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

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point on the whole omnibus bill, even his defence of it not being an omnibus bill, is the very fact that this is what the Liberals ran on. They ran on the fact that they were not going to introduce omnibus bills, proceeded to introduce omnibus bills, and then said that it was bad when we did it but amazing when they did. That is the hypocrisy of all this. This is the whole frustration I have with the Liberal government.

There seems to be one rule for all Canadians. The Liberals have accused former governments of doing particular things just to get elected. Now that they are in government, they realize these are good tools that governments need to use in order to pass legislation. They are using those very tools. Then when we call them out on it, saying they promised in their platform they were not going to this, they say we did it too. It is ridiculous.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech had a lot of pop, although for reasons outside his control, it was a little less bright than the last speech given.

On the theme of omnibus bills, I think there is a misunderstanding. I wonder if some of my Conservative colleagues thought that what was offensive about omnibus bills was their simple length. I would argue that what defines an omnibus bill has more to do with what one might call its “thematic unity”, the number of different kinds of statutes it amends, and whether the issues are related one to the other.

Could he provide a little more clarity for the House? When Conservatives talk about omnibus bills, what do they take to be an omnibus bill? Is it defined by simple length alone, or does thematic unity play a role in determining whether a bill is an omnibus bill? If so, in what ways does thematic unity bear on the question of whether a bill is omnibus?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely my point. Again, it was not us saying that omnibus bills were a problem. It was the Liberals who championed this in their platform, and that is exactly what I am addressing today.

The definition of omnibus bill, as the Liberals put it out in their platform, was that it was legislation that amended more than one thing at one time. That is exactly what we have going on here today, legislation that amends several pieces of the law all the way through which are not necessarily tied together. If they wanted to repeal the entire Criminal Code and bring it back in, I guess that would not be bringing in something different and that would not be an omnibus bill.

However, we have this scattershot all-over-the-place bill that amends some things, takes some things out, puts other things in, and deletes other things altogether. In my terms, that is an omnibus bill. I feel like I am defending something I do not even want to defend. I do not really care if omnibus bills are introduced. This is what the Liberals championed. This is what they ran on in their platform. Why are they abandoning it today?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, who I think did a great job of expanding on this bill. It is indeed a real privilege for me to stand and speak about Bill C-51.

I think the last time I spoke about Bill C-51 was about two years ago when the Minister of Public Safety introduced it as an anti-terrorism measure. I was very happy to work on the public safety committee at that time and to be part of the committee work that brought that bill forward. It was indeed a wonderful piece of legislation, which I may remind the Liberals they wholeheartedly supported.

Today, Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill, as was previously mentioned. I Googled it just for the sake of understanding maybe what an omnibus is. It could be a four-wheeled bus. That is not the case here. It says “items previously published separately” is what constitutes a bill as being omnibus. Certainly this is an omnibus piece of legislation, something that the Liberals railed against during their time as the third party in this House.

From that perspective, we are going to talk about it a little more. It means that we are going to have to cover a bunch of unrelated items, but they are all stuck in this bill. The first part of the bill I would like to speak about is found in clause 14 of Bill C-51. It was introduced to remove section 176 of the Criminal Code.

For the benefit of the folks watching these proceedings, I would like to read the section as it is being presented. Subsection 176 (1) of the Criminal Code says:

(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,

Section 176 provides explicit protection in the Criminal Code. It makes it a crime to unlawfully obstruct, threaten, or harm a religious official, before, during, or after they perform a religious service. It also makes interrupting or disturbing a religious service a crime.

In a time when there is an increasing amount of violence directed against religious groups and religious gatherings, removing this section made little sense. Yet, for some reason, the Liberal government wanted to get rid of the only protection for Canadians performing and participating in a religious service.

The Liberals said that attending a religious service was no different than attending a lecture. However, the many and varied religious groups which exist in Canada came forward in one collective voice, speaking one collective message. The message was simple: religious services and members of the clergy require protection under the law because they are different in kind from other sorts of public gatherings.

