Bill S-240 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs.

Bill C-75—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-75 was introduced on the day before Good Friday in an effort to hide from Canadians what was in the bill. Now, after just two sitting days, the government is already bringing in time allocation at report stage. It is absolutely shameful.

At the justice committee, Liberal MPs were right to back down from the reclassification of terrorism and inciting genocide. However, shockingly, the Liberals have doubled down when it comes to the hybridization of what are currently serious indictable offences, including human trafficking, impaired driving causing bodily harm and kidnapping a minor, just to name a few.

Does the minister not agree that these are also serious offences? Does she not agree with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre when he said, “Let's be serious....We're talking about terrorism. We're talking about very serious offences.”? Why does the minister not also treat impaired driving causing bodily harm, human trafficking and other offences as serious offences?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to rise to talk about Bill C-75, the importance of the bill and the intent behind the bill.

There is absolutely nothing that our government is trying to hide with respect to the major bold reforms we are seeking in Bill C-75 to the criminal justice system to answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan and other decisions to create efficiencies and promote the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. That is precisely what we are doing in Bill C-75. Since we formed government, this has been considered through very robust consultations.

I appreciate the discussions, the considerations and listening to 95 witnesses at the House of Commons committee on justice and human rights, who provided very substantial feedback.

With respect to the member opposite's question with respect to the hybridization of offences, serious offences will continue to be treated seriously. The hybridization of offences does nothing to change the fundamental principles of sentencing.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a fairly lengthy bill, and although it corrects some problems, it creates others. The government is trying to improve the justice system and make it work better, but unfortunately, this bill creates two new problems for every problem it resolves or situation it improves.

Does the minister not believe that we should take the time to resolve all of the new problems the bill creates before passing it, so that we do not end up with new problems that will cause further court delays?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that this is a large and significant bill. The bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to answer the call of the Prime Minister to me in my mandate letter and our government's commitment to transform the criminal justice system and create efficiencies and effectiveness in that system.

The member opposite stated that this bill would solve some problems but create others. I disagree with that statement. This legislation and the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation in March of this year was the result of significant consultation right across the country through round tables. I have personally engaged in three federal, provincial and territorial meetings with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, all of whom are supportive of the robust and bold changes in Bill C-75.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I reflect back on the campaign of 2015, and sitting in many all-candidates debates, I remember hearing so clearly that if the Liberals became the government they would not bring in closure or time allocation and they would get rid of the practice of introducing omnibus bills in Parliament. Here we have those things being brokered at the same time.

In Bill C-75 there are some serious offences that will be downgraded to hybrid offences which gives the discretion to prosecute them as summary convictions, such as obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman and blood alcohol over the legal limit. We know the scourge of impaired driving on our streets and it is unbelievable that the government would actually reduce this offence.

I am not as concerned right now about those particular items as I am concerned about the fact that the government is intent on shutting down debate on a very serious issue when all parliamentarians should have the option of giving their views and letting their constituents know their views.

Why is the government so intent on shutting down debate on this important issue?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government is committed to working co-operatively with all members of the House.

With respect to Bill C-75, I would point out that there has been a total of seven hours and 45 minutes of debate in the House. The bill went to committee, where there was major discussion among committee members, and I thank them for that discussion. The committee heard from 95 witnesses. Twenty-seven hours of discussion and debate happened at committee. I thank members for the suggested amendments, many of which were accepted by the government.

Bill C-75 is a robust bill which proposes to amend the Criminal Code. It is not an omnibus piece of legislation. It seeks to address Criminal Code changes.

To comments by the member opposite around serious offences, under this legislation serious offences would still be prosecuted in a serious manner.

I am glad the member raised impaired driving. I am very pleased that our government was able to pass Bill C-46, major legislation to create in Canada among the toughest impaired driving laws in the world. I appreciate the member's bringing that up.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her answers.

Since the start of this debate on yet another time allocation motion, several members have commented on the complexity of this bill and the fact that it covers many issues we need to discuss. We should also talk about what is not in the bill. For example, the NDP has talked about how the government broke its promise to deal with mandatory minimum sentences.

The minister thanked the committee for its work. That is great, but the reason the committee took so long and was so thorough and heard from so many witnesses is that the bill is very complex, as I said just now.

I would like the minister to explain why she wants a time allocation motion for such a complex bill.

I spoke during debate on this bill. I had 10 minutes instead of 20. I thought 10 minutes would be enough time to say everything I wanted to say, but before I knew it, the Speaker was raising her hand to signal that my time was up. That is how it goes in the House. The point is, 10 minutes, even 20 minutes, is not enough time to talk about everything in this bill.

How can the minister suggest that all parliamentarians will have enough time to dig into this extremely important and complex issue if there is a time allocation motion and so little debate?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of time allocation, but more important to ensure that Bill C-75 proceeds, we are committed to working with all members of this House. We appreciate the discussion and debate that came from the justice committee and look forward to the discussion that will happen in the other place.

Bill C-75 is about addressing delays in the criminal justice system and creating efficiencies and effectiveness. It is our responsibility to address the call of the Supreme Court of Canada to address the delays that exist in the criminal justice system. Bill C-75 is in response to that.

Yes, this is a large piece of legislation. It has benefited from 27-plus hours of debate at committee. I look forward to continued discussions in this regard.

In terms of the member's question around mandatory minimum penalties, we are continuing to work on sentencing reform. This is a commitment that our government has made and we will continue that discussion and bring forward changes in due course.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, as an individual who sat in on those committee meetings, I would ask the minister if she could elaborate on the extensive analysis that was done after that 27 hours of deliberation by the committee. Perhaps she could comment on the committee amendments that were accepted, specifically with respect to paralegals and with respect to routine police evidence, two issues that I know are near and dear to the mandate of this government and the mandate of the minister in terms of increasing access to justice.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to stand up to acknowledge and appreciate the work that was done by all members of the justice and human rights committee in bringing forward many amendments. In fact, 50 motions to amend Bill C-75 were adopted.

The amendment brought forward to remove routine police evidence by way of affidavit was something our government recognized, along with the testimony of many people who came before the committee. We were able to accept that amendment.

In terms of agent representation, some of the changes that are contained within Bill C-75 raised concerns among many stakeholders who came before the justice committee about the inability to have agent representation because of the increase of offence penalties. We have accepted amendments from committee to provide for that to give provinces and territories the ability to determine agents in terms of representation of various offences.

Again, I appreciate the input on other amendments as well from the committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as this debate is on the issue of time allocation as opposed to the substance of the bill itself, I want to address my comments to the Minister of Justice, but of course it is pertinent to the government House leader and all House leaders.

The use of time allocation used to be exceptional. In the 41st Parliament, those Liberals, who were then in opposition, joined everyone in the opposition to oppose the routine use of time allocation. However, it has remained routine. This is not healthy in a democracy and I put the blame squarely on poor relationships and lack of trust between the House leaders of the recognized parties in this place in being able to work together to properly assess which bills need more time and which bills could be dealt with more quickly.

I believe it would be a tonic and help solve the problem if this place returned to the rules we currently have that are in disuse which say that no member of Parliament can read a speech. Those are our rules but we no longer pay attention to them. If we did not have the ability to read a speech, then political parties in this place would not be able to line up their MPs, those who have no background on a bill, hand them a speech and tell them to read it in order to use up time.

I would encourage the Minister of Justice to speak with thegovernment House leader and all people in this place to consider if we could not make Parliament work better by returning to our actual rules that members cannot just stand up and read a speech and that they must know the subject.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will say that it is the commitment of our government to work co-operatively with all members in this House to ensure that we have robust debate on bills we are putting forward. There has been substantial discussion on Bill C-75 in this House and at committee.

I recognize and acknowledge the member's comments and concerns. I will follow up and speak to the government House leader.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, it would be a good way to celebrate National Child Day if a human trafficking bill had no time allocation. The minister wants to rush the bill through without discussing details as to how to protect seniors and children. It is shameful.

Time allocation should not be used because we, as members of Parliament representing our own ridings, have the right to speak and represent our constituents and rushing this bill through would only endanger all communities. I really question the intentions of the minister and the government House leader in limiting members' privilege to debate a very complex and important bill in the House.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's appreciation of the importance of this legislation and having Bill C-75 move through the parliamentary process and be passed in order to address the delays in the criminal justice system and to answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is a priority for this government and I would hope it is a priority for all members in the House.

There has been a lot of debate and discussion. As I have said, at committee there were some 27 hours of debate and discussion. I very much appreciate, as does the government, the feedback and amendments that came from committee, the additional amendments requested by stakeholders and voted on by committee members, that would repeal vagrancy and bawdy house offences.

I thank the committee once again for all of its input and the amendments put forward that improve this legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is another sad day in Parliament. We remember back in 2015 the Prime Minister made a commitment to change Parliament from the incredibly stubborn actions of the former government of Stephen Harper and put into place provisions that allowed for democratic debate.

Close to 40 closure motions have now been brought forward in this Parliament by the Liberal government. It is called time allocation, but that is splitting hairs. It is closure. It is shutting down the right to debate in the House of Commons. At the same time as closure is being enacted in the House of Commons, at the finance committee, Liberal representatives are systematically defeating all of the opposition amendments designed to improve the major flaws in the budget implementation bill, huge omnibus legislation that has been given scant hours of treatment and where Liberal MPs are simply voting down any improvements to the legislation. This means it will have to be tested by the courts, as we saw under the Stephen Harper government. The Liberals are going right back to the kinds of practices that Canadians deplore. They are doubling down.

We have this piece of legislation, and the minister admits that the vast majority of amendments to it were refused. Yes, there were witnesses, but the Liberals were not listening to the witnesses.

My question is very simple. Why have the Liberals enacted all of the worst practices of the Stephen Harper government to ram legislation through without due consideration in this Parliament?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to stand to address the comments made by the member opposite, and I dispute his comments completely.

In terms of not listening to witnesses, that is absolutely not true. My parliamentary secretary and all members of the justice committee had the benefit of hearing from 95 witnesses at the justice and human rights committee, all of whom spoke about their passion for criminal justice reform and made very concrete suggestions about how the bill could be improved. We accepted many of those recommendations that I believe have very significantly improved Bill C-75. I look forward to continued debate and discussion as this bill goes to the other place.

On top of all of the discussion that happened in this House and at committee, we engaged in discussions and consultations right across the country with criminal justice stakeholders. I engaged on an ongoing basis with my counterparts in the provinces and territories, all of whom are supportive of the bold reforms that we are proposing in Bill C-75.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this time allocation, this time limit on this bill. The minister is boasting about how there has been so much consultation and time allowed already. She talked about seven hours of debate. With over 300 members in this chamber, that breaks down to about a minute and 20 seconds per member. We know that the time for debate cannot be broken down that finely, so it will mean that many members will not even have an opportunity to speak on this bill.

I would have liked to have had a chance to speak on this bill because I lost a brother to a drunk driver. Yes, I lost a brother to a drunk driver, and this bill would cut back on the penalties for drunk driving. I will not have a chance to speak in this House because of her time allocation today. How can one minute and 20 seconds be considered fair debate for a bill of over 300 pages?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I will stand to speak to the nature of Bill C-75 and the substantial discussion and consultations we have had for the last three years on the very elements of Bill C-75. I understand and recognize the desire of members to speak to this important piece of legislation. Many members from the party opposite have risen in this House to speak to this legislation and during the many hours of debate and discussion that occurred at the justice and human rights committee.

As members in this House, we have an obligation to move forward and answer the call of the Supreme Court of Canada to address delays in the criminal justice system. Bill C-75 would do just that, in a comprehensive way. I look to all members of this House to support this important piece of legislation moving forward.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice, this is a comprehensive piece of legislation that would help to improve the criminal justice system. We have used time allocation, and it is an important component of allowing us to advance the work Canadians have brought us here to do. This legislation, along with the appointments that the minister has made across the country, have helped to ensure our criminal justice system will be efficient and move forward in a very effective way.

Could the minister comment further on how this piece of legislation has been thoroughly reviewed by Canadians who have spoken at committee and when it has been debated in the House, and why this piece of legislation would help improve the efficiency of our justice system?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments on the importance of answering the call of Canadians, the call of the Supreme Court, to move forward with criminal justice reform that would address delays in the criminal justice system. To speak to the member's specific questions about what has gone into Bill C-75, in the lead-up to the introduction in March of this year I conducted, and my parliamentary secretary participated in, round tables across the country. We conducted online surveys and had requests for feedback. We received thousands of responses and we produced a report of what we heard. We benefited from ongoing discussions, as well as reports from years ago by the Senate committee, on what we can do to improve delays in the criminal justice system. We have incorporated many of the recommendations from the other place into Bill C-75. Again, I want to highlight the discussions and debate that occurred in this House, the robust discussion that happened at committee with the 95 witnesses heard, the 27 hours of debate and discussion we benefited from, and improving the bill through various amendments that came from the committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a new member in this House of Commons, I remember campaigning at some of the campaign stops where the minister was also present. We all talked about how we needed to see a government that was different from the Harper government and that would do things differently. The minister advocated for and campaigned on real change. The Prime Minister of today made a commitment, and part of that commitment is that we will no longer engage in the practice the Harper administration embarked on, which is to shut down debate.

Surely, the minister understands how fundamentally important that is to our democracy. It was something she campaigned on and advocated for in public. However, here we are having seen bill after bill where debate was shut down, this bill being another one of them. The minister talked about consultation before the bill was introduced. However, now that the bill is here, as a member, I have not had a chance to engage in this debate. I would very much like to. I am not part of the committee that engaged in the discussion around that. As the minister knows, only one member from the NDP is allowed on that committee so many of us have been excluded from that process. How is that a new way of business? How is it good for democracy when the government consistently shuts down debate, including on this bill?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do remember going on campaign stops before the election, talking about doing things differently. In fact, our government is doing things differently.

We have engaged in consultation for the past three years. There was a lot of discussion at committee. There was a lot of discussion in this House. I would be very happy to sit down with the member opposite to talk more about Bill C-75 and the provisions that are contained therein.

Again, we are doing things differently. We have fundamentally changed the way that we engage with Canadians. I look forward to the discussion and debate in the other place. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that our legislation moves through the parliamentary process so we address the desires and the needs of Canadians, and we address the delays in the criminal justice system. We made a commitment as a government to heed the call of the Supreme Court of Canada to address delays.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is really important to me that we are having this discussion. I do wish there would be a different outcome than what is going to take place.

The reality is that time allocation in this circumstance is simply moving forward legislation that the government wants and that, quite honestly, Canadians are not in favour of.

We represent the House of Commons, the common people who want to be heard, and who, in the course of the last three years, have engaged more in this process than they have considerably over time in the past, because of the frustration that we are not having opportunities to present in this House and to argue the scenarios the way that we should.

The comments from the minister indicate that this is to meet the desires of Canadians, to deal with delays and create efficiencies, when Canadians are saying, over and over again, that this is downloading to the provincial courts. It is not improving efficiencies. It is causing issues—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Excuse me, Madam Speaker, a number of people have had significant opportunity to speak. I would like to finish.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that I am looking at the clock. I am trying to give members about a minute each to ask questions, and the same for the response. These are questions and comments, and a lot of people want to participate. I would ask the member to ask her question.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the government. Why is it choosing to not listen to Canadians?

It is not enough to simply take notes and then do what it wants to do regardless, when Canadians are incredibly unhappy with the direction that this is going on their behalf.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I appreciate the comments and the opportunity to respond to the comments.

The member opposite asked what this is achieving. What is Bill C-75 achieving? It is achieving the necessity of addressing delays in the criminal justice system, achieving efficiencies and effectiveness.

Again, I disagree with the characterization that Canadians are not supportive of this. We have done substantial consultation right across the country. In terms of the member opposite's comments about downloading to the provinces, I would like to inform the member opposite that I have been working with the provinces and territories on an ongoing basis for three years, and they are supportive of this. This is not a download on the provinces and territories. This is co-operative federalism at its best, around the administration of justice, to ensure that we do everything we can as actors in the criminal justice system to heed the call of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This has robust support right across the country.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that the hybridization has nothing to do with sentencing, because the sentencing principles will remain the same. Well, no kidding, the sentencing principles will remain the same. What is changing is that the maximum sentence would go from 10 years to two years less a day.

In light of that, how does the hybridization have nothing to do with sentencing?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the hybridization of offences, the reclassification of offences, again, this was supported by my counterparts in the provinces and territories. This does nothing to change the fundamental principles of sentencing.

Serious offences will be treated by the courts and prosecutors as serious. What this does is give the necessary discretion to prosecutors to proceed based on the circumstances of the individual case in the most effective way possible. This does not change how serious offences will be approached, and any characterization otherwise is a mischaracterization.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #938

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-75. I would like to use my time today to discuss the proposed changes to this bill that would affect the LGBTQ2 community, human trafficking and the victim surcharge.

As special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, I am particularly proud of the work of our government in advancing the rights of LBGTQ2 Canadians and the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in making concrete, tangible legislative changes that would improve the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit Canadians.

Today, on the the International Transgender Day of Remembrance, when we pause to reflect on the lives of transgender people here in Canada and around the world that have been lost to murder, suicide, hatred and discrimination; the lives diminished due to overt transphobia and misogyny; and the daily discrimination faced by trans children, siblings, parents and their loved ones, I am proud, as the first openly gay MP elected from Alberta to the House, that Parliament passed Bill C-16 to protect trans persons in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am particularly proud that our government led this charge.

I am also proud of the work of our government in passing legislation to enable Canadians who have criminal records for same-sex consensual activity to have these records expunged, and I acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on this file.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada for including in Bill C-75 the removal of section 159, which discriminates against young gay or bisexual men. That would now be removed from the Criminal Code with the passing of Bill C-75.

I also applaud the work of the committee and the ministry in responding to expert testimony for the repeal of the bawdy house and vagrancy provisions that were used by police forces to arrest gay men who frequented gay clubs and bathhouses. Men arrested in these police raids, many now in their 60s, 70s and 80s, still face criminal records as a result of these charges. We heard the testimony, and the committee and the ministry responded. Should Bill C-75 pass, these odious provisions in the Criminal Code would be removed and amends could thus be made.

Parts of the bill pertain to human trafficking and the victim surcharge.

I think it is very important to clearly state that human trafficking cannot be tolerated and that our government sees it as a very serious concern. That is why we continue to work closely with the provinces, territories, law enforcement agencies, victim services groups, organizations representing indigenous peoples, and other community groups, as well as our international partners. We are working together to combat all forms of human trafficking in Canada and abroad, to provide victims with special protection and support, to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice and to ensure that their punishment reflects the severity of the crime.

Human trafficking is a very difficult crime to detect because of its clandestine nature and victims' reluctance to report their situations out of fear of their traffickers. We heard testimony about that when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights travelled across the country to listen to victims of human trafficking and to see how we could change the Criminal Code to provide more opportunities for police to work with those organizations that work with victims.

The legislative changes within Bill C-75 would provide police and prosecutors with additional tools for investigation and prosecution. These measures would bring the perpetrators of human trafficking to justice so they can answer for the severity of their actions.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-38 would bring into force amendments that have already been passed by Parliament, but were not promulgated in the former parliamentary initiative, Bill C-452. They would also strengthen the legislation to combat all forms of human trafficking, whether through sexual exploitation or forced labour, while respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.

We heard of heinous crimes being committed not just against those who are unknown to the perpetrators, but also against family members. Family trafficking exists in this country, and we must make sure that police forces are armed with the tools they need to be able to put an end to such heinous crimes.

More specifically, the proposed changes will make it easier to prosecute human trafficking offences by introducing a presumption that will enable the Crown to prove that the accused exercised control, direction or influence over the victim's movements by establishing that the accused lived with or was habitually in the company of the victim.

In addition, these changes would add human trafficking to the list of offences to which the provisions imposing a reverse onus for forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.

I would now like to discuss the changes that would affect the victim surcharge. Bill C-75 proposes to restore judicial discretion to waive the victim surcharge by guiding judges to waive the victim surcharge only when the offender is truly unable to pay. For certain offences against the administration of justice, where the total amount would be disproportionate in certain circumstances, the bill would also provide for limited judicial discretion to not impose a federal victim surcharge amount per offence.

The federal victim surcharge, which is set out in the Criminal Code, is imposed on a sentencing basis, and revenue is collected and used by the province or territory where the criminal act was committed to assist in the sentencing process for funding victims services. Bill C-75 would maintain that the federal victim surcharge must be imposed ex officio and must apply cumulatively to each offence. However, to address concerns about the negative impact of current federal victim surcharge provisions on marginalized offenders, the bill would provide limited judicial discretion regarding the mandatory and cumulative imposition of the surcharge in certain circumstances.

Bill C-75 would provide clear direction as to what would constitute undue hardship. These guidelines would ensure that the mandatory exemption, or waiver, would be applied consistently and only to offenders who were truly unable to pay the surcharge. In addition, the bill would state that undue hardship would refer to the financial ability to pay and was not simply caused by harm associated with incarceration. We are trying to avoid the criminalization and over-criminalization of people simply because of their inability to pay a federal victim surcharge.

For certain offences against the justice administration, in the event that the cumulative surcharge was disproportionate to the circumstances, Bill C-75 would contain provisions allowing an exception to the victim fine surcharge ratio. This exception would apply to two types of offences against the administration of justice: failure to appear in court; and breach of conditions of bail by a peace officer or court order, and only when said breach did not cause any moral, bodily or financial damage to the victim.

Studies show that marginalized offenders, especially indigenous offenders and offenders with mental health and addiction issues, are more likely to be found guilty of offences against the administration of justice.

Under the existing victim surcharge provisions, it is unlikely that much of the money collected in the federal victim surcharges that are paid out to the provinces and territories comes from groups of offenders who are unable to pay the victim surcharge or who are only able to pay part of the surcharge because of their personal situation or because of their multiple offences against the administration of justice.

In addition, offenders who suffer undue hardship as a result of the mandatory victim surcharge are, by the current application of the provisions, hampered in their ability to regain financial stability. This places them in a situation where the surcharge does not allow them to successfully reintegrate into society after serving their sentences or paying their outstanding fines, and they risk reoffending. These types of situations do not help survivors or victims of crime or the provision of services to help them. This proposed exception would be consistent with the principles of fairness and equity.

I am confident that by maintaining a higher mandatory surcharge, this proposed legislation would support the objective of the victim surcharge to provide a source of funding for provincial and territorial victim services while strengthening offender accountability regarding victims and society in general. At the same time, the bill would be in keeping with the principles of proportionality, fairness and respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Not having gone through law school, I can say that it is an honour to serve on this committee and to be part of making Bill C-75 appear in the House today.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could explain why he thinks that forceable confinement, the kidnapping of a minor, or enforced marriage are minor enough offences that they should have a summary conviction of less than two years or a fine, as laid out in Bill C-75.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think I was clear in my remarks that I was speaking about the victim surcharge and what we are doing for the LGBTQ community. I can say clearly that—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Answer her question.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to answer the question, if the heckling will stop.

What I can say very clearly is that the hybridization of offences would provide the courts with the tools they need to make sure that we respect our obligations under Jordan's principle. Nobody wants to see criminals on the streets because they did not get their time in court within two years. Principles of sentencing would not be affected by Bill C-75. That is section 718 of the code. Members can look at it.

Hybridization would be another tool for prosecutors, and they would be able to use it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, Sheri Arsenault lost her 18 year-old son, along with two other young men from Edmonton, at the hands of an impaired driver. She came to the justice committee and pleaded with Liberal MPs not to reclassify, not to hybridize, the very serious offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The member for Edmonton Centre rightfully supported our amendments to not reclassify terrorism- and genocide-related offences. The member said, in relation to those offences, “Let's be serious.... We're talking about terrorism. We're talking about very serious offences.”

What does the hon. member have to say to Sheri Arsenault? Does he not consider impaired driving causing bodily harm to be a very serious offence?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the member for St. Albert—Edmonton were to go back on the tape, he would also see that I was very clear about his comment to the committee and said “hogwash and poppycock” on his politicization of a very serious matter in Bill C-75.

