs. I was involved in Edmonton in organizing a round table for our leader to meet with religious leaders from different faith communities. It was a great opportunity to get leaders from different faith communities together as part of a common round table talking about the issues in Bill C-51.

Of course, we were glad to see the government's backing down on this. However, it is important to ask the question, why was the removal of section 176 in this bill in the first place? Whose idea was it to put it in there, buried in a long list of provisions with respect to all kinds of other issues? The government, in certain instances, maybe talks the talk about protecting certain minority communities, at least, and certain faith communities, but when it comes to walking the walk, in the initial draft of the legislation, the Liberals tried to remove this critical protection for faith communities. When they were caught and communities became engaged, the government eventually backed down.

This speaks to the importance of vigilance. The government talks the talk on the one hand, but when it thinks people are not looking, and the changes involve small provisions within large omnibus bills, it tries to get away with things that most Canadians would see as unacceptable. This is then a call for continuing vigilance on the part of members of Parliament and Canadians to hold the Liberal government accountable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my colleague across the way who, I believe, is trying to give a false impression. Canadians from different regions of our country contacted their members of Parliament. With respect to section 176, I was but one member of Parliament who was contacted after the bill was introduced. Like the person I talked to, I expressed concerns regarding it.

We had a very productive committee meeting, and there seemed to be a lot of commonality among the members after the committee started to debate possible amendments. I understand that it was even a Liberal amendment brought forward that enhanced that particular clause and made it more up-to-date to spiritual leaders and faiths of all natures.

Does my colleague not agree that credit is not necessarily owed to one individual, but to the various individuals who took the time to call members like me and other members of the House, those who took the time to get a good understanding of it at committee, those who made presentations, and those members of all stripes at committee who did fine a job in repealing this particular aspect of the proposed legislation?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about anyone claiming credit here, although I will note parenthetically that the government is rarely shy about claiming credit, even for things that happened under the previous government. However, let us be very clear. The question I posed in my speech, and I pose again, is why was the removal of section 176 there in the first place? Someone decided to include it as part of this legislation. The recommendation may have come from somewhere in the public service, but it was the minister tabling the legislation who presumably looked at the legislation when it was initially proposed and said that the provision to remove section 176 was okay being in there as well.

It is worth asking the question why that was done. Yes, of course, through the activity of many different communities and the work of members of Parliament, attention was brought to this section and we ultimately were able fix the problem. It does not change the question. When we see the government doing all kinds of things with respect to religious freedom that might concern Canadians, for example, its decision to eliminate the office of religious freedom and various other actions that have raised concerns, it just begs the question.

Maybe the member for Winnipeg North will want to answer it at some point. Why was the removal of section 176 from the Criminal Code included in the initial draft of this bill?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes I go back to three pieces of information if I ever want a giggle or two. First is the real change policy announced by the Prime Minister prior to the previous election; the second piece I get the giggle from is the Speech from the Throne; and the third one oftentimes is the ministerial mandate letters.

The hon. member brought up the issue of omnibus bills. By my count, this is at least the fourth omnibus bill we have seen. If we go back to the Liberal platform in 2015, the Liberals said they would change the House of Commons' Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic process, and yet here we are with another omnibus bill proposed by the Liberal government. It shows complete hypocrisy. Does the hon. member agree with that assessment?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very wise and thoughtful question by our deputy whip. I am always happy to pay compliments to my colleagues, but especially the deputy whip. It certainly is in my interest to do so.

Anyways, he is exactly right that the government is continually putting forward omnibus bills that are in direct violation of its election commitments. It should not be difficult to recognize that in some cases, it makes sense to have different elements in bills. Indeed, there are some cases where one can make an argument for that. However, the government is stretching any kind of reasonableness test. In any event, it is certainly going far beyond the commitments it made during the election.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Niagara Centre.

Bill C-51 deals with certain revisions to our Criminal Code that would impact our charter. These are two extraordinarily important laws in our country that have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. Like anything worth keeping, they require maintenance over time, so to speak. Bill C-51 would perform some of that much-needed maintenance.

The bill attempts to do three main categories of things. First and most important, in my opinion, it would provide much-needed clarity on the concept of consent when it comes to the criminal law with respect to sexual assault. It would also address certain zombie laws, as I have heard them referred to previously, that have been deemed unconstitutional by our nation's highest court or have become obsolete because of the social context in which we find our country today. Finally, it would require the justice minister to introduce a charter statement to declare compliance with our charter of any government bills introduced through that portfolio.

I will first go to the crux of the matter, in my opinion. Bill C-51 would provide desperately needed clarity on the criminal law on sexual assault. Before I deal with the specifics, I would like to share with the House that this is a social problem that is endemic in Canadian society. It impacts every community. I have had the good fortune of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and have heard directly from witnesses who have been impacted by and survived sexual assault what it has done to them personally. To the extent we in the House can help stamp it out, that is the very least we owe Canadians.