Removing section 176 would treat the disruption of a religious service as a mere mischief charge. To religious Canadians, a religious service is more than just an event to attend; it is a formative experience to their individual and community identities. Disrupting such a ceremony is not a small matter, but an act which offends their most fundamental right to gather in a peaceful assembly while sharing their most cherished beliefs.

A mere mischief charge in a time of growing intolerance would not have been sufficient. Indeed, repealing section 176 seems to show an intellectual disconnect on the part of the Liberals.

I am wondering what they were thinking by removing section 176, at a time when we see religious persecution all over our globe. We have seen attacks on religious institutions here in Canada, and the Liberals want to remove the only explicit protection that members of faith institutions have while they are conducting a worship service.

I want to talk a little about my own personal experience, because I grew up as the son of a clergyman. I have a pretty good idea, at least in the Christian faith, of what a clergyman does, and what part of his duties are. I am sure it is similar in all faiths.

That is the beauty of section 176. It is not explicit to the Christian faith. This is protection for clergy and for worship services that applies to all faiths. Whether they are Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu or Muslim, this provides protection for members of the clergy. It provides protection in the Criminal Code for all forms of worship services.

I remember clearly as a young person, growing up and into my early adulthood, the time when my father was a pastor. My father died at the age of 51 from the same rare throat cancer that one of our colleagues passed away from earlier this year. He too had a son by the name of Theodore, as did my father. My father passed away at an early age, but I do remember the work that my father was engaged in and some of the things he did. One of the things he was obviously called upon to do as a pastor was to conduct worship services on a Sunday morning for his congregation, and that is something that section 176 of the Criminal Code clearly identifies will be protected.

Some of the other things were that when he had parishioners or members in the community who had experienced tragedy in their lives, who maybe had encountered some personal difficulties, found themselves in the hospital with a debilitating or life-threatening disease or facing death, often the clergy are called to administer comfort to those individuals. In my father's case, he was able to share the saving grace and power of the knowledge of knowing Jesus Christ with the individuals who were facing imminent death. It gave them reassurance and comfort to know they could put their faith in Jesus and have security and eternal life. These were functions that my father performed on a regular basis. I remember hospital visitation was very important to my father. Section 176 is something that would provide protection for clergy as they go to visit their parishioners, or members in their community who may be suffering from illness, or the illness of a family member.

Something else my father did was to conduct marriage ceremonies. It is an important part of everyday life when a man and woman decide they are in love and want to commit to spend the rest of their lives with each other. They call a member of their clergy and say that they would like to get married.

It is an exciting part of life, a new part of life, so the clergy are called upon to perform marriage counselling, which is part of the work that clergy do. They give marriage counselling, and it is a very important part of the work of the clergy. In the coming and going of their particular duties in performing marriage counselling, but also in performing the actual ceremony, the Criminal Code, through section 176, would provide protection.

One could ask how often that protection is required. People have been successfully prosecuted under section 176 for interfering in a religious or worship service, or also interfering with or obstructing clergymen in the dispatch of their duties. It is kind of like an insurance policy. The comfort of knowing it is there to provide protection for people and their loved ones is very reassuring, even though they obviously hope they do not need it. Certainly our hope, as Conservatives, would be that we would never have to experience a situation where section 176 of the Criminal Code is used. However, it certainly provides a deterrent for individuals from seeking to disrupt clergymen in the dispatch of their duties, disrupting a worship service, or disrupting worshippers and parishioners as they are in a gathering where they are encouraging one another and expressing their deeply held faith convictions, and worshipping the creator they serve.

There are lots of good reasons to support Bill C-51. Through many efforts of Canadians right across our country, who made their voices heard and their opinions known to the committee, to the justice minister, and to the Prime Minister, the Liberals listened. and they amended the bill. They are going to keep section 176 in Bill C-51. I am happy, as a Conservative, to support that bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague across the way. One of the things that our Prime Minister often talks about is the importance of our standing committees. When the standing committees get the opportunity to go over legislation, they are afforded the opportunity to listen to witnesses from different regions of our country.