I have met with Ms. Arsenault. I have met with George Marrinier. They are constituents. Quite frankly, that member knows, as members on the other side know, that this is not a sentencing question. We doubled the fines for impaired driving to 14 years. I can tell members that this is going to help us respect the Jordan principle.

The member can be upset about this, just like I am, but this is going to help us in the administration of justice.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Order. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton had an opportunity to ask the question. He may not like the answer, but he should be respecting the House and waiting if he wants to ask another question.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. A brief question, please.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the member for his work on the justice committee and also in his role as special advisor on LGBTQ2 issues.

We are nearing the one-year anniversary of the historic apology to the LGBTQ2 community by the Prime Minister on November 28 of last year. An important component of that apology was the expungement of records. Could the hon. member explain why the bawdy house and vagrancy amendments passed at committee helped inform and complete the work of that apology in terms of addressing LGBTQ2 discrimination?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his leadership on this file.

It is very clear, and the Prime Minister was clear in his apology, that we had work to do on the bawdy house provisions. The committee unanimously agreed to repeal them in Bill C-75, including the vagrancy provisions.

Gay men were charged, arrested and now have criminal convictions for simply going to meet other men in bath houses or gay clubs. This change would allow future additions to happen to expunge in legislation so that those records could be expunged.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and put some thoughts on the record with respect to Bill C-75, which is the government's response, we are told, to the Jordan decision, which had to do with lengthy delays in the criminal justice system in Canada. The ruling maintained that cases had to be dealt with in a certain amount of time or the people accused of committing a crime would be off the hook. We have seen across the country instances of people accused of very serious crimes not being tried in court because of a failure to meet deadlines.

It is quite important, I think, that both the government and Parliament take action. This is a long-standing complaint, and not just in some of the most serious crimes and trials. We have also heard from Canadians who have had occasion, one way or another, to deal with court proceedings, especially if they are victims or the families of victims, that they are often outraged at the amount of time it takes to get justice. Of course, justice delayed too often is justice denied. The Jordan decision emphasizes that even more so and raises the stakes in terms of being able to deal with issues in a timely way. If we do not do so now, we will face a situation of people never being tried for the crimes they are accused of having committed.

Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to judge, on balance, this piece of legislation being presented by the government, which was not greatly amended at committee. I know the hon. member for Victoria and the NDP caucus did a lot of great work on this bill and made a lot of proposals at committee that were not accepted by the government, so this really remains a government package of reforms. Our duty as parliamentarians is to decide whether, on balance, this is going to address the issues that were raised in the Jordan decision and expedite our legal processes so that Canadians can expect to get justice through the courts.

One of the ways the government could have done that prior to presenting any legislation in this House would have been to act swiftly to appoint federal judges. It has been an ongoing story of this Parliament in terms of the failure of the justice minister to ensure that the roster of judges is full. We have heard many times in this House that the government ought to have been acting more quickly. Vacancies remain on the bench. The fact of the matter is that even if we have perfect laws, which we do not now and will not after Bill C-75 passes, if we do not have judges to hear the cases, it matters very little what the laws on the books are. It is the judges who hear the cases and the judges who make decisions.

Thus, it is incumbent upon the government to move more quickly on this. It has been three years now. Surely the government is not going to make a case that Canada does not have people qualified to hold those positions. The people are out there. It is a matter of the government making it a priority to actually make those appointments happen. Saying it is a priority is not enough. They have to actually appoint those judges. I do not want to hear government members getting up to talk about how important it is to them. I will wait to see when those positions are filled. That is the true test of how important it is for the government, and so far, it has not been very important.

The other thing we know is that if this is the government's signature justice reform, which it appears to be, a contributing factor to what is at stake with the Jordan decision is the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. That issue was very popular with the previous Conservative government. For a wide range of criminal charges, they brought in mandatory minimum sentences. We know that those are problematic in a number of ways. I think they are problematic in principle.

The fact of the matter is that no two crimes are the same. There are different circumstances depending on the particular crime and who is involved. The people best qualified to make decisions about what is an appropriate time to serve, along with other measures, such as addictions treatment and whatever else is factored into sentencing, are the people who hear the cases. I do not think it is for Parliament to pre-judge, for any case or set of cases, what the appropriate punishment is. That is why we have judges, people who are trained in the legal profession and have seen many different cases and are able to discriminate.

It is appropriate to entrust that work to judges, for whom it is a profession. Mandatory minimum sentences are about taking that away. One of the side effects of that, particularly in cases of smaller charges like minor drug possession and charges of that nature, is that when people know there is going to be a mandatory jail sentence of two, three, four or five years, it is really a disincentive for them to plead guilty. We have tools in order to make sure the most serious cases are heard in a timely way, and that murderers and gang members are not getting off easy because of the Jordan decision. One of those tools is to take some of those smaller cases and plead them out. People are not going to do that if it means serious jail time.

Again, there are people in the courts and the police force who are involved in making those kinds of decisions when they have that discretion. It is important to leave it to judges, prosecutors and the police to prioritize those cases, precisely to make sure that the worst ones and the ones they have the best chance of getting a conviction on are tried. Those people then get justice, and the courts are not bogged down with other kinds of cases without any ability to make a judgment call about what is relatively more or less important.

That was a major problem with changes to the justice system that we saw in the last Parliament. Outside of the Conservative Party and people who supported them in the last election, there was a pretty broad consensus that those things had to be repealed. We do not see that here. That is an obvious thing that is not in this legislation. It would have helped with respect to the Jordan decision, and would have been important to do on principle anyway.

One of the other things the bill does is establish hybrid offences between the provinces and the federal government. There is real concern that this is going to mean we are going to improve federal court wait times at the expense of provincial court wait times. This is classically Liberal, in a certain way.

I do not want to be too partisan about it, but I remember the nineties, when the federal government decided it was going to balance the budget at all costs. It made deep cuts to the health and social transfer. That ended up on the ledger of provincial governments, which now did not have the same funding for health services and other services that they were providing to their populations. Those governments went into deficit or had to take other measures, whether it was cuts to services or raising taxes, in order to be able to maintain what had theretofore been supported by the federal government.

For as much as the federal books looked better, there was only one taxpayer, and those people paid it at the provincial level instead of at the federal level. What looked good on the federal government did not ultimately make a difference to Canadians. They paid for it, either through higher taxes at the provincial level or through serious cuts to service.

Unfortunately, we had a Conservative government in the nineties, and we paid for that in terms of serious cuts to services. We lost nurses and teachers, and the federal government sat pretty while pretending it was not responsible for that. At the end of the day, its budget cuts did that.

We are gearing up for the potential for something similar, where the federal government will say, “Look at us. The wait times for the Federal Court are way down.” However, we have the potential to see those same waits happening at the provincial level, because people who at one time would have faced a charge at the federal level will now instead face a similar charge at the provincial level. We will not get rid of the wait times; we are just shifting the burden from the federal books to the provincial books.

For anyone paying close attention, the Liberals are not fooling anybody. If our job is to make sure those wait times go down and justice is served in a timely way, it is really important that we do it in a way that actually accomplishes that and does not give the federal government a talking point at the expense of the provinces.

I am out of time, but I look forward to questions.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I take issue a little with the member's comments with respect to judicial appointments. The track record of this government is that we have appointed 238 new judges. Last year, the minister appointed 100 in a single year, which was the most in two decades. Because we had to overhaul the Conservatives' old process, which was not merit based, it took a great amount of time.

In overhauling the process, we have taken the stats from 30% women being appointed to 56% women being appointed. We have taken the stats and are making a bench that actually reflects the diversity of our country. Twenty of the new appointees represent racialized persons; 13 of them represent LGBTQ2 communities; three identify as persons with disabilities, and at least eight are indigenous.

I would ask the member if he does not agree that the important goal is ensuring that the bench reflects the community it serves, and that we have taken entirely appropriate measures to overhaul the process.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member that he is to address his questions to the Chair and not to individual members.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, of course we want a bench that is reflective of the Canadian population in general, but I do not agree with the idea that it would take three years to develop. I do not think it ought to have taken as long as it did for the government to appoint the judges that it has.

The other side of that is to look at vacancies. As much as Liberals want to talk about the number of judges they have appointed, the fact is that there are a still a great number of vacancies, and judges have to be appointed in order to fill the bench.

If I am hosting a dinner, for instance, for which I need 500 plates but the caterer delivers 150, I tell the caterer there are 350 people without a meal. If he then says he would like to focus on the 150 people who have a meal, that is all well and good and I can understand why the caterer might want to do that, but it is not an acceptable answer.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for Elmwood—Transcona about hybridization. He mentioned it in terms of the download that will result on our overburdened provincial courts, which handle 99.6% of criminal cases in Canada. In addition to that, the timeline to prosecute cases before a delay is deemed presumptively unreasonable would go from 30 months to 18 months.

Perhaps the hon. member could comment on that. It seems that on top of downloading cases onto provincial courts, it is actually going to increase the risk of having more cases thrown out rather than fewer.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague will know I do not have the same legal background as he does. However, even without a legal background, if we look at this bill, and these measures especially, from the point of view of whether this is ultimately going to reduce delay, we would still be dealing with the same number of charges. They would just be dealt with in a different place. Therefore, I do not see how that, in and of itself, contributes to a reduction in delay.

The member is quite right to point out that the timeline for having things dealt with under the Jordan decision is shorter in provincial courts than it is in the Federal Court. It would not diminish the number of cases that need to be heard, nor any of the work that goes into trials. If it is shortening the timeline on top of that, then the question is how this contributes to reducing delay and ensuring that cases are not thrown out because they have not been heard within a reasonable amount of time. I just do not see how this meets that test.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to address the House today in discussion of Bill C-75. As members are aware, Bill C-75 represents our government's commitment to ensure that the criminal justice system continues to serve Canadian citizens in the most efficient, effective, fair and accessible manner possible.

Through Bill C-75, our government is fulfilling its promise to move forward and modernize the criminal justice system and address court delays. Due to the failures of the previous government, court delays have persisted within the criminal justice system. Court delays are not a new problem.

However, our government recognizes we can and must do better. Since 2015, we have heard from countless stakeholders, community members, lawyers and other individuals regarding the need to reform the criminal justice system.

In fact, the Supreme Court's rulings in the Jordan and Cody cases further support this rationale. As such, through collaborative efforts identified by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, Bill C-75 seeks to remedy these significant gaps and inefficiencies.

Among other reforms, Bill C-75 proposes to limit the use of preliminary inquiries for offences carrying maximum penalties, modernize bail practices and procedures in order to improve access to justice, better protect victims of intimate partner violence, provide judges with greater discretionary tools to manage cases and efficiently bring criminal matters to resolution, hybridize offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years or less, and increase the maximum penalty for all summary offences to two years less a day.

Today, I will be focusing on the hybridization aspect of Bill C-75. Bill C-75 introduces legislation that provides Crown prosecutors the discretion to elect the most efficient mode of prosecution, evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This system of reclassification would reduce court time consumed by less serious offences while allowing limited resources to be redirected to more serious offences. Moreover, this legislation prevents indictable cases from being dismissed or stayed due to the system's inability to try the accused within a reasonable time frame.

Bill C-75 amends over 115 offences punishable by either an indictable offence or summary conviction. Since the proposal hybridizes all straight indictable offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or less, criminal offences relating to terrorism and genocide are subsequently captured. These are clauses referring to section 83.02 of the Criminal Code, providing or collecting property for certain activities; section 83.03, providing, making available, etc., property or services for terrorist purposes; section 83.04, using or possessing property for terrorist purposes; section 83.18, participation in activity of terrorist group; section 83.181, leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group; subsection 83.221(1), advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences; subsections 83.23(1) and 83.23(2), concealing person who carried out terrorist activity and concealing person who is likely to carry out terrorist activity, and finally subsection 318(1), which relates to advocating genocide.

Canada is a leader among nations in the fight for universal human rights and the international rule of law. We were one of the first countries to sign the Rome Statute and the first country to ratify its membership within the International Criminal Court. Moreover, on a number of occasions, Canada has publicly denounced the actions of other governments due to their harsh treatment of their citizens, and urged their cases to be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation, such as in the cases of Myanmar and Venezuela. Canadians are proud to live in a country that is diverse, with a global reputation as a defender of human rights.

Given the very few times that genocide and terrorism-related charges have been invoked in Canadian courts, the extremely serious nature of the issues, as well as Canada's moral obligation to continue to serve as an international promoter of justice, I am proud to inform the House that all eight clauses referred to above relating to genocide and terrorism-related offences were removed from the hybridization list. Specifically, all genocide and terrorism-related offences will continue to remain as straight indictable offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years less a day.

In its witness testimony, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs expressed its strong support for such amendments. It stated:

...terrorism [is] a heinous and potentially catastrophic phenomenon. Today, terrorist groups around the world, some of which actively seek to inspire recruits in Canada, are often motivated by ideologies infused with antisemitism. Far too many Jewish communities around the world – from Argentina to Denmark, and from France to Israel – have suffered from deadly terror attacks.

Additionally, B'nai Brith Canada expressed its concerns regarding the hybridization of offences relating to genocide and terrorism, stating:

It is inappropriate to allow these offences to be prosecuted in a summary fashion. To be treated with the seriousness which they deserve, they should continue to be prosecutable by way of indictment only.

Following the proposed amendments to remove all eight genocide and terrorism-related clauses from Bill C-75, our government will continue to send a clear, symbolic and moral message rebuking the offensive crimes mentioned above. However, I would like to strictly emphasize that the reclassification of offences does not affect basic sentencing principles exercised by courts. Depending on the severity of the case, Crown prosecutors will be required to consider a multitude of factors and ultimately decide to prosecute either as an indictable offence or summary conviction.

Before I conclude, as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincerest thanks to all the witnesses for submitting their testimony and appearing before the committee to present their expert opinions regarding Bill C-75. I can assure everyone that all recommendations and appeals put forward were carefully considered and taken into account.

Although there is no simple solution to resolve the issues of court delays, our government is taking action to introduce a cultural shift within the criminal justice system to address its root causes. We are taking important steps forward to act on what we have heard. Moreover, we are taking full advantage of this opportunity to create a criminal justice system that is compassionate and timely, a system that reflects the needs and expectations of all Canadian citizens.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted in the member's speech that he was clear that acts of terrorism and advocating genocide have been taken off the list of offences that are being reduced to a less than two year summary conviction or a fine.

What made the government think that acts of terrorism and advocating genocide were minor enough crimes to be on the list in the first place?

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, there were many consultations that took place when this bill was first being considered.

There was considerable outreach to stakeholders, experts and the like. In addition to that, as the member is likely fully aware, there were also consultations that took place between the federal government and the provinces and the territories. We thought that was an important step forward. In addition, we thought it was important to hear from various experts and, to the best of our abilities, to incorporate any concerns they have in the final bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving on the justice committee with the member for Willowdale. He did appear before the justice committee to provide evidence about why genocide and terrorism-related offences should not be reclassified. His testimony was certainly helpful to the committee.

The member spoke of consultations that took place in the lead-up to Bill C-75. The fact is the government simply took a whole series of offences that were at a 10-year maximum and reclassified them, including terrorism and genocide, which I think the member would agree had no business being reclassified.

The member spoke a few moments ago about the fact that those offences should not be reclassified because they need to be treated seriously and prosecuting them by way of summary conviction would not do justice.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to why the government does not seem to also take seriously offences such as impaired driving causing bodily harm or administering a date rape drug.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great honour serving with the member on the justice committee. We have many opportunities to exchange views.

I did set aside and distinguish the terrorism and genocide provisions. As he is fully aware, there have been very few cases dealing with these provisions. Obviously, that was something that was considered by the committee and ultimately that weighed on our decision to make sure these were removed.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to some of the comments that were made earlier when it comes to the seriousness of offences.

When we are talking about kidnapping, for example, a child who leaves a parent's house to go to another versus someone who is luring a child into a car are two different offences, and the seriousness of those two offences are quite different. There is injury causing bodily harm where an arm is broken or someone is placed into a coma. The seriousness of those two offences are quite different.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could emphasize what the hybridization classification does and does not do, and it does not take away the ability for a prosecutor to look at the seriousness of the offence and apply the applicable sentences. I wonder if my hon. colleague could reiterate that in the time he has left.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has made a very significant point. As we know, court delays have been a very significant challenge and problem, and we thought that it was imperative that we take the necessary steps to address this. The point to bear in mind is the system of reclassification would certainly reduce court time consumed by less serious offences and at the same time allow us to redirect limited resources to the more serious ones.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

It is disappointing to again see the Liberal government bring in a 300-page omnibus bill after the Liberals specifically said in their campaign promises that they were not going to do that. However, a broken promise a day seems to be the order of the Liberal government.

That said, let us think about what we are trying to accomplish in our judicial system and then look at how Bill C-75 may or may not fit into that.

What we first want to do in our criminal justice system is define the behaviour that is criminal. We want to say which things are not acceptable in Canadian society. That would be goal number one. Goal number two would be to make sure that appropriate punishments are established to deter people from perpetrating these crimes. We want to make sure that we have those appropriate punishments defined. We want to make sure that victims rights are protected, that we are not just focused on the criminal but we are also focused on making sure that victims rights are protected. Then we want to make sure that whatever rules we decide, we actually enforce them in a timely way.

I think that is really what we want to get out of the criminal justice system.

If we look at the Conservative record, everyone in Canada well knows that the Conservatives want to be tough on crime. We want to ensure that if people commit crimes, they do the time. We want to make sure that people are not just let off the hook.

If we look at the Liberals' record on this, it is not quite so clear. In fact, I would argue that the criminals seem to be making out very well under the Liberals.

The first issue is the Liberal government's failure to appoint judges so that cases could be tried in a timely way. According to the Jordan principle, if they are not tried in a timely way, within two years, those people will go free. We have seen murderers and rapists having their cases thrown out of court because there were not enough judges being appointed. Clearly, that is a failure of the Liberal government. We are in the fourth year of a four-year mandate and there are still vacancies, which is causing cases to continually be thrown out.

If the government were responsible, at some point it should have taken a look at perhaps more minor crimes. For example, if it thought that it was going to legalize marijuana, perhaps any of the charges with respect to possession of marijuana that were in the system could have been punted in order to focus on prosecuting more serious crimes, like murder and rape. However, that was not done.

The other thing we saw is that the Liberal government is continually trying to soften the penalties for crime.

Today, in Canadian society, it is a crime to disrupt a religious ceremony or to threaten a religious official or cleric. The Liberal government tried to put Bill C-51 in place to take away those protections with respect to worship and the clerics. There was a huge outcry across Canada. I know that all the churches in my riding wrote letters. There were many petitions that were brought forward. There was a huge outcry from Canadians, so the government backed off on that. Now we see that the government has brought this back under Bill C-75 as one of the things the government wants to reduce sentences on to a summary conviction, which would be less than two years in prison or a fine for obstructing or violence to or arrest of an officiating clergyman. It seems a little bit sneaky that the government heard a clear message from Canadians to back off and then it tried to slide it into another bill. That is not a good thing.

Let us look at some of the other crimes that are now considered in Bill C-75 to be minor and subject to a judge's decision on whether or not they get a fine or a summary conviction of up to a two-year maximum.

One is prison breach. Really, somebody who breaks out of prison is going to be given a fine. That should not even be an option. Municipal corruption is another thing on the list, as is influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices. We have already talked about obstructing or violence to clergymen.

Another is impaired driving offences causing bodily harm. It is unbelievable that at this particular moment in time, when the Liberals have just legalized marijuana and every other jurisdiction has seen a tripling of traffic deaths due to impaired drug driving, they would decide that this crime is less serious and people might be able to get off with just a summary conviction or a fine.

Regarding abduction of a person under the age of 16 or abduction of a person under the age of 14, what is a more serious crime than kidnapping a child? I cannot imagine. To give that person a fine or a summary conviction just seems like there is no moral compass whatsoever.

It is interesting that polygamy is on the list. We have not had a lot of trouble. Polygamy has always been illegal in Canada. Why are we now saying that we would reduce the penalty for polygamy and make it a fine?

What about forced marriage? I was at the foreign affairs committee yesterday, and we had testimony from the Congo, Somalia and South Sudan about the dire situations there and 50% of girls being forced into child marriage and what a horrendous impact that had on their life. The Liberal members of the committee were sitting there saying, “Oh, this is a terrible thing.” However, here in our own country, we have decided that the penalty for forced marriage is going to be a fine or a less-than-two-years summary conviction. It is ridiculous.

Arson, for a number of reasons, is now on this list and is not considered that serious when in fact it drives up the cost of insurance and it takes people's homes. It is obviously a serious crime.

Participating in the activities of a criminal organization is now on here as not being that serious. The government members have been standing up, day after day, talking about trying to eliminate organized crime from Canada. Now if people are part of organized crime, apparently that is not a serious offence.

Therefore, Bill C-75 does not meet what we said we wanted to meet originally in our justice system. We wanted to talk about the appropriate punishments that need to be established to deter crime. That is not what is happening here.

In addition to all of those things, we see that there are other changes recommended in this bill. There is the repealing of the victim surcharge changes that were brought by the Conservatives. It is important that we protect victims' rights and that there is a fund that will help victims in some way after they have suffered a crime.

Removing the power to have a youth tried as an adult is a bit concerning to me. There are some very heinous crimes where the judges still need to have the ability to do that.

Delaying consecutive sentencing for human traffickers was an important law that was brought into place under the Conservative government. We have a huge issue with human trafficking. From my riding to Toronto, there is a huge ring. If someone were caught human trafficking, it would not be just one life that was impacted. There would be hundreds of girls involved. The consecutive sentence allowed individuals to be sentenced for each one of those victims and not get out of prison for a very long time, for what is a heinous crime.

I always like to say what the good things are that I like about the bill as well as the things that I do not like. I see in here that the only increases in penalties are for repeat offenders on intimate partner violence. I am glad to see that because the government has been totally inadequate in its response to violence against women. As the former chair of the status of women committee, we studied and found that one in three Canadian women suffers from violent acts in her lifetime. It has been disappointing to see that the current government, while pledging $400 million in the last budget for StatsCan to steal people's private information, gave $20 million a year to address the problem of violence against women. That has been totally inadequate. At least the Liberals have done something in this bill to try to move forward on that.

In summary, I would say that this bill has not met the objectives. It has not helped put penalties in place. In fact, I would argue that it would erode the penalties that people would receive.

I call on the justice minister to do her job, to appoint the justices who are missing and to put in place punishments that fit the crime. I have brought numerous petitions to the House on Bill C-75 to just eliminate it.

The Liberals talk about trying to get wait times down. They could get wait times down by not trying any criminals and not putting any of them in prison. That would get the wait times down, but it would not achieve what we want in our justice system, which is to define the crimes and to define adequate punishment and ensure that they are enforced in a timely way.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about hybridization. She named a number of different offences and talked about them being reduced to only a fine or less than a two-year sentence. I want to clear the record. Hybridization does not take away the authority or ability of the prosecution to look at the seriousness of a crime.

The member mentioned kidnapping. For example, if there is a custody battle, the child is taken by the other parent, and the first parent calls police to say the child is missing, that is kidnapping. It is also kidnapping when a child is lured into a vehicle and taken away for ill intentions. Those are two kidnapping offences. I would leave it for lawyers to decide that one is less serious than the other. Hybridization looks at the totality of the crime and allows the justice system to decide the seriousness of the crime and if it should be a summary conviction or an indictment.

Does my hon. colleague not trust the justice system and the professionals therein to assess the seriousness of crimes and apply appropriate convictions, thereby keeping our communities safe?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do I trust the criminal justice system? We have just seen an example where a convicted child killer was moved to a healing lodge with no fence and where children were present. Therefore, no, I do not trust the criminal justice system to make adequate decisions. We have also seen criminals let out on weekends with weekend passes and reoffending. I do not think the protections in place are being enforced properly and I certainly do not want them to be weakened even further.

I do not think we want to get into an argument about whether one type of kidnapping of a child is minor compared to another type of kidnapping of a child. Kidnapping of a child at every level is offensive. It is a crime and should be punished to the maximum.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good work and standing up for victims in Canada. On this side of the House, our priority is to stand up for victims.