There are a number of measures the government has taken outside of the bill to help fight gender-based violence once and for all, including over $100 million introduced for a gender-based violence strategy. What the committee heard during its study on ending gender-based violence against young women and girls is that it is not simply about supporting victims. It is also about legislative reform, particularly in the criminal context.

We have a criminal law system that discriminates against complainants at every turn. We are so ill-equipped to deal with these kinds of cases that a vast majority of complainants choose not to report incidents of sexual assault at all, and those who do muster the courage do so knowing that the rate of conviction, the rate at which justice is granted, is small. It is hard to imagine why they would put themselves in the position of being questioned and re-victimized in the first place.

We have an opportunity to better our system, encourage more people to come forward, and ensure that justice is indeed granted in circumstances where that is possible. One way this may be achieved is through proposed section 273.1. It confirms the Regina v. J.A. decision, which explains quite simply that consent is required on an ongoing basis. Essentially, someone who is unconscious is not able to provide consent. The simplest message to anyone who might be listening at home is that if someone is having sexual relations with a person who is too drunk to consent or who is unconscious, that is not sex. That is rape, and we need to acknowledge it for what it is.

Proposed section 273.2 of this legislation would provide additional protections, reflecting the Supreme Court decision in Regina v. Ewanchuk in 1999, by making it absolutely clear in our criminal law that mistaken belief of the law cannot constitute consent. It is not okay to assume that a person has consented because someone else gave consent for the person. There needs to be a positive affirmation. One cannot assume that because a person consented in advance, the consent is ongoing. One cannot assume that a failure to resist a sexual advance constitutes consent. If those are the only lines of defence in a sexual assault case, a person should be found guilty under our law.

Importantly, Bill C-51 also deals with our well-established rape shield provisions. The twin myths I have heard discussed by different members in the House today explain that we cannot rely on the sexual history of a complainant to make findings as to his or her credibility or whether he or she has given consent in a given instance. Bill C-51 would expand this protection to ensure that communications sent with sexual content or for a sexual purpose were not used to perpetuate those same myths.

This is an added layer of protection that reflects the world we live in. In the 21st century, if consenting adults wish to send each other communications of a sexual nature or for a sexual purpose, that is their decision. However, the fact that someone has demonstrated that he or she was interested in sexual activity before cannot be used by a court to make a finding that he or she has given consent.

If I transposed this logic to any other social circumstance, I feel that just about everyone would get it. Without being flippant about an extraordinarily serious issue, after work I may join a colleague for a beer or have a glass of wine or two over dinner. However, if I am asked to go out for a drink on a given night and I say no, my friends understand that. I do not know why the same logic cannot be applied to sexual assault. Particularly for young men, again, if they are listening, just because a person has demonstrated a willingness to engage in sexual relations in the past, they should not assume that it is consent forever thereafter.

Some of the other themes touched on that I would like to address while I have the floor include these zombie laws. These laws create uncertainty and unnecessary expense in litigation and should be removed from the books. They largely reflect decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Cases of defamatory libel and cases involving evidentiary burdens and the reverse onus that have been dealt with by the Supreme Court will be reflected in law. I think, although I do not want to speak for everyone, that those provisions are unanimously supported by members of this House.

There are other matters that are completely obsolete in this day and age. I notice the provisions on challenging a person to a duel, which has a very interesting backstory in Nova Scotia involving our third premier, Joseph Howe, if anyone wants to take the time to read it. There is the crime of publishing crime comics. There is fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft. I think we will leave the discussion on people who are actually practising witchcraft for another day. I think members get the point. There are many laws that exist in our Criminal Code that really should be removed from the books.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that its laws comply with the charter. That brings me to the last theme addressed by Bill C-51. That is the obligation of the Minister of Justice to introduce a compliance statement, a charter statement, with new pieces of government legislation that impact that portfolio. This is a very positive exercise, in my opinion, and it is one that will enhance openness and transparency. It will allow Canadians to see that the government is stating, for the record, why it believes its laws are in compliance with the charter.

We sometimes fall into the trap, in different governments, in different parts of our nation's history, of putting forward laws that may seem popular to a voter base but may be contrary to the rights that are included, constitutionally, in Canadian law. This practice of introducing a statement on compliance with the charter is going to ensure that our government is subject to Canadian laws and that people are protected by it, not the other way around.

This proposed legislation has my full support, whether it is for making clear the provisions on consent in cases of sexual assault, whether it is removing from our charter specific provisions that should not be there, either because they are unconstitutional or obsolete, or whether it is the introduction of a charter statement. These are positive developments that are going to help make our criminal system more efficient and will help protect the charter rights of Canadians.