At this committee, we saw a fairly accurate representation that went across all political party lines, as concerns and thoughts were expressed, not only at the committee, but also in the ridings of members of Parliament. I was contacted and had the opportunity to share my concerns in regard to it. Through the committee process, there was a sense of unanimous support that this could be improved if we not only repeal it, but also an amendment was made to expand and modernize it.

I wonder if my colleague could provide comment as to what degree we can see good productive work coming out the standing committees to better the legislation for all Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not often experience what we saw at the justice committee. Liberals have the majority and dominate every committee, and can really do as they please.

In this instance, I want to commend the Liberals, the NDP, and my Conservatives colleagues on the committee, for raising what was a very important concern regarding section 176 and the importance of keeping it in the Criminal Code.

The bill came to committee with a recommendation that the section be deleted from the Criminal Code. The committee, with an open mind, listened to witnesses from a variety of faith backgrounds, and other expert testimony. They considered it carefully. They heard from Canadians from sea to sea to sea. Canadians responded to this issue, and the committee listened carefully. Indeed, the Prime Minister gave them the latitude to amend the bill and keep section 176 in the Criminal Code.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how moving it was to hear my colleague talk about his father. He obviously loved him very much. I think what all of the members of the justice committee heard in terms of testimony was that people with faith see themselves being recognized in the Criminal Code with this section. That was why there was unanimous agreement from all parties to retain that section, and to even expand it. I would like to thank the hon. member for his participation in that effort.

Does he agree that the retention of section 176 is not only symbolic, but it allows communities to see that Canadians value their presence in this country?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I was very pleased to serve with him as the vice-chair for two years, and I respect his leadership and his chairmanship of that committee. He does an awesome job, and he takes a balanced approach. He is willing to listen, so I commend him on his role there.

I was happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-51 at his committee. He gave me the opportunity to ask questions to the witnesses in regard to leaving in section 176 of the Criminal Code.

I am disappointed that the justice minister even presented the bill with the removal of section 176. I do not know what in the world she was thinking, but it was a disappointment. When Canadians recognized that it was in there, when we as politicians brought it to their attention, they overwhelmingly responded to the justice committee, to the justice minister, to the Prime Minister. The committee listened and realized it is hugely important to Canadians that protection for religious services, for clergy, for religious officiants be enshrined in the Criminal Code. We need that protection. It is important to all Canadians that we have that freedom, and we want to protect that.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening to the description of omnibus bills and I must say that when I was on city council and we heard that the Conservative government of Stephen Harper was passing an omnibus bill, we were thrilled. We thought it was a transit plan. We were wrong. It was not a transit plan.

The comparison of that particular bill to this one is remarkable. This legislation would amend the Criminal Code. It is all contained within one single ministry. I will talk about the changes a bit later.

By comparison, Bill C-43, was close to 600 pages long. This will perhaps help some members of the New Democratic Party to remember what a real omnibus bill looks like, especially if they are new to the legislature.

Let me read some of the acts that were changed by Bill C-43: the Income Tax Act, the child fitness tax credit, the Income Tax Regulations, and the Excise Tax Act. A selected list of financial institutions was impacted as was the Excise Act, 2001.

There was intellectual property, the Industrial Design Act, and the amendments to the act and exclusive right. There was also the Patent Act and the biological materials. There was also the Aeronautics Act, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act and the enactment of act for that. As well, there were transitional provisions, consequential amendments, and the Access to Information Act.

To continue, there was the Financial Administration Act; the Privacy Act; the Public Service Superannuation Act; the Criminal Code, which is what we are dealing with here today, one single act. As well, there was the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act; the Radiocommunication Act; administrative monetary penalties; the Revolving Funds Act, with an amendment to that as well.

Under the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration there was another set of acts and that is when the government went to court and pulled this out because the Supreme Court overruled some of the government's changes to the Criminal Code nine times. The government pulled medical assistance and health care for refugees, one of the cruellest acts of Parliament in the history of this country. That was buried in the middle of Bill C-43.

I am not even halfway through the list of acts that were amended by Bill C-43.