In my riding, in the member's riding and other members' ridings, we have all heard from MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has major concerns about the incidence of drunk driving on our roads, often resulting in bodily harm or death. Within the last few weeks in the House, we have heard of family members who have died as a result of drunk driving. We need to take this seriously.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the application of the reduction of the penalties for impaired driving causing bodily harm in Bill C-75, what the negative impacts of that could be and, if she has time, comment on whether she is hearing the same thing from MADD Canada in her riding or from other constituents who have expressed concern about the weakening of this provision.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for always standing up for victims and their rights.

When it comes to impaired driving, whether alcohol or drug impairment, absolutely Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is outraged, but even beyond that, Canadians are outraged. We know that with the legalization of marijuana, we can expect a doubling or tripling of traffic deaths due to impaired driving. An Ipsos poll came out yesterday that talked about how 30% or 40% of Canadians who consume cannabis admitted they drive right after consuming cannabis. This is totally unacceptable. The government has abdicated its responsibility in terms of providing sufficient public education to make sure people do not drive while high and reducing the penalty reinforces the message that it is okay because people will only be fined.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-75.

There is no doubt that we need to modernize our criminal justice system, and in order to do so, we need to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts. Some of the issues that must be reviewed are the lengthy pre-trial delays, changes to how administration of justice issues are managed, legislative changes, as well as judicial case management. However, in my humble opinion, the most important amendment has to do with how the justice system deals with certain accused persons.

Some groups, like indigenous peoples, minorities and people with mental illness or substance abuse issues, are overrepresented in our criminal justice system. These groups are among the most vulnerable members of our society, yet they are sometimes treated unfairly by the justice system. One could even say they are treated with hostility. Our justice system cannot treat different people differently. This is unacceptable, and it has been going on for a very long time.

Bill C-75 allows us to correct these inequalities in the justice system. Complainants who wait years to testify and witnesses who want to move on and get back to a normal life have no choice but to wait because of delays in the system. These delays interfere with their need to feel safe and the justice system's mission to maintain public order. Then there is the matter of the accused who wait years to be declared innocent or those who commit heinous crimes but end up walking away because of the dysfunctional system.

I am running out of time, so I will focus on the issue of bonding. This is an aspect of criminal law that directly affects the presumption of innocence. This fundamental concept is protected under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that any person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Section 7 of the Charter states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

When it comes to bail, everyone should be fully entitled to their charter rights. Every one of us must receive equal treatment in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other laws. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. For example, defendants who live in remote communities are disproportionately affected by the existing bail system. Statistically, poverty, unemployment and substance abuse are more prevalent among people who live on reserves, and, as a result, they own very little. Bail is also required of people who have to travel from their remote communities to big cities because the judicial system does not serve their hometowns. How are these people supposed to come up with bail? When the financial burden is so great, is that not a violation of people's charter rights?

That is why Bill C-75 is so important. It would allow for less burdensome conditions of release for those who are already disadvantaged compared to other members of society.

This will also help break the cycle of the most vulnerable Canadians being overrepresented in the justice system.

Another reason that Bill C-75 is very important is because it deals with remote appearances. This bill would bring the system in line with current technology and all of its benefits. It would be invaluable to have access to audioconference and videoconference technology, allowing all parties involved in the process, including judges, to participate.

It would be helpful if accused persons could participate via these types of technologies instead of having to fly in from remote communities, which takes considerable resources. These technologies would alleviate the financial burden on society and give accused persons better access to justice. Furthermore, complainants would not have to travel from their remote communities, since they could use these technologies to seek justice.

Courts would have discretionary powers and would consider the individual circumstances of each case, so these technologies could be used for individuals to appear remotely at each stage of the justice process.

The reason for the amendments to remote appearances is to help ensure the proper administration of justice, which includes fair and efficient criminal proceedings, while respecting the right of the accused to a fair trial and to a full and complete defence, as guaranteed by sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we take another look at plea bargaining, a lot can go wrong. For instance, the accused will often plead guilty in order to minimize the cost of their defence. Those living in precarious situations are less likely to properly defend themselves. This once again demonstrates the need for Bill C-75. It is very sad to think of an innocent person pleading guilty because it is faster and cheaper.

Clause 270 of the bill highlights an important fact. Many vulnerable people are not always aware of the magnitude of their actions and decisions. This can include adolescents, aboriginal people, minorities and people who want to avoid the stress of long delays before the trial. They are more likely to plead guilty for those reasons.

In addition to the provisions set out in section 606 of the Criminal Code, the amendment would require judges to be satisfied that the facts presented support the charge before accepting a guilty plea.

Bill C-75's modernization of the bail system also includes changes regarding intimate partner violence. It is unfortunate that not until recently the matter of intimate partner violence was not given the attention it warranted. The changes to the criminal justice system in this aspect are in keeping with our government's commitment to give more support to those who have faced domestic violence.

Statistically, intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence reported to the police. One in two women face intimate partner violence. This is a dire statistic. It means that 50% of our female population has been victimized while in an intimate relationship. Those who are already vulnerable, such as the elderly, trans, people with disabilities and the indigenous population, face these things in a difficult way. One time is one time too many when people who are accused of intimate partner violence are given bail and go back and attack the very same partner. This reason alone demonstrates to all of us the urgency in having intimate partner violence directly addressed during bail hearings.

The amendments I have mentioned are crucial for the protection of those facing such forms of violence. For all of these reasons, I support Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the reverse onus for offences related to intimate partner violence. That is a step in the right direction. We on this side of the House fully support that aspect of Bill C-75. However, it seems like for every step forward that the government makes, it takes two steps backward.

On the issue of violence against women, could the hon. member speak to the fact that under Bill C-75 offences such as forced marriage or administering a date rape drug are now being reclassified as hybrid offences, in other words, less serious offences? Therefore, yes, one step forward, but it seems many steps backward when it comes to standing up and defending the rights of women.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his passion regarding our justice system. It is always with great fascination when I listen to him speak.

Our government has taken a very strong stance against intimate partner violence and violence against women. It is very important that these procedures, when it comes to bail hearings, go through.

Our Minister of Justice listened during many consultations and took part in many consultations with experts. Therefore, she has the tools she needs to push the legislation through. The problem with intimate partner violence is that, unfortunately, it has not decreased. It is sad to see a woman living in fear of her life every day. Therefore, these parts of our amendments would be helpful to women in the future.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important contribution to the debate on Bill C-75. She outlined an important component of the bill, which is the access to justice component. I would like her to comment on another component of the bill that addresses an issue for the community she represents in Montreal and the community I represent in Toronto, and that is the overrepresentation of certain groups in the justice system. We know indigenous Canadians, black Canadians and other racialized groups are overrepresented in the justice system. The bill would treat administration of justice offences differently. These are offences such as breaching curfews when those curfews do not allow people to get to their places of employment because they have to work at night, for example.

Could the member comment on how we are changing the administration of justice offences so people are no longer criminalized for things such as breaching a bail condition and how that assists the marginalized communities that exist in Montreal and in other cities across the country?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the justice committee. His question is a very important one. It is true that when it comes to administration of justice charges, it is mostly the vulnerable communities that are again disadvantaged, people who are poor, or who suffer from mental illness or substance abuse. They go to work and, by accident, they break their curfew.

For example, they are waiting for a bus and it does not arrive, or it is late or they miss the it and there is no other way for them to get home, so they are stuck outside. They cannot afford to take a taxi. They are barely making ends meet. It is very punitive on them to have an administration of justice that penalizes them for the circumstances of their life, such as being poor, or suffering from substance abuse or mental illness. This is one of the reasons why Bill C-75 is so important to our criminal justice system.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This omnibus bill is over 200 pages. It includes major reforms to our criminal justice system.

With a concerning level of rural crime in my riding, the safety of my constituents is a high priority for me. The safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of any government.

While there are some aspects of the bill that I agree will help to reduce delays in the court system, there are several problems associated with it with which I have concerns.

First, I want to talk about the bill itself. As I mentioned, this is a 204-page omnibus bill. I want to remind the Liberals that during the election, they promised they would never table omnibus bills, but here it is. However, 80 other promises have either been broken or have not even started.

This is still on the Liberal web page, which I looked it up the other day. It states that omnibus bills “prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating [the government's] proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” Yet here we are today discussing an omnibus bill.

It is a mixed bag that amends a total of 13 different acts in various ways. The bill needs to be split into more manageable portions so we can properly study it. What is more is that the government also has thrown in three bills that have already been tabled, Bill C-28, victim surcharge; Bill C-38, consecutive sentencing for human traffickers; and Bill C-39, repealing unconstitutional provisions. Perhaps if the government could manage its legislative agenda more effectively, it would not need to re-table its bills, push through omnibus bills or repeatedly force time allocation and limit debates.

The Liberals are failing to take criminal justice issues seriously. In March they tabled this bill the day before a two-week break period in our sitting schedule. Then they waited a half a year. Now they have returned it when there are only a few weeks left before our six-week break period. This does not give the image that justice is a high priority for the Liberal government.

The government's lack of judicial appointments has resulted in violent criminals walking away without a trial. As of November 2, 54 federal judicial vacancies remained. Appointing judges is an effective solution that is much faster than forcing an omnibus bill through Parliament. I remember in April when the minister talked about 54 more federal judges, yet here we are, almost the end of the year, and still no action.

I also want to talk about what is actually in the bill. Again, some parts of the bill I can support. For example, I agree with efforts to modernize and clarify interim release provisions and provide more onerous interim release requirements for offences involving violence against an intimate partner.

Modernizing and simplifying interim release provisions is an important step that will assist many rural communities across the country that do not have the resources to navigate lengthy procedures and paperwork. For that reason, I support this.

However, I wish the stricter release requirements were not limited to offences involving domestic abuse. With an alarming rate of rural crime in my riding and across Canada, which is often carried out by repeat offenders, we need to make it more difficult for all violent criminals to be released. Otherwise, we have a revolving door where they commit a crime, get arrested, get released and start all over again.

I was at a rural crime seminar in the city of Red Deer last Friday. A former police officer from Calgary city police told us about one of the cases he had worked on recently. An Alberta offender was charged with 130 offences, ranging from break and enter to car theft, equipment theft and possession of stolen property.

At the last sitting in Alberta the judge released him. Out the door he went. Where did he go? He took off to B.C. Now we understand they are looking for him in British Columbia, which has 100 similar outstanding charges against him in a very short period of time. This person should not have been released.

These criminals prey on farmers and elderly people. They know that RCMP resources are lacking in these areas and take full advantage of that. What the government needs to do is to provide our law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to stop the revolving door of criminals in and out of the courts. That is happening constantly.

Victims should be the central focus of the Canadian criminal justice system rather than special treatment for criminals, which is why our party introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. The government, unfortunately, does not agree since Bill C-75 would repeal our changes to the victim surcharge and reduce its overall use and effectiveness.

I believe in protecting victims of crime, which is why I introduced my own private member's bill, Bill C-206, that would ensure that criminals who take advantage of vulnerable people, specifically adults who depend on others for their care, are subject to harder, sure punishment.

Last month, a gentleman from my riding of Yellowhead was a witness before our public safety and national security committee. He shared with us his first-hand experience. It was a terrible story. This gentleman, whom I consider a friend, is aged 83. He heard his truck start up one day when he was having lunch with his wife. He walked outside to see his truck being driven out of his yard. He lives about 70 kilometres from the town of Edson where the local police office is located. He picked up his phone and was about to call when his vehicle returned to his yard. Two youths, one aged 18 and one aged 17, got out, knocked him to the ground, repeatedly kicked him in the face, the chest, the ribs, attempted to slash his throat, and then drove off again. This gentleman is 83. This is still being dealt with in the courts despite the fact it happened a year ago. This gentleman has had to attend court 10 times so far and the matter is still not over.

We on this side of the House will always work to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and make it harder for criminals to get out.

I am concerned that portions of Bill C-75 would weaken our justice system. Through the bill, the Liberals would reduce penalties for the following crimes: participating in criminal organizations, various acts of corruption, prison breach, impaired driving, abduction, human trafficking, forced marriage, and arson, just to name a few of many in the bill. Participation in terrorist activities and advocating genocide were deleted from this list only because a Conservative amendment was accepted at committee. Those are just a few examples of more than a hundred serious crimes that could be prosecuted by summary conviction and result in lighter sentencing, or even fines.

The government is failing to take criminal justice issues seriously. Reducing penalties for serious crimes sends the wrong message to victims, law-abiding Canadians and to criminals.

I am also concerned about the wording used in the section that would increase maximum sentences for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence. I support increasing these sentences but I do not support replacing the language of “spouse” with “intimate partner”. I believe both should be included. I understand that not all domestic abuse is within a spousal relationship, so there is a need to have "intimate partner" included. However, it should not replace "spouse". Rather, both terms should be included.

Another problem I have with Bill C-75 is the reversal of protections for religious officials.

When Bill C-51 was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in January, two amendments were moved by my Conservative colleagues. The first amendment proposed keeping section 176 in the Criminal Code of Canada, while the second aimed to modernize the language of that section. The Liberals agreed to them and that was good, but they need to listen more.

Imagine my disappointment when I read in Bill C-75 that section 176 in the Criminal Code was once again under attack. Assault of officiants during a religious service is very serious and should remain an indictable offence.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for his contribution to today's debate on Bill C-75. I would offer two comments and one brief question.

The first comment is that the term “intimate partner” is used in this legislation for a deliberate reason. It is a more expansive term than just “spouse”. Violence occurs, as we have heard in today's debate, against half of all women in this country, and that violence is perpetrated within couples that are married but also in couples that are unmarried or, indeed, just dating.

The second point is that there was a factual error in the comments by the member opposite. He indicated that a reduction in penalties has been provided for a list of offences, and he listed them. Hybridization does not ipso facto reduce a penalty; hybridization allows the Crown to proceed by way of summary conviction or by way of an indictable proceeding. It does not predetermine the sentence.

The member for Yellowhead is convinced of the need to ensure there are tougher penalties for people who are convicted of crimes. On this side of the House, we agree, which is why we are taking the summary conviction limit from the six months it has traditionally been to two years less a day. I invite the member's comment on that provision and on whether he approves of that increase in the penalty for summary conviction offences to two years less a day.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, increasing that penalty is definitely one of the ways to go, but if we are changing the legislation, we must also ensure that our prosecutors and court systems abide by the new regulations and follow through on them. There is no use changing these regulations if the prosecutors and courts will not follow them. If they do not, we will again have a revolving-door system, as it is today. The change would not matter much.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yellowhead, who has a great deal of knowledge about Canada's justice system, having spent a few decades as an RCMP officer.

I am glad the member brought up the victim surcharge, which is an important source of funding to support victims of crime. We on this side of the House brought forward an amendment at the justice committee to increase the victim surcharge by $25. That would seem like a very modest amount that could go a long way to supporting victims. Shockingly, the Liberals shot it down.

Would the hon. member agree that our amendment was quite reasonable and that the failure of the government to support it is just another example of its putting victims last?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question is very appropriate. Surcharges should be raised.

We had a witness, a farmer from Saskatchewan, appear at the justice committee two weeks ago. He said he really did not care if a guy goes to jail for two months or six months for stealing his combine, but if the guy causes $100,000 damage to the combine from driving it around the field and running it through ditches, he the farmer should be able to sue that person, or the court should be able to place a penalty on that criminal to repay that amount. If it takes that criminal the rest of his life to pay back that $100,000 in damage to the farmer's combine, that would be justice.

Victims in Canada are the ones who are suffering; the criminals are not suffering. We must make the criminals responsible for their actions. That is one way we could it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal minister has worked diligently over the last two or three years with her provincial and territorial counterparts, indigenous peoples and many other stakeholders. This bill went through the committee. The bill is perceived overwhelmingly to be good, solid legislation, and long overdue.

Would my friend across the way, at the very least, recognize that many of the changes incorporated in this legislation should be put into place as soon as possible, because we have so much at stake here?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this was brought to us early in the year, a day before we were to go on a two-day break.

Two previous bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-39, have been thrown into this bill. Why were they not dealt with? If it is so important that this get done, why did the government wait so long to do it?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I intend to focus my remarks on sentencing-related issues.

At the outset, it is important to address the continuing criticism by the opposition that hybridizing all straight indictable offences punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or less—to allow the Crown to proceed by summary conviction in appropriate cases—would minimize the seriousness of these offences. These concerns reflect a lack of trust of the judiciary and Crown prosecutors, who already make these decisions every day. They also represent a profound misunderstanding of what Bill C-75 aims to achieve by reclassifying certain offences.

The proposal to hybridize offences is procedural in nature and is intended to allow prosecution by summary conviction of conduct that currently does not result in a sentence of more than two years. For instance, it is a mischaracterization of the reclassification amendments to assert that by hybridizing section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, i.e., participation in activities of a criminal organization, Bill C-75 is sending a message not to take organized crime offences seriously.

The proposed amendment simply recognizes that this offence can, by virtue of the range of conduct captured, include circumstances where an appropriate sentence falls within the summary conviction range. Proceeding summarily in these circumstances allows for more expeditious proceedings without undermining public safety or impacting the sentence ranges for this offence.

In fact, in 2011-2012 there were 49 guilty verdicts entered pursuant to section 467.11 of the Criminal Code. Of these 49 cases, only 34 were given a custodial sentence. Of those, one received one month or less, six received between one month and three months, 10 received between three months and six months, nine received from six months to 12 months, four received from 12 months to 24 months and the four remaining received a custodial sentence of 24 months or more.

At the time these sentences were imposed, section 467.11 of the Criminal Code was a straight indictable offence, and yet the overwhelming majority of sentences imposed were in the summary conviction range, including 15 non-custodial sentences. It is clear that keeping section 467.11 of the Criminal Code as a straight indictable offence would not in any way prevent the Crown, in appropriate cases, from seeking a non-custodial sentence or a sentence of imprisonment that is in the summary conviction range.

Let me be clear. There is absolutely nothing in Bill C-75 that would suggest to prosecutors and courts that hybridizing offences should result in their seeking or awarding lower sentences than what is currently sought or awarded under the law. Prosecutors would continue to assess the facts of each case and the circumstances relating to the offender and previously decided cases in order to determine which type of sentence they should seek. Sentencing judges would continue to impose sentences proportionate to the severity of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as mandated by the fundamental principle of sentencing in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

The misapprehensions about the proposed reclassification amendments also unnecessarily detract from other notable reforms. For example, the bill proposes to toughen criminal laws in the context of intimate partner violence, IPV, thereby increasing public safety and enhancing victim safety.

Bill C-75 includes a proposal that would impose a reverse onus at bail for an accused charged with an intimate violence offence if the accused has a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner, regardless of whether it is the same partner, a former partner or a dating partner. In this context, to enhance the safety of victims of this type of violence, the accused, not the prosecutor, would have to justify their release to the court and the public. What this means is that the presumption that the accused should be released pending trial no longer applies

This proposal is targeted and reflects what we know about the heightened risk of safety that victims of intimate partner violence face. Victims of intimate partner violence tend to experience multiple victimizations before reporting it to the authorities or police. Based on Statistics Canada data from 2014, 17% of victims of spousal violence indicated that they had been abused by their current or former partner on more than 10 occasions.

I understand that one of the criticisms raised at committee was that the reverse onus could be problematic in jurisdictions where dual charging occurs, a practice whereby both partners are criminally charged, sometimes because self-defence on the part of the victim is confused with assault. I also understand that it is often not the law that is the problem in this context, but how it is applied.

Dual charging is an operational issue that provinces and territories have been addressing through the development and implementation of training and policies. For example, in March 2016, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police released the document “National Framework for Collaborative Police Action on Intimate Partner Violence”, which addresses dual charging and provides guidance for cases where charges against a victim are being contemplated.

Knowing that the research shows that victims are at an increased risk of violence in the aftermath of reporting to police, especially in cases where there is an ongoing history of violence in the relationship, I am confident that the reverse onus proposed here is carefully tailored to address the concerns raised.

Bill C-75 would also require courts to consider whether an accused is charged with an IPV offence prior to making a decision to release or detain the accused during a bail hearing. In addition, Bill C-75 would clarify that strangulation, choking and suffocation are elevated forms of assault and would also define "intimate partner" for all Criminal Code purposes, clarifying that it includes a current or former spouse, a common-law partner, as well as dating partners.

Moreover, Bill C-75 proposes a sentencing amendment to clarify that the current sentencing provisions which treat abuse against a spouse or common-law partner as an aggravating factor apply to both current and former spouses, common-law partners and dating partners. What is more, Bill C-75 would also allow prosecutors the possibility of seeking a higher maximum penalty in cases involving a repeat intimate partner violence offender.

I think we can all agree that allowing for the imposition of higher than the applicable maximum penalty in cases of repeat intimate partner violence offenders is a concrete example of Parliament sending a clear message to prosecutors and the courts that repeat intimate partner violence offenders should receive strong denunciatory sentences.

In these cases, where the Crown serves notice under section 727 of the Criminal Code that a higher maximum penalty is sought, a sentencing court would be given additional discretion to impose a sentence that exceeds the otherwise applicable maximum penalty. This will better reflect the severity of the conduct in question and assist courts in imposing sentences that better protect victims.

I urge all members to support this very comprehensive legislation which will reduce delays and make the criminal justice system more efficient and effective on the basis of evidence and not ideology.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey Centre made reference to the fact that there are certain offences where, in his words, it is appropriate to give the Crown discretion to prosecute the offence by way of summary conviction. Of course, there are many offences in the Criminal Code that are hybrid offences that are left to prosecutors to make that decision. He noted in that regard there are certain offences where the range of conduct of the individual might justify a summary conviction prosecution and the imposition of a non-custodial sentence.

This bill hybridizes the very serious indictable offence of administering a date rape drug. We are talking about people who administer a drug to rape a female. I was wondering if the member could explain in what circumstances he sees there being a range of conduct that would justify the imposition of a non-custodial sentence in that case.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the data is evident. It is clear that 92% of indictable offences under this new legislation or even under the previous act get sentences of under two years in the summary conviction range. These would be the appropriate sentences that the Crown and judge found at the time. It clearly shows that even where the offence was considered indictable, the sentencing was in the summary conviction range in the past. This is where we actually trust our prosecutors and judiciary to sentence and make the appropriate choice of offence and methodology that they wish to charge. If they feel they can take it to a summary conviction and the offence is not as severe or in the range they expect, they can expedite that conviction as opposed to taking it into an indictable trial.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. However, many people question whether the bill can achieve its objective to reduce the backlog in the justice system and, as set out in the Jordan decision, ensure more appropriate timelines.

For example, Michael Spratt, former director of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, said in committee that the proposed changes will likely lead to more delays, racial inequalities, and unfair trials.

If the government brings in small measures that do not seem to impress those who really know how this works and how to clear the backlog in the justice system, if it does not invest in appointing more judges, filling the seats that the Liberal government has left empty so far, then how can the government achieve the expected outcome, namely to fully comply with the Jordan decision?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an assumption or statement by one stakeholder or one witness. There have been more federal appointments to judicial vacancies than there have been in the past. Those vacancies were left by a Conservative government under Harper who really stalled and delayed the judicial process.

The Minister of Justice has been actively, profoundly and in a very diverse manner filling those vacancies. I am very proud that in British Columbia we have had numerous vacancies filled. I trust that those delays will not be there going forward. This bill will actually make the judicial system much more efficient, contrary to the concerns of my colleague.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague very eloquently talked about the 92% of cases within the current circumstance that fall outside of indictable offences. Also, in his response to the last question, he talked about the number of appointments that our Minister of Justice has made. There have been over 230 so far, which is the most that have ever been appointed. This combination creates efficiency within our system and allows it to move faster.

Does my hon. colleague agree that the appointments to date as well as this particular piece of legislation would increase the efficiency of our justice system and would allow more cases to go through our justice system in a quicker manner?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the 230 appointments are probably some of the most progressive appointments that Parliament has seen in decades. More women have been appointed than ever before. More diverse members have been appointed to the bench than before. People who appear before the judiciary will now see themselves more as opposed to the days of the past.

I am very confident that the record number of new judicial appointments will create a robust system, which will reduce delays in our judicial system and make our criminal justice system more efficient.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today at report stage of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This is an omnibus bill that addresses matters related to the Criminal Code of Canada.

At first, everyone in our society who deals with major justice issues were quite pleased with what the Minister of Justice had to say. There is a clear need for reform. Unfortunately, many in the legal community and elsewhere who are calling for real reform are disappointed.

There is a great sense of disappointment. The longer we work with Bill C-75, the more the disappointment deepens. Michael Spratt, the former chair of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association, has been quoted in this debate before. As he put it, “It all sounded so good. But it has all gone so wrong.”

I did attempt to make improvements to the legislation. Members of this place will know that while my status as leader of the Green Party of Canada does not allow me to sit on any committees, through the work of the PMO, first under former primer minister Stephen Harper and now under our current Prime Minister, I have what some might think of as an opportunity but I have to say it is an enormous burden that increases my workload. It is rather unfair because if it were not for what the committees have done, I could have been presenting substantive amendments here at report stage. That is my right as a member of Parliament and not of one of the three big parties. I have very few rights as a member of Parliament with one seat for the Green Party, but one of those rights was to be able to make substantive amendments at report stage. My rights have been subsumed into what, as I said, was done first by the Conservative government and now by the Liberals, to say that I have an opportunity to present amendments during clause-by-clause study at committee, although I am not a member of the committee. I do not have a right to vote, but I get a chance to speak to my amendments.

It was under that committee motion I was able to present 46 amendments. I participated vigorously in the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-75. It was a very discouraging process as very few amendments from opposition parties were accepted. Most of my amendments went directly to testimony from many witnesses who wanted to see the bill improved and I am disappointed that none of my 46 amendments made it through.

I should say that some of the worst parts of Bill C-75 were changed on the basis of government-proposed amendments. One of the ones that had worried me a great deal was the idea that in a criminal trial, evidence from the police could come in the form of a written statement without proffering the police officer in question for cross-examination. That was amended so that the prosecutors cannot use what is called routine police evidence without having someone put forward to be cross-examined. There was also the repeal of the vagrancy law and repeal of the law about keeping a common bawdy house.

However, many other sections of this bill cry out for further amendment, so at this point I want to highlight those sections that really need to be amended. We are at report stage, and third reading will come in short order. We are already under time allocation. I hope that when this bill gets to the other place, as it inevitably will, the other place will pass amendments that are needed.

It is quite clear that this bill, in some key areas, would do the opposite of what the government has promised, particularly in relation to disadvantaged people, particularly in relation to the status of indigenous peoples in our prisons, and particularly in relation to access to justice and fairness which have actually been worsened in this bill. That is not something I expected to be standing up and saying at report stage, but there it is. It is massively disappointing, and I hope that the Senate will improve it.

One of the things that was done, and I am not sure it was the best solution, but it was clearly a response to the Stanley case where it was a massive sense of a miscarriage of justice. When there is a jury, it is supposed to be a jury of the accused person's peers. If the person is an indigenous youth and his or her jury is entirely Caucasian, it is not exactly a jury of his or her peers. One of the reasons this happens is the use of peremptory challenges. Therefore, I do appreciate the effort in Bill C-75 to eliminate peremptory challenges. However, I want to go over the way in which this bill actually takes this backward.

The effort here of course, as many other hon. members have pointed out, is that this bill is in direct response to the Jordan decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016. In the Jordan case, the delays were so profound that the case could not proceed. Therefore, I think it is very clear that all Canadians feel the same sense of concern with the new trial timelines of 18 months for provincial courts and 30 months for superior court. No one wants people to be freed, who at this point still have the presumption of innocence, because they have not gone through their court case. If the evidence is good enough, the prosecutors bring those people forward. The idea that they are just let out of jail because the trial times and the processing of that person took too long offends our sense of justice. The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada were given a very quick jab toward justice by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, have we got it right?

In an effort to speed up trials, I will mention one thing first, which is the issue of eliminating preliminary inquiries. There was a great deal of evidence before our committee that the Government of Canada and the justice department did not have good data to tell us that preliminary inquiries were a source of great delay.

I want to quote from one of the legal experts. Bill Trudell is the current chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers. He described preliminary inquiries like this, “They're like X-rays before an operation”. That is a very useful thing to have. They do not happen all the time, but when we remove them without good evidence as to why we are removing them, we could end up having innocent people convicted. In fact, Bill Trudell said that as difficult as it was for him to say, he thinks more innocent people will be convicted because we have taken out preliminary inquiries without quite having the evidence that that was a good thing to do to speed up trials.

We have heard a lot from my friends in the Conservative caucus about the question of hybridization. We have the problem that, having changed the range of sentencing, the effect of Bill C-75 is to also increase the sentencing for a summary conviction from six months to two years.

The Liberals have also added in Bill C-75 provisions about the use of agents that I do not think were thoroughly thought through. To give a better sense of agents, and this goes to the question of access to justice, suppose people are not quite poor enough to get a legal aid lawyer but are trying to navigate the legal system and they cannot afford a lawyer. In many of those cases, for a very long time, criminal defendants have had the benefit, particularly if they are low income, of law school clinics, which are young lawyers in training. They are student lawyers working as a clinic to provide legal services to people charged with lesser offences. It is too late to amend as here we are at report stage. I hope the other place will amend this to ensure access to legal aid clinics out of law schools in order to help marginalized groups navigating the legal system. I think this is an unintended consequence. I am certain that people in the Department of Justice did not ponder this and say that one of the problems is too many poor people are getting help from law students. That was not a problem that wanted solving, that was a very good and ongoing process that has been recklessly compromised in this bill. I have to hope that when it gets to the other place, we can fix this and make sure that in the definition of “agents” we exclude law students and law schools running clinics.

There are other aspects of this bill where the Liberals have just failed altogether to deal with the issue of the disproportionate number of indigenous people behind bars. They have taken in some aspects, in taking things into account. However, one of my amendments, that I really regret was not accepted, was we have no definition of “vulnerable populations”, and a lot of the evidence that came before the justice committee suggested we need such a definition. I tried one and it failed. Maybe the other place can try again. I hope that Bill C-75 will see more improvement in the other place before it becomes law.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contributions to today's debate, to all debates in the chamber and to committee deliberations. I have a couple of comments and then a question.

The member commented on the lack of amendments that were accepted. Almost 50 amendments were accepted at the committee stage, including several from members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

With respect to paralegals and agents, there was a significant amendment to the Criminal Code at the committee that addresses the very problem that was outlined by the member opposite with respect to ensuring that law societies and provincial regulatory bodies would, indeed, be able to empower agents to continue to appear on summary conviction offences, even ones that carry penalties of up to two years.

The important point about peremptory challenges needs to be re-emphasized. A change to peremptory challenges was advocated for by Jonathan Rudin, a distinguished member of the bar who deals with aboriginal and indigenous clients, who said this, indeed, would have a substantial impact on ensuring homogeneous juries do not deal with racialized accused.

I would ask the member opposite to comment with respect to the changes to administration of justice offences. We have sought to ensure that indigenous accused and other overrepresented communities are not overly penalized and recriminalized for simply violating something like breaching a curfew or bail, which is being taken out of criminal procedures and put into administration procedures. Is that a step in the right direction, from the member's perspective?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the amendment, but it kicks it to the provinces to act and the question is whether they will act to deal with the question of making sure law students can participate in hearings.

The bail issues and not recriminalizing people for things over which they really do not have control go directly back to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Morales. I think we have done a partial job in Bill C-75, but I think we could have done more.

As my hon. colleague will remember, a number of my amendments went to that question of making sure that we really thought through the levels of conditions of addictions or poverty that would make it virtually impossible to meet certain bail provisions. We could have done more, but I agree there are steps in the right direction in Bill C-75 to respond to R. v. Morales.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very hard work. She is on her own, coming to all of the different committees with all of the different bills, and she does a thorough job of bringing amendments.

I am specifically interested in understanding, with all of the amendments she put forward, which ones she considers to be the most important that should be included when the bill goes to the other place.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful to my friend from Sarnia—Lambton for those generous comments.

I will go back to the amendment about defining a vulnerable population. That would be very helpful. There was a series of amendments, and I will not quote them all, that leave a lot of discretion to police officers to decide which track a potential accused is going to go to. The question is whether police officers, who are wonderful professionals, have the training to assess the socio-economic conditions and the issues of trauma. It is putting too much on police. There should have been a provision to ensure that was left to prosecutors and the justice system, with the advice of people in what we might think of as the caring fields.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her contribution to Bill C-75.

She made reference to the limitation of preliminary inquiries only to those cases where the maximum sentence is life behind bars. She is quite right that the evidence before the committee overwhelmingly was that it would not reduce delay and that, in fact, it might increase delay because preliminary inquiries help weed out cases, particularly weak cases.

However, in addition to that, I was wondering if she could speak to this life criteria. It seems to be quite arbitrary, because there are certain offences where the maximum sentence may be life and others where it is not. In terms of the sentencing guidelines of case law, one would expect a similar sentence to be imposed, but yet in one case a preliminary inquiry would be available, in the other case it would not. It seems not to make a lot of sense.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton bringing it back to the question of preliminary inquiries. There is that question around whether that is a proper sentencing threshold. However, it allows me to raise another point about how the bill discriminates against marginalized people. Someone who has a lot of money, without a preliminary inquiry, can hire a private detective and try to figure out what facts they would have been able to discern had there been a preliminary inquiry. They can go out and get a private detective and find out a lot about the other facts of the case. However, someone without income, who is not going to be able to hire a private detective, would have unequal access to justice as a result of eliminating the preliminary inquiry, when they are not sentenced to an offence that has a sentence up to life.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on Bill C-75, which is officially called an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Once again, we have before us another omnibus bill.

Just two weeks ago, I spoke on the budget implementation act, part 2, which was an omnibus bill as well, which of course followed the BIA 1, which was also an omnibus bill. Those bills had sections inside of sections making legislative changes.

When the Liberals were in opposition they railed against omnibus bills, so much so that they actually put it into their campaign pledge. If we go to Liberal.ca, it is still there. This is what it says about omnibus bill. It starts, of course, by attacking Stephen Harper, and what Liberal talking point would be complete without blaming Prime Minister Harper? It says, “Stephen Harper has...used omnibus bills to prevent...properly reviewing and debating...proposals. We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”

When we say that, of course, we put our hand over our heart. However, despite their pledge, here we have another omnibus bill. Perhaps that pledge meant they would prevent others from bringing omnibus bills, but not the Liberals.

If we go to the famous Liberal mandate tracker, what does it say on this promise? Under the “unfair and open government” part, it says they will end the use of omnibus bills. Funnily enough, we have an omnibus bill here, the budget implementation act, part 2, and part 1 is on omnibus bills.

Despite that, under the Liberal mandate tracker under “End the improper use of omnibus bills...” it says it is completed and fully met. Of course, this is the same mandate tracker that is judging balancing the budget by 2019-20. It says it is under way with challenges. The government has stated, its own finance department has stated, we will not see it balanced until 2045. However, somehow it was promised for 2019, and by 2045, it is under way with challenges. It makes me think that if the Liberals were the head of the Titanic, after hitting the iceberg and while it is going down, the Cunard Line reaches out to the captain and asks, “How are you making out on your trip?” and the response is, “Well, we are under way with challenges”.

Moving on to Bill C-75, I agree with a few items in this omnibus bill. With over 300 pages of changes, one has to be able to find a few good things. Bill C-75 would repeal unconstitutional provisions in the Criminal Code. That is fair and good. It would increase the maximum prison term for repeat offences involving intimate partner violence. It would provide that abuse from a partner is an aggravating factor on sentencing. We agree with that and fully support it. It would provide more onerous interim release provisions. Again, we can get behind that. It makes some efforts to reduce delays in the judicial system by restricting the availability of a preliminary hearing, increasing use of technology to facilitate remote attendance, and providing for judicial referral hearings to deal with administration of justice offences involving failure to comply with release conditions or failure to appear.

That being said, I have many grave concerns with the bill, mostly around how it waters down penalties for crimes. The Liberals are claiming they want to push through Bill C-75 using time allocation in order to speed up the court process, and also because of the Jordan ruling. The big problem is, the Liberals are not able to get their act together and appoint judges. It is one thing to make small steps in this way, but until they get their act together and appoint judges, we are going to continue with justice delays and people being released under the Jordan ruling. There have been hundreds of cases tossed due to delays because the government has been unable to do its job and appoint judges.

There are about 2,000 more applications before the courts to dismiss cases because of delays. We had a gang hit man in Calgary accused of three murders, and suspected by the Calgary police of committing 20 murders. He was released from his trial for the three murders he was charged with, because of delays, because we do not have enough judges. We had a man accused of murder, charged in Edmonton, released because of delays, because the government cannot get its act together and appoint judges. We had a killer in Quebec released because of delays. Possibly the worst was a monster in Nova Scotia who took a baseball bat and broke the ankles and shins of his baby. This man was released because the government is too incompetent to do its job and appoint justices. This is an issue that they have to get hold of and they are failing Canadians.

I am pleased that the Liberals did listen to the Conservatives and other opposition members at committee and backed away from having lighter sentences for some crimes, such as terrorism-related offences and advocating genocide. It makes one wonder why it takes us, in committee, to force the government to back away from lightening a sentence for advocating genocide.

Just two weeks ago in the House, we heard the Prime Minister, the opposition leader, the NDP leader, the Green Party leader and members of other parties stand up and make wonderful speeches, apologizing for the disgrace of Canada's not accepting the MS St. Louis and the genocide that happened. The same week, we had a concurrence report from committee about the genocide against Yazidi women, a report that, to the credit of my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, dragged the government, kicking and screaming, into the light of recognizing that this had indeed been genocide. Despite everything ISIS has done in slaughtering these people, member after government member stood up to say that the UN had not decided it was genocide and that we could not call it that.

At least the government has recognized this and is not watering down the sentences for advocating genocide. However, I have to ask, why does it take the opposition to demand the government make this change?

As I mentioned, I have serious concerns about the watering down of serious crimes in this bill and reduced sentences for many serious crimes, including sometimes just a monetary fine. I want to go through a few of them.

One is prison breach.

Then there is municipal corruption, the influencing of municipal officials. Members will recall a couple of ex-Liberal cabinet ministers who went on to pursue careers in municipal politics who were charged with fraud. Maybe they were just doing a favour for their compatriots.

There is also influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices. Actually, we now have the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade being looked at for the clam scam. Perhaps they are trying to do him a favour.

Then there is obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman. This one is especially egregious. The Liberals tried to suspend this under section 176. There were special protections for clergyman performing ceremonies, whether church ceremonies, funerals, or other religious ceremonies. The Liberals tried to take that protection away. The opposition fought back. They promised they would not do that, and yet here in this bill they are reducing that crime.

Let us think about it. Two weeks ago we heard of the massive anti-Semitism that results in the genocide of Jewish people. This is two years after the massacre at the mosque in Quebec and just a month after the defacing of the Talmud Torah School, the Jewish school in my riding, with swastikas. Now we have the government saying that it is okay, that we do not need special protection for religious figures and clergymen.

Other crimes the Liberals are watering down include keeping a common bawdy house. Now, that may be great for parliamentarians, but certainly not for Canadians.

Then there is punishment for infanticide. As I mentioned earlier, we had a gentleman, a monster in Halifax, who was released after breaking the bones of his baby. Here we have a bill that allows for a reduction in sentencing for infanticide.

Another is concealing the body of child.

A further one is driving offences causing bodily harm. Again, we just legalized marijuana. We do not have a proper way to measure the impairment. Police departments have said they are not ready, and here we have the government going out of its way to reduce possible penalties for that.

Others include material benefit—trafficking, abduction of person under age of 16, abduction of person under the age of 14.

There there is forced marriage. Just in committee yesterday, we heard that in Sudan, Somalia and the Congo something like 50% of young girls are being forced into marriage. We have the government saying that we need to do more to prevent that, and we do overseas, but why is it reducing the crime here?

Again, to wrap up, I am sure this bill has wonderful intentions, but the government should look at fulfilling its responsibility of filling judicial vacancies and focus on victims and society, not on making things easier for criminals.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question.

The first comment would be in respect to the hon. member opposite's references to the reduction in penalties for a bawdy house. In fact, that shows a lack of understanding of the bill. The bill actually proposes to repeal the bawdy house provisions. We take seriously current and past discrimination against the LGBTQ2 community. That is an important facet of this bill. Perhaps it is not a priority for the member opposite, but it is certainly a priority for us.

Also, the member mentioned that we ought to get our act together and appoint judges. I put it to him that, in fact, there are currently more federally appointed judges in the province of Alberta, the province that he represents, than at any time in Canadian history. Under this government, we have appointed 238 members to the superior courts and federal courts in the country. That process includes diversifying appointments because we take seriously the need to ensure that the bench reflects the community it serves. Whereas the previous government's record was to have appointed women in 32% of its judicial appointments, 56% of our appointments to the bench have been women, as well as eight people who are indigenous, 20 people who are visible minorities, 13 people who are LGBTQ2 and three people who are identified as persons with disabilities.

My question, ergo, is this. Do the member's constituents in Edmonton West deserve to appear before a bench that actually looks like the community of Edmonton, or should we continue the old format of simply appointing homogenous people to the benches of superior courts in this country?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asks if the people of Edmonton West deserve certain things. What they deserve is not to have murderers wandering the streets because the government is too incompetent and too busy playing around with virtue signalling than appointing judges. People in B.C. do not need a murderer walking free. People in Nova Scotia do not need a father who has broken the ankles and shinbones of a baby to be walking free because of the government's incompetence.

That is what Canadians deserve, not the Liberal government.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice just stood up and patted the government on the back for the appointment of judges. I would remind this House of the government's record when it comes to judicial appointments, including the fact that it took the minister a full six months before appointing a single judge.

Under the minister's watch, we have seen records set on more than one occasion set for the number of judicial vacancies, and we have seen judges themselves speaking out, including the former chief justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in the province of Alberta, Neil Wittmann, begging and pleading the minister to take action.

Does the hon. member agree that that does not sound like a record of action when it comes to the government's appointing judges, but sounding like too little, too late, resulting in a lot of serious cases being thrown out?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton makes a lot of sense. I would direct him to the Minister of Public Safety's departmental plan. These are the plans set out at the beginning of every fiscal year and released with the estimates, stating all of the department's goals and objectives and what the department is going to achieve.

Do my colleagues know what it says about Canadian communities being safe? The Liberal government's goal for the crime severity index is that it go up from what it was during the Harper era. With respect to the percentage of Canadians who think that crime in their neighbourhood has decreased, the Liberal government's goal is to have a 50% reduction.

This shows that the priority of the Liberal government is not with Canadians and it is not with citizens. It is with virtue signalling, and certainly not with competence.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate of Bill C-75. I would like to use my time today to discuss some aspects of amendments to the selection of juries. As we know, jury reform is an area of shared jurisdiction and Parliament is responsible for the criminal law and the rules in the Criminal Code setting out the framework for in-court jury selection. The provinces and territories are responsible for determining, for example, who is eligible for jury duty and the process by which the jury roll is compiled. Bill C-75 proposes several reforms with respect to the in-court jury selection process.

First, is the abolishment of peremptory challenges. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard several witnesses testify on jury reforms. Several legal experts and advocates expressed strong support for their elimination, as it would finally put an end to discriminatory exclusion of jurors.

Kent Roach from the University of Toronto stated:

The proposed abolition of peremptory challenges in s.271 of Bill C-75 is the most effective and efficient way to ensure that neither the Crown or the accused engages in discrimination against Aboriginal people and other disadvantaged and identifiable groups when selecting a juror.

Brent Kettles from Toronto said:

...having peremptory challenges cannot help but lower the public confidence in the administration of justice when members of the public and perspective jurors watch perspective jurors excluded on the basis of no reason, on the basis of no evidence, and without any information.

When those exclusions are based basically on the gut feeling of who is likely to be sympathetic to one side or the other, then that doesn't give the public or perspective jurors a feeling that jury selection is happening in a way that is fair and impartial, and also represents the community.

Legal expert Vanessa McDonnell noted:

It's important to recognize that these challenges have historically been, and can be, used against accused persons to their detriment. We have to balance the perceived benefit of having the peremptory challenge in your pocket to challenge someone whom defence counsel doesn't feel quite right about against the very real risk, I would suggest, that these challenges are going to be used in a way that disadvantages the accused person. My view is that, on balance, the potential harm, not only to the system but to accused persons, is greater than any benefit that accrues.

Discrimination in the selection of juries has been documented for decades. Concerns about the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges and its impact on indigenous people being under-represented on juries were raised in 1991 by Senator Murray Sinclair, then a judge with the Manitoba aboriginal justice inquiry.

More recently, we heard from retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci, who studied these issues in his 2013 report on first nations representation on Ontario Juries. Having read these reports and after hearing from many experts on the topic, I am confident that Bill C-75 proposes the right approach in abolishing peremptory challenges. It is a simple and effective way to prevent deliberate discrimination and the arbitrary exclusion of qualified jury members.

Furthermore, to bring greater efficiencies to the jury selection process and to make it more impartial, the bill proposes to empower a judge to decide whether to exclude jurors challenged for cause—for example, because they are biased to one side—by either the defence or prosecution.

Currently, such challenges are decided by two laypersons called “triers” who are not trained in the law. This process has been problematic, causing delays in jury trials even before they begin and appeals resulting in orders for a new trial.

The proposal would shift the responsibility for such challenges to judges, who are trained adjudicators and therefore better placed to screen out impartial jurors. The proposed change reflects a recommendation made in 2009 by the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System, a group established by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice, comprising judges, deputy ministers of justice from across Canada, defence lawyers, representatives of the bar associations and the police. It is also consistent with what is done in other common law countries, such as England, Australia and New Zealand.

I am confident that this change in procedure would result in improvements in the overall efficiency of our jury trials.

There are also several proposed changes to modernize and update the challenge for cause grounds. Notably, the proposed change to reduce the number of jurors with criminal records for minor offences who could be challenged and excluded from jury duty would help address concerns that excluding individuals with minor criminal records disproportionately impacts certain segments of society, including indigenous persons, as noted by Justice Iacobucci. It would also assist in improving broader participation on juries, and thus, jury representativeness.

In conclusion, the jury reforms in Bill C-75 would mark critical progress in the area of promoting fairness, diversity and participation in the jury selection process. These improvements would also enhance efficiencies, as well as public confidence, in the criminal justice system.

I call upon all members of the House to support this transformative bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley spoke a lot about jury reform and the elimination of peremptory challenges. This is something we on this side took very seriously and were open to at committee. We heard from various witnesses. The member cited Professor Roach.

I would also note that uniformly, every member of the defence bar who appeared before our committee told us not to eliminate peremptory challenges. In that regard, I would quote Solomon Friedman, a criminal defence lawyer in Ottawa. He said:

Given the overrepresentation of aboriginal persons and racialized minorities as accused in our criminal justice system, at present the peremptory challenge is often the only tool counsel can use in order to ensure that the jury, even in some small way, is representative of the accused.

Michael Spratt, a past board member of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, was very outspoken in his opposition.

I am wondering if the hon. member could comment, given the uniform opposition from the criminal defence bar.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is correct that there are many members of the defence lawyers community that have made this assumption. However, we have a system right now that drastically under-represents aboriginal people and racialized people in our jury system. The system we have had up until now does not work, and this legislation would be a valuable means of helping to correct this imbalance.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been participating in this debate quite a bit throughout the day.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton sent out a message via social media that said that he thought it was incredible that I and others were defending the hybridization of serious criminal offences in Bill C-75 by trying to distinguish which were serious and which were less serious. He went on to talk about kidnapping and said that kidnapping is always serious.

We are not saying that kidnapping is not serious. We are saying that there are a range of ways offences can be committed and therefore a range of ways in which we could look at the seriousness of offences, and we would leave it to the prosecution to make that determination. It is not up to a politician to look from within this chamber and decide what the range of seriousness is within an offence. That happens in a court room. It is up to the prosecution and the judge to make that determination.