The Royal Canadian Mint Act was impacted by the omnibus bill. There was the Investment Canada Act with amendments as well. There were also related amendments to the economic action plan. The Broadcasting Act was hit, as was the Telecommunications Act. There was the amendment to the general administrative monetary penalties. There were also provisions for both administrative monetary penalties schemes and coordinating amendments. The list goes on.

The Northwest Territories Act was impacted. The Employment Insurance Act was touched. The government even opened up the Canada-Chile free trade agreement. There was the Canada Marine Act, where marine ports were given legislative powers and planning powers that superceded municipalities. Nobody was consulted on that. Members were not even consulted on the Canada Marine Act. That was one of the most egregious things that the Conservative government did.

That government gave power to the port authorities to basically override and ignore local planning authorities, local decisions, and local plans made on any property that it acquired. In other words, the government could rezone property retroactively after it purchased it, which meant it could buy low-income property, property with low purchase prices, and then suddenly turn it into something much more valuable, like residential property, in order to turn a profit so it could then fund its programs. The government could not actually fund its programs based on the way the Canada Marine Act was configured. This drove cities across the country insane because it was so ill-conceived. It ran so roughshod over local planning and local real estate laws. It was amazing. At the end, the government had to pull many of those provisions off the table because it was such an egregious piece of legislation.

There were also changes to the DNA Identification Act. There were amendments to the act and establishment and contents. There was the comparison of profiles and communication. There was also the removal of access to information that was changed. The list goes on.

There was the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. There was also the Public Health Agency. The Conservative government split the position of the chief of the Public Health Agency of this country into two, one who reported to cabinet and one who reported directly to the government.

Bill C-43 was a budget bill by the way. All of the acts they changed were administrative changes made to important parts of the department. The Conservatives also reduced the fees for bee breeding, one of my favourites.

They also increased tax on hospital parking. They thought if someone was going to visit his or her mother in hospital and they could find a way to tax that visit, they would do that. That was part of the omnibus bill.

What we said in our campaign promise was explicit. We said that budget bills would remain budget bills. Much of what the NDP complains about when they talk about omnibus bills is our budget enactment bills, which are omnibus bills by their very nature. They are exactly the kind we promised to sustain.

Budgets are not done one clause at a time. When fundamental policies across the breadth of government are changed, it is a coordinated budget, a coordinated piece of legislation, and we exempted that from our prohibition on omnibus acts. The legislation we introduced to prevent omnibus acts, which the opposition has used effectively in this term of Parliament, excludes budget acts for the very reason that a budget has to be passed all at once, otherwise we end up with a thousand votes and a thousand clauses.

I wait to see an NDP government in B.C. pass the budget clause-by-clause. It will take it six years to do that, and my sense after today's decision on the dam is that it may not have six years.

The issue we are talking about here today is reforms to the Criminal Code. The reforms are extraordinarily important. There are some elements of the code that are nuisance laws. There is a law prohibiting crime comics in our country. That would be taken away. There are rules and regulations that have existed and been on the books for a number of years that just do not make sense anymore. Those would be cleaned up as part of this process.

However, we are also bringing forth some critically important changes to the way sexual assault is prosecuted in the courts. We are taking steps to protect women and other vulnerable individuals who are sexually assaulted. Those deal with a comprehensive set of rules and regulations that tie together evidence laws and some of the practices and procedures in the court system. They need to be brought together in a bill because that is the way it is done. If we are going to make comprehensive change, we have to unite the issues and items that are related under a single ministry, or statute, or a single set of laws, like the Criminal Code, and make those changes as part of a comprehensive process. That is what is happening. This is not an omnibus bill. These are amendments to the Criminal Code. This is a legal bill coming from the Minister of Justice, and it is an appropriate set of bills.