When my hon. colleague talks about hybridization, does he think it is fair that we would leave it up to the prosecution to decide the range in which offences could be committed and therefore that the correct sentencing for those offences could be applied within our justice system?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that when we are setting public policy in Parliament, much of that policy has to be administered at the level where there is the needed expertise. We would not ask physicians to follow the law in what antibiotics they prescribe. We would not ask judges to have no discretion in sentences they would give in court. We have to leave this to the experts in their fields, and judges and crown attorneys are experts in their field.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we resume debate, I would like to advise the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that he will have 10 minutes for his speech before we move on to oral question period. After question period, the hon. member will have an opportunity to respond to questions and comments about his speech.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important bill, which affects entire segments of our justice system and is essential to the organization of our society.

However, I have no choice but to start this brief speech by saying that the government's approach has left a very bad taste in my mouth. I am choking on this gag that has been forced on me.

The Liberal government is once again imposing a gag order. It has used this tool over 50 times in the past three years to prevent parliamentarians from discussing and fully debating this type of bill, which will affect our justice system, the way justice is meted out in our country, and the rights of victims and accused persons.

Once again, the Liberal government is refusing to allow us to take the time we normally would to conduct a full and exhaustive study of a bill. It is the same broken record, the same old story. The Liberals promised to restore confidence in our institutions, to restore Parliament's credibility, and to once again allow parliamentarians, MPs, to fully participate in discussions. Instead, the government is once again muzzling us and sweeping us aside.

Bill C-75, which we are debating today, is the government's response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Jordan. The court was examining some very long delays in some complex cases. These delays represented a denial of justice for the accused. The cases were never-ending, going on for years.

The Jordan decision set limits. For a normal case, there must not be more than 18 months between the time when charges are filed and the trial is concluded. There are, however, some exceptions. In some cases, the maximum may be 30 months.

The Jordan decision was meant to prevent justice from being unduly delayed or denied, but it has also led to the release of criminals who essentially escaped justice, an unforeseen consequence of the decision. When cases go beyond the time limit set by the Jordan decision, the accused in these cases walk free and never have to face justice or face the charges that were filed against them.

That being said, the government's response must be to determine how to free up the justice system and ensure that criminals are made to stand trial and cannot escape conviction and be released.

That would not necessarily be a good thing from a public safety perspective. We want to keep that from happening again. We agree with the Jordan decision because it was based on sound reasons and grounds, but it has had unintended and dangerous consequences for our society and our fellow citizens.

Is the government's response adequate? That is where we disagree with the Liberal government. We do not think that the solutions set out in Bill C-75 will meet the objective of speeding up the court system so that any accused persons are duly tried within the time frame set out in Jordan. The simplest and most effective solution would be to put more resources into the system so that more files, more cases and more charges can be dealt with more quickly. There are a number of things the government could do to make that happen. The easiest one would be to appoint judges. If there were more judges, then there would be more trials. If there were more trials, then they would be handled much more diligently and would take less time.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been dragging its feet on this for three years, and there are still quite a few vacant seats on federal court benches. We are still waiting for those decisions to be made.

To the NDP, this is not about being tougher. The NDP believes that until the government decides to invest in the judicial system, open courts, appoint judges and hire clerks so everyone in the legal system can meet these deadlines, anything else is just a half measure and could even make things worse.

Before getting into preliminary inquiries and routine police evidence, I would like to take two minutes to mourn yet another broken Liberal promise.

This bill is 300 pages long and covers all kinds of things. One might have thought that, while making such major changes to our judicial system, the Liberal government would have taken the opportunity to keep its promise to scrap the mandatory minimum sentences brought in by the Stephen Harper government.

During the campaign, the Liberals told us they would get rid of those mandatory minimum sentences because they made for a bad system that prevented judges from doing their job properly. They said they wanted to restore flexibility to the judicial system and empower judges to exercise judgment because no two cases, no two situations, and no two trials are identical. There are always slight differences.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, took a right-wing populist approach to mandatory minimum sentences. They wanted to provide a show of force and send a message to criminals that they would not get away with anything. Instead, judges' hands were tied, as legislation took away their ability to determine, based on a full understanding of the evidence presented, the best way forward and the most appropriate sentence for an accused.

This is even more disappointing considering that not only was it one of the Liberals' promises in their election platform, but it was also included in the mandate letter given to the Minister of Justice. The mandate letter said that mandatory minimums were a priority issue for the Liberals, yet the Liberals did not include this important matter in their criminal justice reform legislation. This is a lost opportunity to implement real, meaningful reform.

We are left, then, with the status quo, and judges still have no discretion around sentencing. Defence counsel will have no incentive to negotiate a plea, and the number of cases going to trial could increase. Once again, the Liberals missed the boat. This problem could have been solved.

I would like to take a moment to quote a few people. Amanda Carling, Emily Hill, Kent Roach and Jonathan Rudin wrote an article earlier this year in The Globe and Mail. The authors believe that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea. They argue that Parliament cannot possibly know all the varieties of offences and offenders who might commit them. Furthermore, such sentencing does not take into account the various circumstances offenders might find themselves in, for example, whether offenders live in abject poverty, have intellectual disabilities or mental health issues, have experienced racism or abuse in the past, or have children who rely on them. The authors added that mandatory minimum sentences do not allow judges to decide whether incarceration is necessary to deter, rehabilitate or punish a particular offender.

I think that is a major point that the Liberals should have included in this bill, but they missed the mark. Let us not forget that the courts are a reflection of the social problems and the social reality in our communities. This bill not only offers solutions that will not help clear the backlog in the system, but it does very little to recognize the root causes of the court backlogs, the myriad of social problems such as poverty, addiction, mental health problems, marginalization, and so forth. Investments and social support are urgently needed to reduce the burden on the courts and address the complex issue of over-representation of minorities, especially indigenous or racialized persons in the prison system.

In closing, I want to point out that the NDP is particularly concerned about the provision authorizing the admission of routine police evidence presented by way of affidavit. In other words, if we consider the fact that this routine evidence is presented through an affidavit, there is no opportunity during a trial to cross-examine the police officer on this piece of evidence. We think this could infringe on the rights of the accused to a full and complete defence.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by seven minutes.

[Marco Mendicino, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak to Bill C-75, which represents a package of bold and comprehensive reforms. This is not the first time that I have spoken to this significant piece of legislation. I did have the opportunity to comment on it previously in my former capacity as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice and the attorney general of Canada.

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to a number of people who have contributed to Bill C-75. First, obviously, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice for her leadership. I would also like to thank members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their close study of the bill, and all of the stakeholders and contributors who through their testimony before committee and their written submissions provided for a very rigorous and thoughtful study of this bill.

Having had the benefit of reviewing those submissions and some of the testimony and seeing the hard work and contributing to it myself by participating in round tables around the country, consulting with stakeholders in conjunction with the Minister of Justice, I am confident in saying that Bill C-75 is a momentous piece of legislation. When it becomes law, it will improve our overall criminal justice system.

I also want to thank the thousands of people who work within our criminal justice system day in and day out, law enforcement, police, members of the judiciary, and all the social services which are wrapped around the criminal justice system. Having worked in it myself for over a decade, I can say without any hesitation that these are individuals who care about protecting our community while also offering the prospect and opportunity for people who find themselves caught within the criminal justice system to reform and to rehabilitate, which is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system, especially as it relates to our sentencing processes.

There is obviously more to do. The Supreme Court of Canada put into very sharp focus the task that is ahead of us as a result of some of the ongoing challenges which the criminal justice system is confronted with every day. What are those challenges? They range from, obviously, the overrepresentation of marginalized individuals, in particular, members of the racialized community, as well as our indigenous peoples. Far too often, for reasons that are not their fault but rather a result of the systemic challenges which they face on an individual basis as well as the collective challenges that communities face, they find themselves caught in the web of the criminal justice system.

We need to be very candid with ourselves about what those challenges look like. We see overrepresentation of racialized members as well as indigenous peoples in our jails right across the country.

We also know there is an under-representation of those very same groups within the legal profession and within the judiciary. The work that the Minister of Justice has undertaken in appointing a judiciary which is more reflective of the diversity of this great country is in part a sincere effort to address that challenge. Having spoken with many members right across the continuum of our society, I can say that we have made progress, but there is still more work to do.

I also would note that the Supreme Court of Canada in Jordan did point out quite rightly and quite justifiably that there are serious concerns when it comes to delay, court delay in particular, and if not addressed, a denial of the right to have a trial within a reasonable period of time can amount to an infringement of a person's rights under the charter, particularly under section 11(b) of the charter. It was incumbent upon all of us in the words of the Supreme Court to address the culture of complacency which for far too long has shackled our ability to address delay.

Having had the benefit of reflection and having had the benefit of consultation and discourse in the context of Bill C-75, we now have a suite of reforms which will not solve all of the problems, but certainly will begin to dramatically rewire and hopefully create a criminal justice system, a set of processes, which will allow people to have access to justice, have the right to have their day in court, and begin that path to rehabilitation which is so important in order to create communities which are strong, resilient and safe.

I will now highlight some of the important components of Bill C-75, much of which has been debated for quite some time now in this House and at committee. Eventually, the bill will make its way over to the other place and then back.

It begins at the very start of the criminal justice system process when an individual is arrested and is brought before the court for his or her first appearance. It is at that moment the court is then asked to determine whether that person should be released or detained pending his or her trial.

We have enshrined a principle of restraint in Bill C-75, the point of which is to ensure that justice actors who are appearing in court, either representing the Crown or the defence or in their capacity as duty counsel, are not automatically overburdening judicial interim release orders with conditions which essentially are a prescription for reoffending and failure. Rather, through this principle of restraint, we are encouraging all of the parties who are involved in the determination of bail to assess the conditions which are necessary to address one of the three statutory grounds on which an individual is released.

From the perspective of the primary grounds, if the person is a flight risk, what are the conditions that are necessary to secure the person's ongoing attendance before the court? On the secondary grounds, is there a serious risk of reoffending? What are the conditions that are necessary for the purposes of ensuring that the community's concerns are addressed on secondary grounds? Obviously, under the tertiary grounds, we question whether there are additional conditions which are required to maintain the public's confidence in the administration of justice. Again, we look for some nexus between what are the conditions which are being asked for by either party and their advancement of the tertiary ground concerns.

We have, through the principle of restraint, really fostered a much more responsible approach. This is about addressing the culture of the criminal justice system right from the get-go, once a person is implicated with charges at the bail stage.

We have also, in the context of Bill C-75, introduced a suite of reforms that will, hopefully, reduce the number of administration of justice offences which are in the system. Looking at the statistics which are available right across the country, we see, for example in the province of Ontario, that over 40% of the charges in the provincial court system, the Ontario Court of Justice, could be classified under the administration of justice offences.

We are looking to find alternative ways to address potential breaches through the principle of restraint, to actually reduce the likelihood that there will be an unnecessary technical charge which is unrelated to the underlying substantive offence, but also to introduce a concept called judicial referral hearings, where even if there is a legitimate breach, to look for other ways to address it, short of introducing an entire set of new charges.

I would also point out that Bill C-75 addresses intimate partner violence. This is something that I heard very personally and I know the minister did as well in our round tables. There is the need to address the systemic barriers which for far too long have prevented victims from coming forward. How are we doing that? In the case of repeat offenders, people who have been convicted in the past of sexual offences or offences related to intimate partner violence, to put the onus on them to determine whether they should be entitled to bail, and also to look for additional factors to be taken into consideration.

At the back end there are more tools available both to the prosecutor as well as to the court to determine what is the appropriate sentence by lifting the maximum sentences available, again for repeat offenders. That, coupled with the investments which we are making in the victims fund, by looking at other ways in which we can make it easier for victims to be able to come forward to ensure that they are heard, to ensure that they have a voice in the system, is absolutely crucial in order to ensure that there is access to justice.

These are just some of the highlights in Bill C-75. Again, there is no one simple solution to solving all of the challenges which the criminal justice system is confronted with.

I rise with great pride to speak on behalf of the bill. I urge all members to support it. At the end of the day, it will bring the criminal justice system into the 21st century and therefore be a great service to our country.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague outlined a number of the positive elements of the bill. Certainly on this side of the House, we agree that there are some positive elements in it. The intimate partner violence reform is one that we applaud. What he has neglected to say is that there are many other crimes for which the sentences are being reduced, for example, human trafficking.

Under the leadership of our former prime minister Stephen Harper and my colleague Joy Smith, we led the play on human trafficking. The fact that human trafficking of children and young people occurs in our country is unfortunate and despicable.

At the justice committee hearing on human trafficking, former human trafficker, Donald, testified that if the government were to be lenient on the sentencing of convicted human traffickers, it would be like a carte blanche for traffickers to expand this despicable industry and further harm Canadian kids.

Could my colleague indicate if he is in fact in favour of making more lenient sentences for those who would abduct a child, the human traffickers in our country?

[Marco Mendicino]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague across the aisle knows better than to ask such a rhetorical question. Of course, no member on the government side of this chamber is in favour of being lenient and turning a blind eye to human trafficking. In fact, I would point out that under the last Conservative administration, there were broad cuts made to our public safety apparatus to the tune of three-quarters of a billion dollars, which undermined our ability to bring human traffickers to justice.

This government has reversed those cuts. Not only that, we introduced legislation to provide additional tools to prosecutors to ensure that the appropriate burdens would be in place so we could bring human traffickers to justice. To that I would also add that Bill C-75 is precisely about ensuring that we have access to justice by introducing a suite of procedural reforms, which I addressed in my commentary.

Once we get beyond the kind of regrettable rhetoric that we hear from the Conservative benches, and in particular the member who just posed that question, we see we have before us a very strong bill. It is based on evidence and on data. I would encourage my hon. colleague to look at some of that information and vote in support of Bill C-75.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the work I have done in my riding, I have heard both from the RCMP and from legal representatives. They are frustrated with dealing with issues that are really better served by people who provide support and deal with social issues.

When we look at the bill, again, we see the absolute neglect of dealing with the social issues and understanding that not all of these issues need to be in the legal system. We know the system is already overflowing. There are so many challenges. In fact, multiple experts have said that this will not deal with that at all and that it will not actually do what it says, which is to ensure the system has fewer people going through it.

I would appreciate it if the member could talk about how he or his government would justify not addressing the social issues that are clogging our system every day.

[Marco Mendicino]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we cannot solve all of the social issues in the context of Bill C-75. If she had listened carefully to my remarks, I made that concession at the very outset.

However, I would point out that the experts we have listened to very carefully, including the Criminal Lawyers' Association, while they do not agree with every aspect of Bill C-75, they do support many of the measures as they relate to bail reform and to reducing the systemic barriers that have plagued our system for far too long when it comes to addressing the indigenous, marginalized and vulnerable individuals who come before the courts at both the bail and the sentencing phases.

Inasmuch as my hon. colleague is concerned about this government's commitment to addressing the social issues that our country faces, I would point out that we have introduced a national housing strategy. It will invest $40 billion over the next 12 years and it will reduce homelessness significantly. Under this government, we have introduced the Canada child benefit plan, which has put more money into the pockets of nine out of 10 families and has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. By doing that, we will see fewer of those youth, with whom I worked very closely, caught up in the criminal justice system.

That is a result of both Bill C-75 before the House, as well as the social investments we are making and of which we should all be very proud.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to be in the House to speak to this important justice bill.

Bill C-75, sadly, is a deeply flawed, 302-page omnibus bill introduced by the government. Are there some positive aspects? Yes. However, the way it has been done, rammed through, not properly dialogued, not properly considered and ignoring the opposition members at committee, is a very serious and concerning process.

The previous speaker, when asked about the bill, said that the Conservative comments were regrettable rhetoric. It is that attitude, where the Liberals have a majority in the House, they can ram things through and get their way every time. It appears to be an arrogant attitude with the government dismissing any critique.

The Prime Minister continues to show that he does not take the safety and security of Canadians seriously. He is not listening to positive critique. He is watering down serious offences, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm, using date rape drugs and human trafficking. These are all serious crimes.

There are 136 offences included in Bill C-75, offences like participating in the activities of a terrorist group. One of two amendments, coming from the Conservative Party, were made at the justice committee. The government then permitted its members in committee to accept an amendment on that one, and that was withdrawn. Another is advocating genocide.

How did the Liberals come up with this list of 136 offences? Why did it only accept to remove two, advocating genocide and participating in a terrorist group? What about the other 134 offences?

The Liberals have taken any offence that is a serious indictable offence, with a maximum sentence of 10 years, and they have grouped them into one group, and we have Bill C-75 in front of us. It is offences like prison breach, municipal corruption, influencing municipal official, influencing or negotiating appointments or deals in offices, violence against a clergy person, keeping a common bawdy house, punishment for infanticide and concealing body of child.

There are 134 offences. Do some of them need to be updated? Yes, but it needs to be done in a constructive, proper way.

The Criminal Code of Canada did not come into play a year ago. It has come through the judicial system, through the legal system, through the legislative system for years and years. Last year, Canada celebrated its 150th birthday. Over the years, we have learned from other countries what the laws should be and what is the appropriate sentencing. We have also learned about respecting the courts and giving the courts discretion.

Over the years, we have come up with appropriate sentencing. To review this is a good practice. It should be done. One of the things I am quite concerned about is that in the last Parliament we had a major focus on victims in Canada. The Victims Bill of Rights came out of that, and that was a huge accomplishment. Part of that was a system where there would be a victim surcharge, where an offender would pay into a victims fund to take care of victims. This is being repealed in Bill C-75. It will be gone, again taking away opportunities to take care of victims.

In the little time I have to speak, I would like to focus on impaired driving. Impaired driving causing bodily harm, causing death, is the number one criminal offence in Canada. It is a very serious offence. I have received tens of thousands of petitions. There is not usually a week that goes by where I am not honoured to present a petition on behalf of Families For Justice. Every member of Families For Justice has lost a loved one.

Markita Kaulius lives in my riding. She is the president of Families For Justice. She and Victor lost their beautiful daughter to a drunk driver. She was 22 years old when she was killed.

In these petitions, the petitioners are asking that the charge of impaired driving causing death be called “vehicular homicide”, and that if a person is arrested and convicted of impaired driving, there should be an automatic one-year driving prohibition. It sounds reasonable. Also, if a person is convicted of causing bodily harm while impaired, by being under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, there should be a minimum mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment. If a person is convicted of causing a collision while being impaired and a person is killed, they are asking for a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment.

In the last Parliament, the government introduced a bill to toughen up laws on mandatory minimum sentences, which is what Families For Justice is asking for. It did not include calling it vehicular homicide. It was dealing with the mandatory minimums, getting tough on crime.

At the end of the last Parliament, Families For Justice contacted each of the leaders. The current Prime Minister wrote a letter to Families For Justice and said that he would support getting tough on crime. Sadly, Bill C-75 would remove impaired driving causing bodily harm, failing to provide a bodily sample and blood alcohol over the limit from indictable offences and make them hybrid offences. In actuality, this would take these offences, at the choice of the prosecution, out of federal court. Because they could be summary convictions, they would be put into provincial court. The federal government would be downloading onto provincial courts.

In British Columbia, I have been regularly shocked to see cases being thrown out of court by judges because they have gone on too long. We then end up with the federal government downloading all these indictable cases onto the provincial court. The Criminal Code being enforced will exasperate provincial justice, by making serious offences like kidnapping, abducting a person under the age of 14 summary convictions. Why should people who would abduct a child, who could be charged with a serious indictable offence, with a 10-year maximum, now have a summary conviction available to them? This would be two years less a day and put into the provincial courts.

The government says one thing and does something totally different. It promised Markita Kaulius, Families For Justice and other Canadians that it was going to get tough on crime. We hear regularly that it is getting tough on impaired driving, but in fact it does nothing like that. What it says and what it does are two totally different things.

It brings to mind the proverb, “A tree is known by its fruit”. If there are apples on the branches of that tree, it is an apple tree. If there are pears on it, it is a pear tree. If it is a tree of deceit, the country groans. Canadians want justice. They want a government that spends the time to do it right when it makes legislative changes, not ram it through because it has the ability to do it.

Therefore, I hope the government will ask some good questions, some important questions. With the way it is handling Bill C-75, I have received a lot of phone calls, emails and regular input from my constituents. I am sure every one of us is getting the same kinds of phone calls with respect to Bill C-75, saying to vote against Bill C-75. Therefore, that is what I plan to do.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, by way of a comment, I would indicate to the member opposite that federal-provincial-territorial conferences have been held about this very issue, responding to the Jordan decision, which was rendered two years ago. There have also been extensive consultations around the country, both in person and online, to hear from Canadians. Therefore, “ramming this through” is probably a bit of a mischaracterization for this bill.

With respect to my question, what I would put to my friend opposite is this. The very specific way we are responding to the problem of domestic violence is by categorizing it as “intimate partner violence”, by expanding the definition of who an intimate partner can be, including a dating partner or a non-married spouse, and ensuring that the penalties for intimate partner violence are increased. I know the member opposite and many of his colleagues care deeply about victims rights. In the case of victims of domestic violence, we absolutely abide by that and hear those kinds of criticisms. Therefore, could the member comment on whether he approves our changes to the intimate partner violence provisions and the increased penalties for people who are guilty of that kind of domestic violence?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, consultation is listening, taking into consideration, and learning from one another. Just having meetings with people within our provincial directorate is not proper consultation.

I was not part of those consultations. However, I strongly believe that the provinces in this great country of Canada did not ask to make softer impaired driving laws. Just like they have told Canadians and told us, I believe they told the provincial bodies that they were going to toughen up impaired driving laws. However, with Bill C-75 they are making them weaker. Those provincial consultations did not say it was okay to bypass abducting a child or to participate in criminal organizations. Therefore, the government has blown it on Bill C-75.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way talked about kidnapping. It is somewhat disturbing that the Conservatives do not seem to recognize that there is a bit of a difference. Imagine an individual going through a divorce and one parent assumes custody. If one day the child is very disgruntled or upset with the parent who has custody, he or she may decide to go over to the other parent's house, and a day later there could be allegations of kidnapping. There is a big difference between that sort of kidnapping versus a kidnapping where a child is apprehended from a schoolyard and literally used in the sex trade, possibly murdered or something of that nature. Would the member across the way acknowledge the difference between those two types of kidnapping?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge that there is a big difference. That is why the courts need to have discretion. However, what we are hearing from the government is that participation in the activities of a terrorist group or advocating genocide is also within that same grouping of legislation, Bill C-75. It accepted amendments to remove those two, but everything else had to stay because it is close-minded and would not accept consultation from Canadians.

Bill C-75 has a lot of problems with it. That is why Canadians do not want us to vote for it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks.

We all know that Conservatives and New Democrats do not always agree. However, one point on which we can agree is that the government's failure to appoint judges is deplorable. Without more judges, delays in the justice system will not get better.

I would like to know if my colleague finds that utterly deplorable. The election is a year away, but we all know that anything the government does between now and then will be motivated solely by a desire to get re-elected.

For the past three years, the government's legislative agenda has been quite sparse. The government has not changed much, and when it does do something people were looking forward to, such as this bill, it does a poor job.

What does the member think of that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a very good point. When the justice minister had the responsibility of appointing judges, six months went by before there were any appointments, and this created a backlog. Now with Bill C-75 and offences being downloaded onto the provincial government, there will be an additional backlog. The Liberals are creating a judicial and legislative mess. They have accomplished very little in the House and now they want to ram Bill C-75 through because they have the most bodies in the House.

These important issues need to be handled properly and they are not being handled properly by the current government.

[Kamal Khera, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on Bill C-75. Through this bill, our government is fulfilling its promise to move forward with comprehensive criminal justice reform. Once passed, this legislation would have a real effect on court delays and help reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous people and other marginalized groups in the criminal justice system, including those with mental health and addiction issues. It would also help to make juries more representative of the communities they serve.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Justice and all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for all the hard work they have done to make sure we get this bill right.

I will focus my remarks on amendments to the Criminal Code that would remove provisions declared unconstitutional, primarily by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that already have no force or effect, but continue to appear in the code.

Bill C-75 would repeal the offences of anal intercourse, vagrancy, spreading false news, procuring a miscarriage and bawdy house offences. This bill would also remove provisions relating to the offence of murder, as well as provisions that prevented judges from giving enhanced credit for time served in custody prior to sentencing.

Bill C-75 proposes to repeal section 230 of the Criminal Code, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Martineau in 1990 because it infringed on section 7, which is the right of life, liberty and security of persons, and subsection 11(d), which is the presumption of innocence in the charter. Section 230 could result in a murder conviction if the accused caused the death of a person while committing another offence, like robbery, even if the person did not intend to kill the victim. The court made clear that the label of murderer and the mandatory life sentence was reserved for those who had the intent to kill or injure so severely that they know the victim could die.

The Martineau decision also found part of subsection 229(c) unconstitutional because it allowed a conviction for murder where a person, in pursuing an illegal activity, causes someone's death when the individual should have known, but did not, that death was a likely outcome of his or her actions. Bill C-75 proposes to remove this unconstitutional provision.

The continued presence of these invalid provisions in the Criminal Code can cause delays, inefficiencies and injustice to the accused. Bill C-75's proposed amendments would make it clear that those convicted of murder must have foreseen the death of the victim.

Bill C-75 would also repeal the prohibition against anal intercourse. It has been declared unconstitutional by several courts because it discriminates on the basis of age, marital status and sexual orientation.

Bill C-75 would also repeal section 181, which prohibits the spreading of false news. This offence dates back to 13th century England and targeted conduct meant to sow discord between the population and the king. The Supreme Court struck down this provision in R. v. Zundel in 1992 because it unjustifiably violates freedom of expression and lacks a clear and important societal objective that could justify its broad scope.

As Bill C-75 proposes to appeal this unenforceable offence, some might wonder whether this leaves a gap in criminal law, including the ability to target false news in some way. These questions are quite relevant today in the light of fake news discourse and the concerns of such fake news to promote hate against particular groups. In this respect, it is worth noting that the Criminal Code already contains a robust set of hate propaganda offences and other hate crime-related provisions, including, for example, the public incitement of hatred offences found in section 319.

Bill C-75 would also repeal the abortion offence in section 287 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the procurement of a miscarriage and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court 30 years ago in the Morgentaler case. The Supreme Court's guidance was clear. It said forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term, unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of security of the person. It is long overdue that this invalid provision be removed from our Criminal Code.

Additional amendments to modernize the criminal law were adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its work and I would like to take a moment to discuss this as well.

As tabled, Bill C-75 repealed part of the vagrancy offence. The provision against loitering near a school ground, playground or public park for persons convicted of certain offences, paragraph 179(1)(b), was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Haywood in 1994 because it was overly broad in applying to “too many places, to too many people, for an indefinite period with no possibility of review.” The justice committee went further and adopted a motion to repeal the vagrancy offence committed by supporting oneself by gaming or crime and having no lawful provision or calling, found in paragraph 179(1)(a).

Modern Canadian criminal law is not concerned with the status of an individual such as unemployed, but rather and rightly focuses on morally blameworthy conduct. The justice committee also heard that this offence was used in a historically discriminatory fashion to target members of a particular community. I am pleased that the committee agreed to remove this offence in its entirety and I am confident that it leaves no gap in the law.

The justice committee also unanimously adopted an amendment that repeals bawdy house offences at sections 210 and 211 of the Criminal Code. This amendment responds to the concerns that these provisions are antiquated and also have been used as discriminatory against the LGBTQ2 community and no longer serve a legitimate criminal law purpose. Their net effect is to criminalize anyone who has any kind of association with a bawdy house. This is inconsistent with modern criminal law, which criminalizes blameworthy conduct not location in which certain activities take place, nor a person's status in respect to such location. The repeal of the bawdy house offences would also leave no gap in the law as discussed by the committee during its consideration of this issue.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that our laws are as clear as possible to all Canadians, not just criminal law experts who can weave the Criminal Code together with the jurisprudence to better understand the true state of the law. Clarity contributes to accessibility. This is particularly important to criminal law given its significant impact on an individual's liberty and on public safety. Lack of clarity with the law also results in costs aside from tangible costs on the justice system such as wasted police, prosecution and court resources. They are at risk of injustice to the accused and intangible costs to victims.

Moreover, the reliance on unconstitutional laws has a negative impact on the reputation of the criminal justice system and affects Canadians' confidence in that system. These amendments promote clarity in the law and respect for the charter and should be without any controversy. These changes are consistent with the objectives of other amendments contained in Bill C-75 in the way they will make our system more efficient and more accessible.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the motion and once again I want to take this opportunity to thank the minister for all the consultations that she has done with many members of our society as well as the justice committee for all the work it does.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sections of the Criminal Code have been deemed unconstitutional and are therefore of no force or effect. I was astounded that the parliamentary secretary would pat the government on the back for moving forward in this bill with the rightful removal of those sections when it was all the way back in the fall of 2016 when the second-degree murder charges against Travis Vader were thrown out of court because the trial judge applied section 230 of the Criminal Code.

The member made reference to the Martineau decision. Following that, the McCann family, who come from my community of St. Albert, Bret McCann, his son and his wife Mary-Ann, and I pleaded for the minister to introduce legislation. The member for Mount Royal, the chair of the justice committee, wrote to the minister to urge her to introduce legislation. She introduced legislation, to her credit, on March 8, 2017 in Bill C-39.

Bill C-39 has been stuck at first reading, when we could have gotten it done by way of unanimous consent. Why did the government delay almost two years before finally moving forward in Bill C-75? It is too little, too late for the McCann family.

[Kamal Khera]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work our government has done to introduce this legislation to modernize the criminal justice system and reduce court delays.

The proposed reforms are a key component of a federal strategy to transform the criminal justice system and make it more efficient, more effective, and fairer and more accessible while protecting public safety. The proposed reforms also aim to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous persons and vulnerable populations in the criminal justice and court system. Many of these law reforms reflect a collaborative intergovernmental effort to address court delays, and have been identified as priorities by the federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion of my colleague opposite. I would want to believe that too, if I were her. I would want to believe what my colleagues told me, what my ministerial colleague told me.

Can she tell me whether she will at least have a chance to look into how little progress the current government has made on its legislative agenda compared with the previous government at the same point in time?

When a bill is suddenly introduced, it is only natural to say that we are going to examine it, but ultimately, many witnesses and experts in the field believe that Bill C-75 does not come close to doing what needs to be done.

[Kamal Khera]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, but this is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that was done in consultation with many key stakeholders. As we have said all along, there is no simple solution for addressing the issue of court delays. We are already doing so as part of our collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners. However, this legislation and all of the actions taken to date are aimed at addressing the root causes of the delays. This bill intends to bring more cultural shift within the criminal justice system, something that the Supreme Court in its Jordan decision stressed is required.

Once again, I thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its extensive study of Bill C-75 and the amendments it has proposed. We believe these amendments help strengthen Bill C-75. I hope that all members of the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member opposite, in her role in international affairs, has encountered countries where forced marriage exists. I am astounded that the government here in Canada could allow forced marriage in this bill, which essentially means individuals being forced to have sex again and again with someone they did not give consent to. How can a government that claims to be feminist and a defender of women's rights think that the penalty for that should be a summary conviction of less than two years or a fine?

[Kamal Khera]

Mr. Speaker, what I just heard from my hon. colleague is just absurd. Again, with Bill C-75 we are advocating bold reforms that would address court delays in our criminal justice system. Nothing in this bill would change the fundamental principles of sentencing. Our courts will continue to impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offenders.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kamal Khera]

I would appreciate if the hon. member would let me speak, when he could have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-75, introduced on March 29, 2018. The bill has now been studied by the justice and human rights committee and returned to the House. I am optimistic that we can move this important piece of legislation forward today. Bill C-75 includes important amendments that reflect the government's unwavering commitment to tackling gender-based violence.

Last June, the government launched a federal strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence across Canada. The 2017 budget included $100.9 million over five years and an additional $20.7 million per year thereafter to fund this important strategy, which would ensure there is more support for vulnerable populations, such as women and girls, indigenous people, LGBTQ2 community members, gender non-binary individuals, those living in rural and remote communities, and people with disabilities, among many others.

Budget 2018 announced a further $86 million over five years and $20 million per year in ongoing funding to enhance this strategy. The three pillars of the strategy—prevention, support for survivors and their families, and promotion of a responsive legal and justice system—will better align these and existing resources to ensure that current gaps in support are filled.

Bill C-75 complements these initiatives and further supports the third pillar of the federal gender-based violence strategy by promoting a more responsive legal and justice system. It specifically targets intimate partner violence, which is one of the most common forms of gender-based violence. Intimate partner violence includes things like sexual, physical and psychological abuse, as well as controlling behaviours. Bill C-75 proposes to define “intimate partner” throughout the Criminal Code to clarify that it includes a current or former spouse, common-law partner and a dating partner.

This clarification is sorely needed to reflect the current reality, which is that so many of the individuals accused of violence against women before the courts are in fact dating partners, as opposed to spouses. According to data from Statistics Canada, victimization by an intimate partner was the most common form of police-reported violent crime against women in 2016. Based on police-reported data from 2016, we also know that violence within dating relationships was more common than violence within spousal relationships.

The new definition of intimate partner violence would apply in the sentencing context, where judges would have to consider any evidence of abuse against a former or current spouse, common-law partner and dating partner as an aggravating factor. Higher maximum penalties for repeat intimate violence offenders would also be available to sentencing judges under this legislation.

In addition to the reverse onus on bail, Bill C-75 would add two new factors that a judge would have to consider before making an order to release or detain an accused. Bail courts would have to consider an accused's criminal record, something that already routinely occurs but is not mandated, as well as whether an accused has ever been charged with an offence that involved violence against an intimate partner. These factors would ensure that judges have a more complete picture and are fully informed of any prior history of violence that could threaten the safety of a victim or the public at large.

In 2016, Statistics Canada reported that the type of violence most often experienced by victims of intimate partner violence was physical force, which includes more serious harm, such as choking. The reforms proposed in Bill C-75 would further enhance victim safety by clarifying that strangulation, choking and suffocation constitute a more serious form of assault under section 267 of the Criminal Code, punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment, instead of a simple assault, which carries a maximum penalty of five years. It would also ensure that sexual offences involving strangulation, choking or suffocation are treated as the more serious form of sexual assault, which imposes a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment if the victim is an adult, and life if the victim is a child, under section 272 of the Criminal Code. This would depart from the existing penalty for simple sexual assault, which is a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment under section 271, or 14 years when the victim is under 16.

Unfortunately, under existing law, courts do not always recognize the seriousness of these types of assaults, which often occur in the context of intimate partner violence. These aggressive acts cannot be underappreciated or dismissed as simply reflecting a perpetrator's anger management problem. Strangulation and choking pose a much higher risk to safety than other forms of assault, because they deprive a person of oxygen, with potentially fatal consequences, despite the fact the person might not have any visible injuries. The proposed amendment would better reflect the gravity of the harm inflicted.

While strong laws are a necessary part of tackling gender-based violence, it is important to understand how this legislation complements existing programs and initiatives that, together, ensure that the justice system is working at its full potential.

Over the past couple of years, the government has been working closely with the provinces and territories to improve the criminal justice system's response to gender-based violence. For example, since 2016, the government has provided funding for projects designed to improve responses to sexual assaults against adults. This funding has been made available through the federal victims fund to provinces and territories, municipal governments, first nations, and criminal justice and non-governmental organizations.

The funding is supporting pilot projects in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to provide independent legal advice to victims of sexual assault, and the Government of Ontario to further enhance its existing project. Alberta has developed a similar program that is being administered and funded through the provincial ministry of the status of women.

Strong criminal justice responses to gender-based violence, including measures that aim to enhance access to justice for victims, as well as the proposals in Bill C-75, are especially significant right now in the wake of the #MeToo movement, as so many sexual assault survivors are coming forward to acknowledge and share their experiences of sexual violence. Indeed, a November 9, 2018 report by Statistics Canada indicates that the number of police-reported sexual assaults sharply increased by 25% following the beginning of the #MeToo movement in October 2017. The harrowing accounts shared by survivors have shed light on the many social and economic barriers that sexual assault victims have faced and continue to face, with devastating consequences for individuals, their families, and their communities. As more stories of sexual assault are told, we must ensure that the victims and survivors are treated with compassion and respect and that the criminal justice system responds appropriately.

I firmly believe that the proposals to enhance the safety of victims of intimate partner violence in Bill C-75 are a necessary response to this horrific societal problem. I am proud to be part of a government that takes violence against women seriously, as I know all of us in the House do, and one that remains unwavering in its commitment to ensuring that the victims of gender-based violence and their loved ones are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. I hope members will all join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I find interesting about the bill before us is clauses 106 and 107, which have to do with people who participate in human trafficking. Clause 106 talks about material benefit, and clause 107 talks about destroying documents. Also, clause 389 talks about removing consecutive sentencing for those who participate in human trafficking.

I listened to the member talk about much violence against women. However, human trafficking is terrible thing that happens right here in Canada, and often 10 blocks from where one lives. I am wondering how the member can square what she said in her speech with a bill that would reduce the sentencing for human traffickers. In some cases, someone would only end up being fined for participating in human trafficking.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague that I appreciate his interest in the issue of human trafficking. Many of us in the House and elsewhere are well aware of what goes on out there in this terrible world when it comes to trafficking in human beings, whether it is occurring on our local streets or elsewhere.

Some of the work I did on prostitution and trafficking some years back, as a city councillor, was about helping people better. I think we all intend to make sure that the laws of the land protect people and help those victims who find themselves in the terrible position of being trafficked or used for sexual exploitation.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a quote from an article by Elizabeth Sheehy and Isabel Grant, in the Toronto Star, entitled “Bill C-75 reforms too little, too late....” It says:

A woman is killed by her current or former partner every six days in Canada. Indigenous women are killed by their intimate partners at a rate eight times higher. Domestic violence is a national crisis.

The federal government’s Bill C-75, introduced last month, proposes changes to the criminal law response to domestic violence. But the bill will do too little, too late. What we need is a comprehensive, integrated strategy to prevent and respond to domestic violence, and resources to support women extricating themselves from violent relationships.

We know that women's organizations that address issues of domestic violence have been coming again and again begging for money they desperately need to help these women prevent these kinds of situations. We know that the government is absolutely not providing the support they desperately need.

If this bill is so great, I want to know what the follow-up will be to make sure that these women are supported so that they can begin to have trust in the justice system of Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share this major concern that Bill C-75 would improve the safety of women and others throughout this country. Much of the new Department of the Status of Women will have additional funding in that category so that we can support initiatives that will help women get out of difficult relationships.

Part of this, as we go forward, I think, is that the # MeToo movement has had a huge impact. The fact is that no one will get away with abusing anyone, whether a man, woman or child. Society, for far too long, has stayed too quiet on many of these fronts. I think we have to really push on the whole issue of education. I know that our government will continue to invest significantly so that education becomes a big part of this. No one should be allowed to raise a hand against anyone, man, woman or child.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to parlay a little off what my hon. colleague before me had to say. It was very interesting that she very much went around the concept of standing up for violence against women.

This bill is, again, one of these things where the Liberals say they are trying to do one particular thing, and then they go off and do something completely different. When this bill was introduced, the minister said that this was going to improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and reduce court delays. The Liberals then just seemed to water down a whole bunch of sentences to reduce backlogs in the courts. They also wanted to improve and streamline bail hearings.

The goals they stated off the top were laudable. I think everyone in this place has the goal to make the justice system work better. That is something I think everyone who comes to this place can agree on. How we get there is where we disagree. If Bill C-75 actually accomplishes some of these things, we would definitely be on the right track.

Conservatives always look at the justice system from the point of view of the victim. It seems to me that the Liberals always want to look at it from the point of view of the perpetrator.

My first concern about this bill is that it is an omnibus bill. It is a mashup of various other policies. We have seen, over the time I have been here, that bills are introduced, and they keep being added to. I think Bill C-36 has been put in here, and a number of other bills have been lumped in with this bill. We have seen the progression of that. Now it is this monstrosity of a bill that is fairly unmanageable. As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton pointed out earlier, we had the opportunity to fix a number of these things earlier on, but the government has dithered on some of them.

A lot of people say that I am always criticizing the government, so could I just point out every now when it does something good. There are some good pieces in here. Bill C-75 would increase the maximum term for repeat offenders involved in intimate partner violence, and it would provide that the abuse of an intimate partner would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. I am totally supportive of that.

I am also supportive of the reverse onus for bail in the case of domestic assault. Indeed, I have written letters to the justice minister on that as well. Women who have been violently assaulted by their spouses should have confidence that the justice system will protect their interests and put their safety first.

Another important element of Bill C-75 is that the act of strangulation would be made a more serious level of assault. I am totally fine with that as well.

There are a number of areas I have concerns about in this bill, particularly the way it treats human trafficking. With such significant changes, we would have expected the government to consult widely. Over the last number of years, I have been working with a lot of groups that are concerned about the human trafficking happening right here in Canada. We suggested that these folks contact the justice committee to try to become witnesses at the committee.

The justice committee heard from 95 witnesses on Bill C-75. Over 70% of the witnesses at the justice committee were justice system lawyers, which would totally make sense if this bill was about streamlining the justice system. We would want lawyers to show up. However, this bill is not predominantly about that. It is predominantly about lowering sentences for a whole raft of different offences.

When we are dealing with a bill that would lower sentences, or hybridize these offences, which I think is the term that is used, certainly we should hear from some of the groups that represent the victims of some of these offences. However, we did not hear much from them at all. Just over 10% of those groups came to committee.

With respect to law enforcement, we would think that because they are the people who have to enforce these laws and use the Criminal Code to charge people that perhaps we should hear from them as well. Do members know how many police officers were heard at this committee? Out of 95 witnesses, one police officer showed up or was asked to come. That was also kind of disturbing.

From my limited experience travelling across the country, I know that the issues people face in northern Alberta and in Peace River country are quite a bit different from the issues people face in downtown Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver and across the territories. To hear from one police officer how the bill would affect his job seems to me to be limited, particularly when it deals with a whole bunch of different areas the police work in.

The police work every day to keep us safe, and they rely on Parliament to make sure that they have laws they can use. It seems to me that we should have heard particularly from victims and police officers. To have only one police officer, out of 95 witnesses, seems a little interesting.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-75 would make significant changes to some of our human trafficking offences, changing them from indictable to these hybrid offences. As legislators, we are about to vote on these changes. It is important that we make informed decisions. Are these amendments going to be useful for police officers fighting human trafficking? We do not know, because again, we heard from only one police officer, and he was not able to address specifically the human trafficking aspect.

What we know is that at committee, not a single organization that works to fight human trafficking across the country was consulted on these changes. In fact, many of these human trafficking units across the country have no idea that these changes could even be coming into effect, which could be a problem, given that the police are investigating crimes as we speak but would now have pieces of the Criminal Code disappear or be reduced. It may be a problem for them.

I would also urge my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that there is better representation of victims and law enforcement during the Senate hearings on Bill C-75. As we know, the bill will be going to the Senate quickly, as just this morning, we were voting on the closure motion for this particular bill.

Clause 106 of the bill would change the material benefit from trafficking offence and the destroying documents trafficking offence. These offences would be changed from indictable to hybrid offences.

The chair of the justice committee was here. I have debated him before on this. He said that we need to ensure that there is leeway within the law, and I agree with him. He used the example of assault and said that there is a great variance in assault, from minor fisticuffs in the parking lot to someone being left for dead. He said that we need to be able to have variance in the law for that, from being able to issue a fine. My point to him on this particular section is that there should be a minimum for material benefit from human trafficking. Could he give me an example of a fairly minor human trafficking occasion? That seems to me to be ridiculous.

Modern-day slavery is an affront to humanity, and there ought to be a minimum sentence of more than just a fine. I think all of us standing in this place would agree. I do not care if one is the nicest slave-owner on the planet, it is still slavery, and there ought to be a minimum sentence for that and not merely a fine. I was very frustrated by that. The other thing is that this will be downloaded to the provincial courts.

We know that the vast majority of human trafficking victims in this country are female. The vast majority are very young, and about half of them are indigenous. We need to ensure that the risk of being caught for human trafficking outweighs the ability to make money from it.

The justice committee in the past, in a different study, heard that human traffickers make between $1,500 and $2,000 a day from a trafficked individual. Under Bill C-75, the trafficker would face a maximum $5,000 fine. A trafficker who is trafficking a young person in this country can make up to $300,000 a year. A $5,000 fine is ridiculous. That is just be the cost of doing business for that individual.

The other thing is that this would take away consecutive sentencing for human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are afraid to come forward because they fear that it would then just be a short time before their pimp would be back out on the street hunting them down.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peace River—Westlock for his contribution to today's debate, and for his ongoing concerns about human trafficking. It is an incredibly serious issue, and I thank him for raising it in this chamber repeatedly.

I have one comment and one question. The comment is that human trafficking was studied extensively by the standing committee prior to receiving Bill C-75. In order to address some of the very important witnesses and stakeholders the member has highlighted, the committee travelled right across the country to hear from them. The committee has yet to table its report, but when it does, I hope we will study its recommendations carefully.

The member and a number of his colleagues have consistently underscored the need to being tough on victims' rights and tough on sentencing to address those rights. We agree, and I am glad he agrees with the intimate partner violence provisions.

Is it a step in the right direction to be taking the standard sentence for summary conviction offences from six months to two years less a day? Does that address the needs of the victims he represents in Peace River—Westlock?

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

Mr. Speaker, taking it from six months to two years minus a day is not the dispute. The dispute is about the fact that the government is are taking something that could be a maximum sentence of 10 years and reducing it to possibly just a fine. That is where the dispute lies.

The other concern is with consecutive sentencing. If a trafficker is trafficking one girl or 10 girls, he is going to jail for either 10 years or 100 years. That makes quite a difference, particularly when in most cases it is not just one individual who is being trafficked. It makes a difference, in that the person being trafficked would then be confident that the trafficker would be put away for a significant amount of time, so they could get their life back in order, because the trafficker would not be coming back to where they live, hunting them down and putting them back to work.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his speech. We discussed our positions, which sometimes align, but often do not.

Obviously, I always feel a need to point out how disappointing this government's legislative agenda is. Given all of the serious problems Canada is facing, including those faced by first nations, this bill once again seems insufficient.

In the spring, the Criminal Lawyers' Association said that, sadly, intimate partner violence is one of the recognized legacies of residential schools and the sixties scoop. It believes that creating a reverse onus at the bail stage and increasing the sentence on conviction will likely aggravate the crisis of the overrepresentation of indigenous people in our prisons.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. I think that is a major problem. The government is always talking about reconciliation, but it would be nice if the Liberals would take concrete action to improve this situation, rather than just being satisfied with public relations exercises.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what point my colleague is trying to make. However, he talked about the legislative agenda to some degree, and one of the things I can talk about in that regard is that a former colleague of his, the NDP member Maria Mourani, introduced a bill over five years ago. That bill was passed in a previous Parliament and was to come into force. The Liberals said they were going to bring it into force. That was five years ago. It is finally being addressed in this particular bill. While most of the tools in her bill, Bill C-452, are coming in, the Liberals have removed consecutive sentencing from the bill. While to some degree that proves that the human trafficking angle is definitely a non-partisan thing, it is also very frustrating that the Liberals cannot get on board with it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary referenced the study on human trafficking that the justice committee undertook. I can assure the House that everywhere we went, from all the stakeholders we met, from the victims, from law enforcement, nowhere did they say the offence of human trafficking needed to be hybridized.

The member for Peace River—Westlock spoke of not being able to figure out a case where this would be justified. Does it not speak to the haphazard way the bill was drafted, the fact that such offences were classed as minor offences that could be reduced to a ticketable offence under the Criminal Code?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question also speaks to my previous one. It seems like a bad thing when people go to jail. We have a court system that seems to be clogged, which also seems like a bad thing. The Liberals' solution for this is to reduce the number of things that people can go to jail for, but that is not a solution.