The last thing I want to talk about is the changes to be made. I was a member of Parliament in the last session and watched as committees refused to entertain any conversation with anyone. That included not only the opposition but the witnesses. There were a number of times when Conservative members would come and tell me there was a mistake made in the drafting of legislation. I remember one instance dealing pharmacare and pharmacy regulations. Every single witness, the doctors, the hospitals, the patients' rights groups, the medical officials, and the science community, came forward and said “You made a small mistake here”. One of the opposition members said, “I know we've made that mistake, but we're not allowed to fix it. The Senate has said it will entertain no motions of change, at all, ever”. In fact, we would be hard pressed to find an amendment that was made to any bill that was printed for any committee over the last four years.

What we have in this process is a piece of legislation that was drafted. Through the committee process, with good evidence from Canadians coming forward, and our listening to that evidence, and members of the opposition and members of the government talking about how to make a bill better, which is in fact the committee process, rules were changed and the law was changed. That is as it should be. The notion that we can land a piece of legislation perfectly and never make a change to it ever again is absurd. It is the wrong way to approach Parliament. It is the wrong way to approach committees.

It does not mean that every opposition motion or amendment will be passed. That is wishful thinking, quite frankly. What it does mean is that when a good suggestion comes forward, the committee should seize that issue and the points raised and modify laws. That is the way a good committee process works. That is the way a good Parliament works, and we are being told we are weak or made a mistake because we did that.

The previous government was arrogant. We saw time and again the Harper government land legislation that it deemed to be perfect and not to be debated in the House, let alone changed at committee level and listened to by Canadians. Even the Senate, where they had a majority, would not entertain motions of change. The legislation was paralyzed from point of introduction to point of enactment. That is not good democracy. That is not good government, and that certainly is not a good parliamentary process.

Yes, a motion was changed. I expect good debate to change motions and to make them better, because as the Prime Minister often says, “better is always possible”. The opposite side often has good ideas. I have sat with them in conversation about a number of different projects and proposals, and asked them to get us to a better spot, because as I said, that is the way good legislation emerges.

We are here to listen and to talk. We are here to debate. We are also here to have conversations, and when those conversations result in reasonable propositions coming forward that fix legislation and make it better, our government, as a good government, is always going to be there to listen to Canadians, parliamentarians, and caucus. It will listen to differing views on all sides of the issues. I am proud to be part of a government that does that.

I am also proud to be part of a government that has put procedural mechanisms in place for House so that when a complex bill moves forward and the Speaker is asked to rule on whether or not it is an omnibus bill, there is a methodology, a process, that will allow that bill to be split so that members can vote differently on different parts of the legislation. That is not a bad thing, but a good thing. It does not mean that every one of the bills we present will be perfect. We are not expecting perfection on any side of the House. What we are looking for is honest effort, good contributions, solid thinking, wise Canadians being brought to Parliament to participate in the committee process so that all Canadians when they see legislation passed can see their voice reflected.

I want to remind the House about the omnibus legislation the opposition talks about. It is ludicrous to suggest that a budget cannot be passed unless there is clause by clause. Budgets are complete sets of expenditures, programs, and development. That is how they will be presented. The opposition can hue and cry about it all it wants, but it is wrong.

It is wrong on this legislation. It is wrong to characterize the other complex bills as omnibus simply because several ideas under a single ministry are brought together as a comprehensive set of reforms. That kind of complaint is really just wrong. A former New Democrat in Toronto used to talk about it and said that when the opposition complained about the process, it had conceded the argument. All it is trying to do now is just dumb us up with a conversation about process. We have seen that happen a couple of times in the House this session.

When legislation is brought forward that gives the opposition the right to challenge it as omnibus, it can avail itself of that process. Why is the opposition not doing it on this bill? It is because on this bill the opposition happens to understand why the bill is being brought into concert. It understands the process it went through as it went through the committee. We can actually hear the opposition members say that they effectively support the bill.

What are the opposition members talking about when they complain about the bill. They are complaining about something that was taken out already. In other words, they are complaining about being listened to. If the opposition members are going to be complaining about being listened to, how else are we going to engage with them, if they are not going to talk to us anymore? How else can we engage with them? When we listen to them, it is a good thing. They should be thanking us for it. Instead what the opposition members are trying to do is knock us down because of it. That is absurd.