Canada is a nation built upon laws. We have a threshold of behaviour that we are looking for. Let us work on the Canadian culture if that is what it will take to change this, not reduce the things people can go to jail for. A lot of these things are heinous crimes that people ought to go to jail for.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. 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 Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Marine Transportation.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today in this honourable House to talk about Bill C-75.

This is a long overdue change to the legal system, which has been bogged down, in many cases to such an extent that cases have been found to have lost their meaning and been adjourned. People whom we suspected were guilty got away without going through due process at all. Those circumstances cannot happen. It is not justice. It is not fair.

This is one step towards making a fairer, more efficient and effective judicial system. Bill C-75 is a meaningful and significant approach to promoting efficiency, and I would assume that all members of the House would like to see that happen. Efficiency and effectiveness are what every member would like to see in our systems, because we would not want to waste one penny of taxpayer money on something that could be done better. It is always our goal to do better. That is exactly what this bill does.

This bill would, in a significant way, promote efficiency in our criminal justice system, reduce case completion times, as I mentioned earlier, and contribute to increased public confidence while respecting the rights of those involved and ensuring that public safety is maintained.

In terms of preliminary inquiries, this bill would restrict preliminary inquires to adults accused of the 63 most serious offences in the Criminal Code, which carry a sentence of life imprisonment, like murder; and would reinforce a judge's power to limit the questions to be examined, as well as the number of witnesses who will appear.

The Supreme Court of Canada in its Jordan decision, and the Senate legal affairs committee in its final report on delays in the justice system, recommended that preliminary inquiry reform be considered. We should be proud to support a bill that takes into account not only the recommendations of this House but also of the upper house and of the provinces and territories that have been working on this issue for many years. It has been discussed for decades.

Some say that restricting preliminary inquiries might have little impact on the delays. Even though it concerns only 3% of the cases, it would still have a significant impact on those provinces where this procedure is used more often, such as Ontario and Quebec. We know, because of the population base involved, that this would have a significant impact on the whole judicial system.

Also, we cannot overlook the cumulative effect of all of Bill C-75's proposals that seek to streamline the criminal justice system process.

It is of course for the betterment of both the accused and victims to have the system move fairly and efficiently in a timely manner. The proposed preliminary inquiry amendments are the culmination of years of study and consideration in federal-provincial-territorial and other meetings.

We know that it is not easy to negotiate a framework when we have many divergent views and jurisdictions involved, but this is going to be good for Canadians. It will be good for the indigenous population of our country, who have unfortunately been the victim of a system that many have called racist. If we look at the number of indigenous people in our jails, it is extremely high. One must ask why the system seems to incarcerate so many more indigenous people than their population warrants. These changes will be more effective and fairer for our indigenous population, and that is a commitment of our Prime Minister.

This is a balanced approach. We often see that in this House, in particular, where we have the left and the right, the positions can be quite separated, with the Liberals coming in the middle and providing a balanced approach and centre to both.

I think most Canadians are reasonable centralists and, as we have seen in the past, this type of negotiated solution means compromises on both sides. As we look at the balanced approach between opposing views put forward by both committees and those expressed by the House, they are considered and put forward in this bill.

This bill would make this procedure more efficient and expedient. Of course, that is the goal of all of our programs for Canadians, as well as being meaningful, respectful and available to all Canadians. It is important to respect the accused person's right to a fair trial. This would also help witnesses and victims by preventing some of them from having to testify twice. That is just not reasonable for the system. It is hard on victims, very hard on witnesses, so to eliminate this would be of benefit to all.

Let us look at the issue of case management. Bill C-75 would allow for the earlier appointment of case management judges. This recognizes their unique and vital role in ensuring the momentum of cases is maintained, and that they are completed in an efficient, effective, just and timely manner. This was also recommended by the Senate report on delays in the criminal justice system.

It is important to discuss, even if briefly, the use of technology and how it would provide fairness, particularly to the indigenous population of Canada. I come from Manitoba, which has the highest per capita number of indigenous people of any province. In many cases, they are in fairly remote and isolated communities where participating in a full process is extremely difficult because there are no roads, access is limited and broadband connections are poor. These are all issues that make justice much more difficult for indigenous people in those circumstances.

In terms of technology, the bill proposes to allow remote appearances by audio or video conference for accused, witnesses, lawyers, judges, justices of the peace and interpreters, under certain circumstances. This would obviously assist many people, although it is not always appropriate. Canada has allowed remote appearances for many years, and these amendments seek to broaden the existing framework.

These optional tools in Bill C-75 aim to increase access to justice, streamline processes and reduce system costs, such as the transport of the accused and witness attendance costs, without impacting existing resources such as those through the indigenous court worker program. The changes we are proposing also respond to the Senate committee recommendations, which called for an increase to the use of remote appearances for accused persons.

In conclusion, the proposals in Bill C-75 in relation to preliminary inquiries, judicial case management and remote appearances, together with all of the other reforms, would ensure that our criminal justice system is efficient, just and in line with the values of our communities and all Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul spoke about preliminary inquiries. While there certainly was some support for limiting preliminary inquiries, the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before justice committee said that it was better to keep preliminary inquiries the way they are.

During the human trafficking study that the justice committee undertook, there was a Crown prosecutor who prosecuted one of the very few successful human trafficking cases in Canada. This individual said the preliminary inquiry was essential to the successful conviction of the individual at hand, because so many witnesses were disappearing. To get them in, under oath, at the preliminary inquiry stage was essential to their ability to then tender that evidence at trial. In addition, we know that 87% of cases are resolved at the preliminary inquiry stage.

In addition to that, there was some concern about the arbitrariness of using preliminary inquiry only for those cases where the maximum sentence is life. It may make some sense on a superficial level, but there are many instances where certain charges might carry life as a maximum sentence, and other similar ones where the sentence would be less than life. The sentencing ranges for both of those offences may be similar, yet only in one case would the accused be entitled to a preliminary inquiry.

I am wondering if the hon. member could address some of those points.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to talk a bit about the impact of the judicial system on victims. Imagine being involved in sexual abuse or being harmed in some way and having to testify in a preliminary hearing, only to have to testify once again during the trial and be victimized for a second time by the judicial system.

I am sure Canadians understand that the last thing we want to do is make a victim's life even harder through a judicial system that is not sensitive, particularly in the case of women who have been sexually assaulted.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul also touched upon the issue of peremptory challenges. This is something we took very seriously in terms of considering their abolition. Unanimously, before the justice committee, the criminal defence bar said that peremptory challenges were absolutely essential in order to ensure a fair trial.

In that regard, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the comments of Richard Fowler of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, who stated before the committee, “I will just say, as an aside, that the abolition of peremptory challenges is a huge mistake. I've selected over 100 juries, and I've never seen it misused. It's necessary.”

Another lawyer, Solomon Friedman, indicated that it was essential to ensure that juries are representative of the broader population.

Could the hon. member address those points?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so.

We remember cases in Canada where the jury did not reflect the local population. We heard from many people that there was a question of fairness and justice. Removing the peremptory challenge would, for example, limit the ability of a defence attorney to remove individuals based on something quite superficial. It might also limit the ability of the jury to be as reflective of the community as we would hope.

We want to ensure that there is representation from all of the ethnic groups in our local communities, and that the justice system is fair and open for all.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to speak here in support of Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I will start off by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional lands of the Algonquin people.

To give members a sense of my involvement with the criminal justice system, I was a youth worker and ran a youth service agency several years ago. In fact, I came across a number of young people who had interactions with the criminal justice system. I found it quite frustrating that the young people were often looked at in silos with respect to the charges that were in front of them in their involvement with the criminal justice system.

Also, as a lawyer, I practised in this area very briefly. Over the years I have worked with a number of organizations that work with youth, especially those involved with the criminal justice system. Just last Christmas, along with the Toronto breakfast clubs and the Second Chance Scholarship Foundation, I was at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre for young offenders and had a really good afternoon meeting with a number of young people who were involved in the criminal justice system and serving time.

As well, since my election as an MP, I have visited a number of institutions across Ontario, including detention centres and penitentiaries.

It is clear to me from my engagement with the criminal justice system that it is not fully working. There is a lot that we need to do to change it and to improve it. I believe Bill C-75 addresses a number of important issues. First and foremost are the issues of delay, safety in terms of our communities and, of course, the massive overrepresentation of certain groups within the system.

The reports of the Office of the Correctional Investigator are quite insightful, offering some drastic numbers that reflect what I believe are structural issues within our system. These issues often cause particular groups to be overly represented within the criminal justice system. For example, 40% of women in penitentiaries are indigenous, which is a gross overrepresentation in relation to the indigenous population in Canada.

Similarly, young black men represent roughly 8% of those serving time in penitentiaries, and indigenous men hover around 30%. We know that this representation is pronounced and disproportionate in relation to their overall numbers.

We can ask ourselves why this is so. In my current role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, in undertaking some discussions and engagements on anti-racism, it is very clear that there are underlying structural and systemic issues within our criminal justice system that have some very specific outcomes. Coupled with issues of poverty, disenfranchisement, a lack of housing and a whole host of other social determinants is a system that in many ways is deeply problematic in terms of the manner in which it treats certain groups of people.

However, Bill C-75 goes to some length to address these issues. It is probably not to the full extent that may be required, but it certainly goes a distance in addressing some of these structural issues, and I will talk about a few of them this afternoon.

Bill C-75 would change the way our system deals with the administration of justice offences. I cannot say the number of times I have worked with young people who have been charged with an offence, where oftentimes the evidence against the individuals is quite weak, but unfortunately, because of the terms of bail and the terms of release they often find themselves back in jail facing additional charges. It is deeply frustrating when we see that.

One of the immigration cases that came to my office involved a young man, 40 years old, who came to Canada when he was eight. He was involved with the child welfare system. I believe his first charge was when he was about 13, as a young offender. He was found not guilty of those charges, but within a year, he was charged and convicted of an offence of breach of condition, namely, that he did not appear in court. We are talking about a 14-year-old young man who, by all measure, had many obstacles in his life including the fact that he was separated from his parents and was growing up in the child welfare system. This young man ended up missing court and was convicted for the first time. Then I saw his record, and over and over again it was not the issues of the actual crime, but administration of justice offences that he was convicted of.

This really tells us that our system is not working. We can look across the country at many young men and women who are serving time because the way we have set up our system is one which is very punitive and restrictive. While it is essential to ensure public safety, I do think we can do this by making sure that the terms of release are proportionate and reasonable and are acceptable to all the parties. That is something which I see very often.

When I worked with young people, one of the standard terms of release that I saw in bail was non-attendance. If an incident took place at school or near a school, oftentimes a condition is that the young person does not attend that school or go near the school. How is it fair that a 15-year-old in grade 10 who is having some difficulties in life is restricted from going to that school? A change of school, a change of circumstance, would obviously extenuate the challenges a young person has in life and often will lead to a greater involvement with the criminal justice system.

I thought I would have time to speak to this in more detail. However, I will say that this bill is very important. It goes part of the way in addressing some of the systemic issues that we see in the criminal justice system and particularly with respect to the racialization of incarceration in Canada and many parts of the world, but particularly in Canada as documented by the Office of the Correctional Investigator and others who have pointed to highly polarizing numbers that speak to systemic issues within our criminal justice system.

In summary, the issues addressed in this bill are important, namely, the delay aspect and making sure the delays are limited by eliminating undue processes, as well as the overrepresentation that I discussed, and making sure that issues such as intimate partner violence are addressed. I believe that this is a very important bill that warrants the support of all of our colleagues here and across the aisle as well.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary is a lawyer, and I want to ask him a question in regard to the limitation on preliminary inquiries.

Evidence before the justice committee was that preliminary inquiries can serve as an important discovery aspect in which important evidence on complex motions before the court can serve a useful purpose to avoid mid-trial delays if it is not dealt with before getting to trial. It was pointed out in that regard that limiting preliminary inquiries in that context would have the potential impact of increasing delays rather than reducing delays, with an increased likelihood in mid-trial adjournments.

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about issues such as preliminary inquiries, there are different perspectives. My experience has been there are oftentimes unnecessary delays put on because of this. Often there are people who are victimized who need to come back a number of times to testify. I believe Bill C-75 has found the right balance. While I respect the work of the committee, my experience has been otherwise in this area.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that the government had to respond to the Jordan decision and that that is the purpose of Bill C-75. However, the government failed to do one thing: ensure that delays will no longer be a problem. We need to make sure criminals actually get convicted and serve their time in jail.

Sadly, there is a case going on in Calgary that is very well known. Nick Chan is a notorious gang leader who was accused of murder and other crimes, but he has been released because his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as laid out in Jordan, was violated due to the shortage of judges.

The bill is a first step toward addressing the problem, but it has its flaws, which I mentioned earlier in my speech.

What is the government doing right now to fill those vacant seats and put more judges on the bench?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, this is something that is quite important to me. The appointment of judges who bring a breadth of experience and diversity to the bench is quite important.

As a government, we have taken some very important steps by establishing a process of appointment of judges that is one of the finest in the world and will withstand any type of scrutiny. We see our benches being filled with exceptionally talented people from all walks of life. As a government, this is something we fulfilled. We are on the right path in appointing the type of judges who should be on our benches.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned delays, moving away from the peremptory challenges which caused a lot of delays in our system and going toward the set aside provisions in the current proposed legislation to streamline the jury selection process, give control to the judges to make sure we have diversity. Could the hon. member talk about how that could improve our efficiency in the court system going forward?

[Gary Anandasangaree]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the outcomes we see, the numbers we see year after year from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, should trouble all Canadians. They should really raise questions as to why certain provisions and practices exist and how they affect racialized people. It is very clear that peremptory challenge is one of those issues where we have seen some serious miscarriages of justice over the years. It is a very important step in Bill C-75 that would address a major concern of many victimized communities that have been seeking justice.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I begin my speech, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for the excellent work he did on this file in committee. He worked very hard. He proposed many amendments, asked witnesses questions, and made some insightful and very impressive remarks. That is what will fuel my remarks today.

Why are we voting against the bill? The purpose of the bill was to respond to the Jordan decision, but it does not respond to it correctly. That is one of the reasons we are voting against the bill. It does not go far enough, and it fails to achieve what it set out to do. That is the problem.

The stated objective of the bill was to comply with the Supreme Court's 2016 Jordan ruling and to clear the backlog in the justice system, which is very important.

The problem with the Jordan decision is that now the Charter guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time. That is fine. The Jordan decision set out a timeframe. The time limit between the laying of charges and the conclusion of the trial was set at 18 months, or 30 months in some cases.

If that deadline cannot be met, situations may arise—much like the notorious cases I mentioned earlier in my question—where real criminals who have committed very serious crimes can be let off without a trial. That is awful. That should never happen again. Our government should be ensuring that it never happens again.

That is why Bill C-75 was so highly anticipated. It should have corrected that situation, but unfortunately, it does not.

One of the major reforms in Bill C-75 is not based on sound evidence, and that is very problematic. The stated objective of the bill is to respond to the Jordan decision. However, we have serious doubts about whether the proposed amendments will actually help reduce case completion times in the criminal justice system.

Many of the proposed measures will likely have the opposite effect and could actually add to the delays.

The Liberals claim that this bill is a bold reform of the criminal justice system, but there is one problem, in addition to what I mentioned just now. The Minister of Justice's mandate letter has something very important in it, something we very strongly believe in: eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing system. All of the leading legal minds and experts have told us repeatedly that mandatory minimum sentencing is bad for our justice system. It is bad for offender rehabilitation and reintegration, and it undermines judges' ability to exercise their judgment in unique cases.

What does Bill C-75 have to offer on that score? This was in the minister's mandate letter, so we expected the elimination of minimum sentencing to be a key component of the bill, but apparently it does not even bear mentioning.

The Liberals broke their promise, and that is a major disappointment. As I said, defence attorneys and legal academics agree that the reversal of this practice would have been a huge step toward unclogging the court system. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to tackle this key issue. That is inexplicable. I do not understand why they made that choice.

My first concern has to do with reducing the use of preliminary inquiries, which are essentially dress rehearsals for trials. They are used in only 3% of cases, so eliminating them in most cases, which is what Bill C-75 proposes to do, will not save a lot of time right away. One could argue that preliminary inquiries help narrow the issues to be presented at trial and that, in some cases, they completely eliminate the need for a trial if the Crown's evidence does not hold up. Eliminating preliminary inquiries is a solution that was proposed to reduce delays, but it will actually do the opposite.

My second concern is about the regressive change to summary offences. Imposing harsher sentences on those who commit less serious crimes, namely increasing the maximum sentence from 18 months to 24, is just one element of this reform. Many accused would be better helped by being given more social support, rather than being criminalized. This amendment would disproportionately affect members of racialized groups and indigenous communities, more specifically those with a low socioeconomic status and those struggling with addiction and mental health issues.

Another major shortcoming of this bill is that it does not propose any measures to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty. In fact, today is national anti-poverty day. Other root causes include addiction, mental health problems and marginalization. There is nothing concrete in the bill to address those factors. Unfortunately, many people end up in the legal system when their situation is actually a result of social problems that we should be addressing. Sometimes those problems are of long standing. Take, for example, the social problems in indigenous communities and mental health problems.

The government needs to sit down with the affected communities to come up with solutions to these problems and try to improve their situation. Unfortunately, this bill has no plan to that effect.

I also want to reiterate that appointing more judges to fill judicial vacancies is absolutely crucial. We can no longer tolerate all these judicial vacancies. This government has been in power for over three years now. These judicial vacancies must be filled.

Let me remind members of the Nick Chan case in Calgary. Everyone is still talking about it today. This notorious gang leader was accused of murder and other serious crimes, but he was let off because his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as laid out in the Jordan decision, had been violated due to the shortage of judges.

This is a very serious problem that the government must address as quickly as possible. Of course, we have an independent judicial appointments process, but that process needs to go a lot faster. The vacancies must be filled, because we simply cannot let other notorious criminals escape prosecution because of a lack of judges.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Drummond for his speech.

I want to touch on the point he made at the end of his speech about how many judges we have appointed. We have already appointed 31 judges in Quebec, the province my colleague represents in the House. He knows full well that we inherited a flawed system from the Conservative Party. We have revamped the system to put more emphasis on diversity in the judiciary. We have increased the percentage of women from 32% to 56%. We have increased the percentage of indigenous judges by 3.1%. We have increased the percentage of racialized judges to 12% and LGBTQ judges to 6%.

Among all of the candidates appointed in Quebec and across the country, 30% are bilingual. I am pointing this out because my colleague is a staunch defender of official languages in the House and across the country.

Does my colleague agree with the appointment of these individuals, who more widely represent our communities?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Icongratulated the government on its new approach to appointing judges. I think that the diversity of the new appointments is a very good thing. The increased number of bilingual judges is also a very good thing. However, the remaining vacancies do need to be filled as soon as possible.

My colleague did not address a very important aspect of my speech, the part about mandatory minimum sentences. It is so important that it was included in the Minister of Justice's mandate letter.

The Liberals have been in power for three and a half years. When will they finally put an end to mandatory minimum sentences?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice suggested that somehow the appointment process was broken under the Harper government. I hope he is not impugning the character of the very many good justices who were appointed under Prime Minister Harper, as well as the many good justices who have been appointed by the government. The problem, however, is that the Liberal government did not do it quickly enough, at least in the first year after it was elected.

The member for Drummond just commented on the new appointment process established by the government, but it took it a full year to appoint new judicial advisory committees.

Does the hon. member agree that this demonstrates that when it comes to appointing judges and when it comes to filling judicial vacancies within a reasonable period of time, the government has not taken it seriously?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the new process is indeed a good thing. We are pleased that the newly appointed judges represent a greater diversity of Canadians.

However, we are disappointed by how long it took and by the outstanding vacancies. That is what we find deplorable.

I would like to reiterate that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences is in the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice. Legal experts Amanda Carling, Emily Hill, Kent Roach and Jonathan Rudin have said that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea and that it is impossible for the legislator to know all the different types of offences and the offenders who might commit them. They believe that mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the fact that some offenders live in abject poverty, have intellectual disabilities or mental health problems, or have been victims of racism or assault.

Why has the government not accomplished what is set out in the mandate letter?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which is an important part. I intend to focus my remarks on the sentencing issue.

At the outset, it is important to address the hybrid offence issue, because we are hearing a lot of misinformation coming from the other side about how this process works. This means offences that are punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or less. These reforms would allow the Crown to proceed by summary conviction in appropriate cases. There is the suggestion that this minimizes the seriousness of the offence. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is being said from the other side, and the concerns and misinformation they are raising, shows a lack of trust of the judiciary, of police officers and of Crown prosecutors.

The opposition is the party that pretends to be the law and order party, the party that gets tough on crime, the party that never really talks about significant issues to reduce crime, but will wrap itself in the flag and pretend to go forward based on that. It will spread misinformation about Bill C-75 to build itself up to make it seem like the bill would accomplish nothing. The rules in the Canadian judicial system changed with the Supreme Court decision in Jordan, that justice had to be quicker. We have all heard the phrase justice delayed is justice denied, but it is true. It is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Minister of Justice met with provincial and territorial counterparts of all political stripes, all parties that are represented in the House, to come up with a way to make justice quicker, to get people before a judge as quickly as possible. I think that is something on which we can all agree. If someone is charged with a criminal offence, he or she should be in front of a judge as quickly as possible, that gets to sentencing and an outcome as quickly as possible.

The proposal to hybridize offences is procedural in nature and is intended to allow the prosecution by summary conviction of conduct that does not currently result in a sentence of more than two years. For instance, it is a mischaracterization of the reclassification of amendments to assert that hybridizing, for example, section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, which is participation in activities of a criminal organization, is sending a message that we do not take organized crime offences seriously. There is not a member of Parliament in the House who does not take organized crime seriously. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

The proposed amendment simply recognizes that this offence can, by virtue of the range of conduct captured, include circumstances where a appropriate sentence falls within the summary conviction range. Proceeding summarily in these circumstances allows for more expeditious proceedings, without undermining public safety or impacting the range of sentences for this offence.

Let us go back in our time machine to 2011-12. There was, as the Conservatives would call themselves, a tough on crime government. In those years, there were 49 guilty verdicts issued under section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code. Of those 49 offences, only 34 were given a custodial sentence. Of those, one received one month or less. Six received between one and three months. Ten received between three and six months. Nine received from six to 12 months. Four received from 12 to 24 months. The remaining four, less than 10% of offences, received a sentence of 24 months or more. That is from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. This was during the Stephen Harper era of tough on crime.

[An hon. member]

They don't believe in statistics.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

We have heard in question period, as my hon. friend mentioned, that belief in statistics may not necessarily be the Conservatives' thing, but I will put that forward.

This bill, Bill C-75, gives the Crown discretion on how to proceed. The Crown knows, when it is going forward with a case, the sentence it would ask for if a conviction happened. The Crown then has to make arguments within the range of sentences.

In my riding, the Crown has been doing this for five, 10, 15, 20 years. The Conservatives say that we do not trust them. We do not trust them to make that call even though—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

We trust judges. We do not trust prosecutors. I said that we trust judges.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, “we do not trust judges”. We just heard that from the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton who is yelling, for some reason.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I just want to remind the hon. members that while someone is talking, shouting across the floor is not regular parliamentary procedure.

I will let the hon. member for St. Catharines continue.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I may have misheard the hon. member screaming and shouting. He may have said that he trusts judges. However, opposing this bill shows that they do not trust judges.

At the end of the day, it is the Crown and the defence who make the arguments. The Crown will say this requires a sentence for a certain period of time and the defence will say, “No, we believe it is less”. The judge will make that decision.

It is the Crown prosecutor's job in this business is to put dangerous people behind bars. They have gone into the business for that reason. If they believe that the sentence should be less than 24 months, why not make a proceeding to get these people behind bars quicker? This bill achieves a tougher on crime approach. It gets those charged with offences before a judge faster.