This legislation, which is on its last few hours of debate, is an incredibly important for the reform of the way sexual assault is treated in the legal system. It also gets rid of a bunch of laws that really should not be on the books anymore. Every now and then governments need to do that as part of the Criminal Code reform.

At the end of the day, the legislation will be supported by the bulk of the members in the House, based on the speeches I have heard today, because government in fact did work with consensus, did work with the committee, and did work with the committee chair to make the changes that needed to made. For that, I am happy.

However, if the opposition members would like to go back to debating omnibus bill, I have Bill C-43 in front of me. I also have the other omnibus bills the Conservatives passed. If the members want disconnected pieces of legislation that go off in all directions at once, with sound and fury signifying, unfortunately, too much and too little, members can refer back to the previous Parliament. Then we can talk about real omnibus legislation. Real changes to fundamental policies that affected Canadians were slipped in, not mentioned in the budget speech, not printed in the budget book, not brought together as a cohesive or coherent economic argument, but simply added to a budget bill, and then made into a mandatory vote with no changes being proposed at committee.

That is what an omnibus bill is. This is not an omnibus bill under any definition of the word.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had to stand because of the speech my colleague just gave. He talked about how his government was open to amendments proposed by the opposition. Let me share an experience that counters what the member has said.

In my committee, I brought forward a number of amendments to a bill that the government brought forward. The amendments were actually recommended by the majority Liberal committee, yet my committee, which is a majority Liberal committee, rejected those amendments.

Perhaps the member could explain this to me. What is the purpose of members of the opposition working hard, looking at a bill, looking at what committees are recommending, considering what witnesses have said to strengthen to the bill, and then just flat out rejecting them, presumably, because the government of day does not want any amendments.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the particular amendments to which the member is speaking.

I know as a parliamentary secretary, it is expected that I vote with the government each and every time, yet I know I have the freedom to stand in the House and support amendments that are tabled and opposition private member's bills. We have much more latitude as a government than I think any other party that has ever ruled has had.

When it comes to the particular committee and the particular amendments, without being given the exact example, it is hard to comment specifically.

What I do know is that in the process of evaluating opposition proposed amendments, consultation happens. We do not just consult with the people who appear at the committee. We also talk to staff members in departments. We also talk to other members of caucus. Sometimes unintended consequences of proposed legislation gets a reconsideration.

I have talked to members of the opposite side. Fundamentally sound amendments that come forward with which we agree, we will vote for and support. We do not look at the origin of the amendment in order to support it. We take a look at the essence of the amendment, the essence of how that amendment might affect the legislation that is in front of us, and we make a public decision about what we can and cannot support. It is a dialogue.

I assure the member opposite that reasonable amendments we can come to a consensus on will get the support of members. If we disagree with them, we will not support them. I sit as the parliamentary secretary on a committee and I have never told a single member of that committee how to vote.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour of serving as one of the vice-chairs on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have been on a few committees, but I have to honestly say that I have never had a better experience than being on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in this Parliament. Everyone who serves on the committee approaches their job with a lot of care, compassion, and responsibility, and it is because of the nature of the subject matter that comes before committee.

My experience, whether dealing with various studies on access to justice or criminal justice bills, has always been a positive one and I feel there are always good conversations in that respect. We made some good amendments that reflected the popular will of the people, notably with section 176. I received an avalanche of correspondence from people all across the country, for whom section 176 had deep, symbolic value. I am glad that all parties could come to an agreement on leaving that section in.

The Minister of Justice has stated many times that criminal justice reform is very important to the Liberal government. As we are about to send Bill C-51 off to the other place, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment on the status of Bill C-39, because that has some incredibly important provisions that need to be amended in the Criminal Code. We have heard reference to the Vader case, in which an incorrect verdict was rendered because of an obsolete section of the Criminal Code. It also deals with a section that still criminalizes abortion.

If criminal justice reform is so important to the government and we are now past the two-year mark, can he offer any insight as to when we will see further steps in the government's agenda on criminal justice reform?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, criminal justice reform, after 10 years of the previous government, is badly needed. I see the impacts of it in the city that I represent daily, monthly, and yearly. As we move forward with a new approach to criminal justice, we will see collections of bills move forward under the Minister of Justice.

One of the issues I am concerned about is the arbitrariness with which judges are being treated and some of the mandatory minimum sentences that would remove the ability of judges to do what they are paid to do, which is to listen to evidence and make decisions based on evidence presented in court, not ideology presented on the floor of Parliament. It does not mean that all mandatory sentences are bad. In extraordinarily serious cases, we know there are standards that society expects us to sustain. However, in my city, there is a situation where, quite often, young people charged with having guns are on a five-year cycle of going into jail and coming out together. We can almost guess, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, year by year, which community is going to be impacted, because five years earlier there was a raid in that community. Everyone goes into prison together, everyone comes out together, and there has been very little reform.

We also know that in the criminal justice system a lot of the programs were cancelled. It was not just the prison farms that were cancelled, a lot of the reform practices in the Canadian penitentiary system were stripped as part of budget cuts, and it has left inmates coming out of prison, having served their time, in a horrible state. We know there need to be changes in a whole series of those fronts.

We also know that in Ontario, in particular, the incarceration rate for Canadians of African descent, black Canadians, is off the chart. Young people in our cities who are of Caribbean or African descent and have been here for 200 to 300 years are being charged differently, sentenced differently, and do their time differently. We know that criminal justice needs to be reformed.

I look forward to conversations with the committee, which is clearly working well, and to the amendments that I know the justice minister is working on, to bring forward some of these changes so that our criminal justice system not only protects Canadians, but also reforms criminals to prevent us from having to deal with repeat offenders. We need to make sure we get smart on crime, not just tough on crime. The previous government was so convinced that it could punish its way into a safer Canada that, quite frankly, it lost sight of the fact that we need to reform prisoners and change their behaviour, because they will get out at some point.

The way people go through the prison system also needs to be changed, and that involves not having mandatory minimum sentences necessarily, but the appropriate sentences with the appropriate reforms and appropriate rehabilitation put in place so that we protect people and also protect society in the long run. When I hear the opposition talking about a collaborative process and a process of consensus, it makes me very happy that the conversations are going to be rich ones and will bring the full experience of all Canadians to the table when decisions are made.

I look forward to the legislation that the member is talking about being further debated, as well as other changes to the Criminal Code moving forward, because, as I said, we need to get smart on crime, not just tough on crime. We need to make Canada safe, but we also need to make sure we keep Canada safe by making sure the prison system does not create more criminals.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the thoughts of the parliamentary secretary on the one part of this bill that does not simply make amendments to the Criminal Code, but to the Department of Justice Act. That, I guess, is why some are calling it an omnibus bill, though I do not agree with that. I am referring to the requirement that a charter statement accompany every government bill, whether it is with respect to criminal or non-criminal law. Does the member thinks that really adds much value to the way we do business in this House?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it does. When we surface the charter and the way it frames legislation, it gives us a sense that the laws presented here have been thought of in the context of the charter.

In the previous sessions of Parliament, we saw bills that were immediately struck down by the Supreme Court. While the Harper government loved to jump up and shout about its wonderful legislation, the reality was that the legislation was not charter-compliant. As a result, people's lives were impacted. A lot of time was wasted, quite frankly, because the previous government did not respect the charter when it drafted legislation. While not every single bill necessarily has a weighty argument attached to it, I think every bill that is drafted and presented as law or government policy should be charter-compliant. It should be screened against that, because it adds information and context, rather than our simply guessing whether it is charter-compliant. We would know what the government lawyers and the departments thought of the legislation as they drafted it, which is good information to have. It does not mean that it necessarily is charter-compliant. The judges have a role and the judiciary have a role, but it is a worthy comparison.

I also think that with very contentious issues, it is important to think about the charter at the beginning of the process, not after a bill has gone through the Senate and on to royal assent. It is part of an enriched environment that puts the charter at the centre of what we do here, which means that people's rights will be at the centre of what we do. As we can see from our national housing strategy, that is the way this government likes to roll.