Members from the other side scoff, but they cannot dispute that fact. They cannot dispute the fact that they do not trust Crown prosecutors, which is shameful. How does one surround oneself with a law and order agenda while not trusting one of the most significant aspects of the system, which is the Crown prosecutors? They do not trust the police to lay the appropriate charge. They do not trust the Crown and they may or may not trust the judges either. That is just disappointing.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

That is just pure rhetoric. Get to the substance.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we still hear the heckling. I think I have touched a nerve in terms of the truth of this. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton continues to heckle. I have not seen the recent reports. I believe he has been the most called out in terms of his heckling. He continues to do so, which is truly unfortunate. I am sure he has had plenty of opportunity to speak but wishes to shout me down. Again, speaking the truth, sometimes that stings and we are seeing that in this particular situation.

It is clear that keeping section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, which I had mentioned, a straight indictable offence, will not in any way prevent the Crown in appropriate cases from seeking a non-custodial sentence or a sentence of imprisonment that is in the summary conviction range or seeking a sentence that is even higher. It all comes down to the Crown attorneys who are on the ground and know the facts of the case. Who are we as members of Parliament to say that they are not the best people in the position to make that decision? They live in the communities where they are trying these cases. They do not want to see bad people out on the streets.

If I look to the opposition members, is that what they believe? That is what they are suggesting. What they are suggesting is going on in this bill is a complete lack of trust from some of our chief law officials who are living in their communities who want to see bad people go to jail and have dedicated their careers to that goal.

It is utterly shameful that the opposition would try to spin the narrative that this is soft on crime legislation. This is getting people to a judge faster. It is getting people to jail faster and it is meeting the charter requirements as set out by the Supreme Court.

As we heard from the leader of the opposition in his plan, which was rated full of baloney, they have no plan to make Canada safer. We have a plan. This plan will get people to justice faster. It will allow Crown attorneys to have discretion and it will make the justice system more efficient. Justice delayed is justice denied and this is going to help our Canadian justice system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was certainly long on rhetoric but short on substance.

The hon. member talked about giving prosecutors discretion and that is all this is about. If that were the case, then why would we have solely indictable offences at all? Why would every offence not be a hybrid offence? Why would murder not be a hybrid offence, if it is all just about giving prosecutors the appropriate discretion? We do not because there are certain offences that are serious, that need to be treated seriously in all cases and, therefore, are indictable.

The member spoke about the range of conduct captured, such that it would be appropriate to prosecute by way of summary conviction. Just what range of conduct captured does he envision in the case of infanticide or concealing the body of a child, or perhaps administering a date-rape drug? In just what circumstances does he see those offences being on the level of a ticketable offence or a minor property crime?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again go back to this law and order government. I will give the hon. member an example that he can chew on a bit himself in terms of the offence of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a hybrid offence. It remained a hybrid offence under the Harper government. Why did the Conservatives not change it? Maybe it is because it is best to give Crown attorneys discretion, maybe it is because it is best to give judges discretion, or were they soft on crime? I do not know at the end of the day.

We gave the hon. member statistics as to the particular offence that was provided that at the end of the day, again under the law and order Harper government, the individuals charged and convicted under that particular offence were not getting sentences of more than 24 months. Fewer than 10% were. Therefore, why not come up with a plan to get those cases that are going to be less than 24 months to a judge quicker and get those people behind bars quicker? The Conservatives have no plan, and that is truly unfortunate.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the government talk about being a law and order government when it is clearly a common spin government.

I am not an expert on these matters, but all I can say about this bill is that everyone including the member for Papineau can see that the justice system is clogged up because of these very mandatory minimums.

Why not deal with the bigger problem, which is mandatory minimums? It is as though they called a plumber to fix a leak in the water heater and he is wasting his time fiddling with the taps.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to respectfully disagree. We are fixing the problem. There are two different methods in two different courts, one at the superior court and one at the provincial court. Provincial court matters move quicker and if Crown attorneys know at the end of the day that they are going to seek sentences of less than 24 months, they can move far more expeditiously through the provincial court system. That is what we are doing in this case. If Crown prosecutors know that they are going to seek only 20 months, why send the accused through superior court? Why incur all that extra delay? Why not get offenders before judges as quickly as possible and get them behind bars?

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion about trusting judges. A key aspect of this bill that has not been touched on much is the power of judges to stand aside jurors. Normally, they can only do this in the context of personal hardship, but this bill would amend the Criminal Code so that judges can stand aside jurors to ensure a more representative jury.

What does that mean to the member's constituents in St. Catharines and around this county so that they can ensure there are more diverse juries hearing cases and rendering verdicts in criminal matters?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and the committee for their incredible work on this.

This bill speaks to a whole host of issues throughout the justice system, be it bail, juries and the like. I am very pleased to support this bill and at the end of the day, I hope opposition members come to their senses and support this bill, because it would get offenders to judges quicker than the previous government ever could.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I will point out to the hon. member that she will have nine minutes and then I will have to cut her off.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-75. I had the opportunity recently to speak on another bill that also sought to amend the Criminal Code, Bill C-375. In that speech, I drew attention to the Liberals' alarming track record on criminal justice. I would like to continue with these thoughts today in the context of the bill before us.

Bill C-75 continues a disturbing pattern from the Liberal government. Where previous governments of all stripes sought to protect victims of crime, the Liberal government seems to favour the protection of criminals instead. From their first days in government, the Liberals have used the levers of power to shield and protect criminals while leaving victims and their families in the cold.

We have seen this time and time again, with the Liberals' $10.5-million payout to Omar Khadr and their subsequent snubbing of Tabitha Speer, their shocking response to Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer from a secure prison to a healing lodge, their abysmal response to gang crimes through Bill C-71, along with countless other examples.

When Canadians dared to raise their concerns, the Prime Minister labelled them ambulance chasers. Perhaps the most tangible examples of the government's disordered protection of criminals have come in this bill. When Bill C-75 was introduced, it reduced the penalties for advocating genocide and participation in terrorist activities to possibly as little as a fine. It was only at the insistence of my Conservative colleagues at committee that these clauses were removed.

I am glad the Liberal members on that committee saw the folly of the original text, but it begs the question: how could the government have thought those clauses were in any way appropriate in the first place? Unfortunately, I believe that this is not a one-time occurrence, but as I said, a disturbing pattern regarding terrorists from the government.

As I already mentioned, take the case of Omar Khadr which resulted in a convicted terrorist becoming a millionaire at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and this is just one example. Recall that long before the Liberals tried to use Bill C-75 to lower the penalties for engaging in terrorist activities, one of the first items on the Prime Minister's agenda was to pull our air force out of the fight against ISIS. This was a backward decision at the time and in retrospect, almost indefensible.

Just days ago, a mass grave holding the remains of more Yazidi victims of ISIS was discovered in Kar Azir town. This is the 71st mass grave found in the area. The men, women and children in these graves were slaughtered by members of ISIS, some of whom are from this country. These ISIS terrorists stoned women to death for the crime of being raped. They killed families for believing in their own God or being the wrong ethnicity. They burned men alive for refusing to join their evil cause or threw them off buildings for being gay.

As I previously pointed out in this place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not even bring herself to call these monsters terrorists--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has a point of order.

[Arif Virani]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening intently to the member opposite and to all of her colleagues. We are about four minutes into her remarks and we have yet to hear anything that substantively relates to Bill C-75. We have heard about settlements of litigation, about foreign affairs policy and defence policy. I would ask the member to direct her comments to the bill at hand, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will leave it with the hon. member. l am sure she will come to her point. As I have stated before, I often hear arguments go in certain directions that you figure is a tangent that make absolutely no sense to the person who is listening, but as the person explains it, you see it come around and it becomes evident to everyone. I will leave it to the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek to finish up.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

For his part, the Prime Minister has doled out taxpayer dollars for so-called de-radicalization programs for returning ISIS terrorists. In the meantime, he has told veterans they are asking for more than the government can give. Would it not be more appropriate to say that to returning ISIS terrorists instead of to the brave men and women who have defended our nation?

However, perhaps we should not be surprised. Indeed, after the Boston Marathon bombing, the now Prime Minister said of the terrorists responsible, “there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

I believe it is this kind of foolish gentleness toward terrorists that caused the Liberals to propose weakening the penalties in Bill C-75. They spent months arguing for and defending the inclusion of that clause before finally backing down and supporting the Conservatives in removing it. It took months of pressure and hard work to make this one obvious change, but even with that change the bill remains deeply flawed.

Bill C-75 would still weaken the penalties to as little as a fine for many other serious crimes. Among those are serious sexual crimes, such as using the date rape drug, forced marriage, marriage under the age of 16, polygamy and acting as a pimp. I wonder how the Prime Minister can claim to be a feminist while simultaneously weakening the punishment for such terrible crimes.

In addition to the sexual crimes I mentioned, the Liberals are also weakening the punishment for corruption and fraud. A lighter penalty would be possible for those convicted of bribing municipal officials, insider trading, forging currency, using libel for extortion, fraud through the use of arson, or even illegally influencing political appointments.

Perhaps most shocking is the list of violent and gang-related crimes that would be eligible for a summary conviction: infanticide, hiding the body of a child, obstructing or assaulting an officiating clergyman, abduction of children under the ages of 16 and 14, conspiracy and participating in criminal gang activities.

While I know my time is nearly up, I would be remiss if I did not take the time to point out that this is the Liberals' second attempt to remove or amend section 176 of the Criminal Code after abandoning their changes to Bill C-51. Assault of officiants during a religious service is very serious and should remain an indictable offence, yet here the Liberals are breaking yet another promise despite the fact they committed to keeping full protections in place for religious officials.

There are many more serious crimes that we see a weakened response to. In fact, I find myself wondering if this is not the intent of the bill. The previous Conservative government passed the Victims Bill of Rights and this is the Liberals' response. Again and again, we see examples of the Liberals' obsession with making criminals lives easier.

As one final example, the Liberals recently introduced a plan to provide needles to prisoners who use drugs, despite a zero-tolerance policy on drugs in prisons. It would take a Liberal to square that circle. This ridiculous plan puts correctional officers in the line of danger, for no other reason than to assuage Liberal guilt. Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said the following about this ridiculous idea: “It’s pretty obvious the policy changes the government is making are making it more dangerous for us, more dangerous for inmates and obviously more dangerous for the general public.”

Why does the government insist on placing the rights of criminals above the rights of victims, police, guards and of citizens overall? As I have said before, Canadians deserve better than a government that treats victims like criminals and criminals like family.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:52 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 11, 13 and 14.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 carried, and I therefore declare Motions No. 11, 13 and 14 carried.

(Motions Nos. 1, 11, 13 and 14 carried)

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 10 and 12.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #940

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 to 10 and 12 defeated.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #941

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6:42 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

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

, seconded by the member for Victoria, moved that Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, two well-known Canadians, David Matas and David Kilgour, have uncovered something shocking. Their painstaking research has unearthed that between 60,000 and 100,000 human organs are being transplanted in Chinese hospitals each year, with virtually no system of voluntary donation in place. Most of the organs come from prisoners of conscience, primarily Falun Gong practitioners.

I make this speech today in the presence of people who have been arrested in China, and had their blood tested in prison. It may have been that the only thing that prevented their victimization was that they did not match a potential recipient. They understand, more than anything else, the importance of what is happening on the floor of the House today.

Today, I am moving a Senate bill to ask the House of Commons to rule on a fairly simple proposition, that the removal of vital human organs from living patients without their consent is morally unconscionable and must be stopped.

About a similar bill in the past, the parliamentary secretary has said that this bill raises some complex legal and social policy issues. There can be no doubt, though, that the moral issues raised by the bill are quite clear cut. On the legal side, the bill has been well studied by the Senate. I believe it significantly improves on Bill C-350 that I proposed, and also on the original Bill S-240, which was subsequently amended by the Senate committee to bring us the version we have today.

The legal issue is not particularly complex, but in an effort to stop this horrific practice, it does invoke the idea of extraterritoriality. This is where the state seeks to punish someone for a crime he or she committed elsewhere. This is relatively uncommon, although morally necessary in cases like this. Generally, states do not see it as their affair to prosecute crimes that take place elsewhere, because the government of the state in which the crime occurs is best positioned to undertake that prosecution. The government ought not to be indifferent to serious crimes committed by Canadians abroad, but it is generally wise to leave the prosecution of those crimes to the state where they took place.

However, the normal practices should clearly not apply in cases where the local government is indifferent to, is unable to respond to, or is directly facilitating a grievous violation of fundamental human rights. In such cases, Canada can and must prosecute Canadians who go abroad to abuse human rights. Human rights do not apply any less to human beings in other countries. Nation states provide the practical framework through which rights are generally identified and preserved, but this should not be an excuse for allowing their own people to be complicit in grievous violations of human rights.

In 1997, during the tenure of Liberal justice minister Allan Rock, Canada explicitly made it a criminal offence in Canada for a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to engage in so-called child sex tourism; that is, to go abroad and participate in the sexual exploitation of children. Exactly the same principle applies in this case. One notable difference, though, is that offences related to organ harvesting are probably easier to prosecute. Unlike someone who engages in the despicable practice of child sex tourism, someone who benefits from organ harvesting will have follow-up medical needs in Canada.

This bill is morally necessary and it follows a well-established legal track.

A brief word on the legislative history of this initiative. My friend, the member for Etobicoke Centre, began this process on February 5, 2008, with a very similar bill, Bill C-500. He is, for those who do not know, a Liberal. Bill C-561 was proposed by former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler in December of 2013. I proposed Bill C-350 in this Parliament before Bill S-240 was proposed by the very excellent Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the Senate.

We have had four bills in 10 years, and now we have less than one year until the next election. When the next election is called, every bill will die and we will go back to the beginning. Four bills, 10 years, and fundamental human rights are at stake. If we do not proceed to a vote on this as soon as possible, I fear we will significantly reduce our chances of getting this done this Parliament. There have been four bills, 10 years and cross-party co-operation and engagement up until now. Let us not force the victims to wait any longer. Let us pass the bill as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way made reference to many different people who supported this initiative. I want to provide a quick comment. Many Canadians across Canada have participated through petitions. Whether one is in full support of the legislation or does not support the legislation brought forward by my colleague, many Canadians from all regions have participated through petitions.

A number of members of Parliament have raised the issue on the floor over the years. I want to thank those individuals for taking the time for, at the very least, heightening the public awareness of this important issue. Whatever happens on the legislation, and we will have to wait and see, a significant amount of effort has been made by a number of people outside the House to raise the profile of this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that a great deal of work has been done. It underlines the importance of passing the bill as quickly as possible, ensuring we get this done to help victims.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for introducing this bill in the chamber, a bill that originated in the Senate.

With respect to the research he has done on the bill and the discussion on the bill thus far, could he elaborate for the House his understanding of the practice of organ harvesting and organ trafficking, what organs we are talking about and where this problem is most acute?

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not name specific countries or speak to specific situations in the text. That is very important because there are new situations in which this type of practice could be done that we may not see right now.

That said, the bill responds to a reality that exists in many countries of exploitation, whereby people's organs are taken without their consent, people are coerced. In particular, a major issue that I referred to in the People's Republic of China, forced organ harvesting, often involves political prisoners and Falun Gong practitioners very commonly. This research has been done excellently by David Matas and David Kilgour. Many others have commented on this as well. Other countries, such as Taiwan and Israel, have responded to this phenomenon by passing similar legislation.

It is striking how it was Canadians who did the initial research, yet we are behind in passing legislation to address this problem. Let us catch up, let us lead and let us get this done as soon as possible so this law is passed before the next election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to Irwin Cotler, someone who is well respected on all sides of the House. I would ask my friend to provide a clear and precise perspective as to what Mr. Cotler says about the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cotler is very supportive of the legislation.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the second reading debate this evening on Bill S-240. As has been discussed already, the bill would enact new offences to target organ trafficking and to make those who engage in such conduct inadmissible to Canada.

Illegal organ trafficking is a growing problem around the world. According to the World Health Organization, kidney transplants occur in 91 different countries around the planet, with liver and heart transplants also occurring with some regularity. Despite there being a legal and regulated environment in which these life-saving procedures occur, the demand for organ transplant surgery far outweighs the supply. For this reason, we are seeing a rise in this new form of crime, organ trafficking, although it is important to note that no known cases have occurred in Canada. According to some estimates, 10,000 kidneys are traded on the underground market each year.

I am very troubled to have learned about some of the numbers and circumstances surrounding organ trafficking and the fact that, as with other types of crime, it is often the most vulnerable members of society who find themselves at the greatest risk to be victimized. ln countries around the world, impoverished individuals may be provided little or no money in exchange for a kidney.

News articles have noted that the average payment for a kidney may be around $5,000 and, in many cases, there is no payment provided. ln contrast, the average purchaser will spend well in excess of $100,000 to be provided with a new organ. lt is clear, given those facts, that there is a great deal of money being made for those who operate in this illicit marketplace.

ln my riding of Parkdale-High Park, constituents have approached me to raise their concerns specifically about the practice of organ harvesting. Political prisoners, including Falun Gong practitioners, as mentioned by my friend opposite, have been subjected to organ harvesting in order to support the trade in human organs, and these abuses are ongoing.

I am happy that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised the issue of former parliamentarian, David Kilgour, and his 2006 report. That report documented the many Falun Gong adherents who had been killed to supply the organ transplant industry. In that report, Kilgour stated that he and his fellow researchers “believe that there has been and continues today to be large-scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.”

Most human organ trafficking is fuelled by the fact that patients in rich countries cannot get access to the organs they need to survive in their own countries, so they turn to countries where organs can be purchased.

Bill S-240 seeks to target organ trafficking by creating new offences in the Criminal Code. I look forward to debating this bill.

Right now, the sale, purchase and trafficking of human organs outside our existing regulatory framework are strictly prohibited under provincial health laws and the Safety of Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation Regulations.

I would also like to note that the Criminal Code already prohibits human trafficking for the purposes of organ removal. This offence focuses on the exploitation of another person. The Criminal Code states that, and I quote, “a person exploits another person if they cause them, by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed”.

Bill S-240 seeks to focus on the demand side of organ trafficking. It does this through the proposed four new offences included therein that would apply to situations where Canadian citizens or permanent residents would travel abroad and engage in conduct that would be prohibited if it occurred in Canada.

Three of the bill's four offences are focused on the situation where an organ is removed from one person in order to be transplanted into another in a situation where there is proof that the donor did not provide informed consent. Bill S-240 was amended by the Senate to provide a concrete definition of informed consent, which is as follows:

...consent that is given by a person capable of making decisions with respect to health matters and with knowledge and understanding of all material facts, including the nature of the organ removal procedure, the risks involved and the potential side effects.

This presents a challenge, and I want to underscore this for the purposes of this debate, as proof would require evidence that the accused knew that he or she obtained an organ from someone who did not offer informed consent. This, in turn, would require evidence that the accused knew that the person providing the organ had the requisite knowledge level.

It is quite possible that the accused would have no information concerning who the person providing the organ was, let alone knowledge of the risks associated with the transplant procedure. I am looking forward to following the debate on this bill on this particular point.

In targeting the demand, Bill S-240 would also allow Canada to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction, as was outlined by the member opposite, and prosecute cases here at home, even when the conduct occurred abroad and was committed by Canadians or permanent residents. This is laudable and perhaps very appropriate, given the fact that much of the conduct targeted by this bill occurs abroad. Nevertheless, I would highlight, for the purposes of this opening debate, that extraterritorial investigations and prosecutions are indeed challenging. They require police-to-police co-operation as well as more formal methods of international co-operation to secure the necessary evidence. Frequently they involve Canadian police officers travelling abroad, and of course, they require the accused to either be present here in Canada or to be returned to Canada. Such investigations are costly and would be borne by the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice. These matters are worthy of close consideration by all of us as we examine Bill S-240 more closely.

Another aspect of Bill S-240 is the proposal to establish a reporting mechanism to track organ transplants in Canada. Under proposed section 240.2 of the Criminal Code, medical practitioners, under this bill, would be required to report to a federally established body, made via a Governor in Council appointment, information concerning the fact that a person they treated received an organ transplant. This requirement would apply in all cases, including in respect of organ transplants that occurred right here in Canada. This begs the question of whether such an approach is necessary, given that the purpose of Bill S-240 is focused on illicit organ trafficking abroad.

There can be no doubt to anyone in this House that illicit organ trafficking merits serious consideration and appropriate responses from all governments, including our own here in Canada. Even though it does not appear to be a significant problem domestically, we should not take an approach that treats this issue as a problem that does not concern us. Like all forms of transnational crime, criminals find ways to exploit loopholes in the international legal framework. ln this respect, it is right for us to be examining our laws, programs and policies to ensure that they are as comprehensive and effective as they can be.

I would highlight, at this point, some of the comments made by my friend opposite in introducing this bill in this House, which came from the Senate. He underscored the fact that there have been successive efforts made by parliamentarians on both sides of the House to address this important issue. It is an important issue. It is one we take very seriously as parliamentarians. It is one that all parliamentarians in elected legislatures, literally around the planet, need to take seriously, in light of the fact that an illicit underground market has occurred for organs and that this underground market is actually exploiting vulnerable individuals in various nations around the planet. Whether it is in respect of kidney harvesting or liver or heart transplants, etcetera, these are concerns we need to draw attention to. That is why we are looking forward to concrete debate today and in the days and weeks to come on this bill to ascertain its merits.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise to debate this matter. I am pleased as well to second this bill, brought to us by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is the work of Senator Ataullahjan from the other place, the Senate, that led us here. I understand the bill passed with enormous support in the other place and I am hoping that it will have the same level of support here in this place.

Canada is a bit behind the times on this. I note, for example, that the Europeans have for quite some time had a convention entitled “Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs". The hon. member has already set out the cross-party support an initiative like that has had in this place for very many years, and it seems to me that the time has come to join the Europeans and other countries to deal with the scourge of trafficking in human organs this bill seeks to address.

I note that the bill “amends the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs [and tissue]. It also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is of the opinion that they have engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs [or tissue].”

The hon. parliamentary secretary pointed out quite properly the difficulty sometimes of going after people in other jurisdictions. Of course, that has not stopped Canada dealing with sex trafficking, as has been pointed out, or “sex tourism” as it is called. We know that is the case. Also there is a section in Bill S-240 that would require any proceedings to be instituted only with the consent of the Attorney General, therefore making it likely that we could address these practical problems, to which he made reference, through that intermediary.

The scourge of organ trafficking is absolutely appalling and its exponential growth should cause concern for every member of this place. In her speech, the senator referred to situations that sound like horror movies. She cited the following:

Waking up in a weary haze in an unfamiliar house on the outskirts of Delhi, India, Khan was greeted by a stranger in a surgical mask and gloves. As he began to ask where he was and what had happened, he was told very curtly, “Your kidney has been removed.”

As another exposé published in the Haaretz newspaper indicates, thousands of Sudanese refugees living in Cairo have fallen victim to the illegal organ trade. These people are among the most desperate and easy prey for people who can simply push them aside, often by putting a mask with anaesthesia over their mouths, taking them to the back of a private clinic and removing organs, the most popular being kidneys, livers and others, and then sending them home after a while, still drugged, maybe unconscious, without the organ in question. Last year Professor Seán Columb of the University of Liverpool published a study showing a connection between the organ-harvesting industry and the societal exclusion of minorities and refugee groups in Cairo.

This is a huge problem. It has grown exponentially according to the experts, in part, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, due to the fact that the demand has grown and the supply has become limited.

I feel that some practical steps have been taken recently in this place. The member for Calgary Confederation has introduced in the House Bill C-316, which would deal with information from tax records being used for an organ donor registry. That is another initiative I was proud to second and support. As the population ages, the demand will likely increase and these crimes by organized criminals will increase as well.

I do not want to spend much time on this bill. To me, it is a quintessential no-brainer. I want to join the Europeans. I want to join others around the world who are recognizing the scourge of organ trafficking and, as a Canadian, stand proudly with them and deal with this very real problem.

As my friend said earlier, we do not have a problem if we can come together, as other jurisdictions have, and say let us get this done in this Parliament to make a difference in people's lives right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address what is a really important issue. The whole issue of organ donations is something I am personally very interested in.

I was pleased with my colleague's comments about how individuals who are prepared to donate an organ should be made fully aware of what it is that he or she is offering to do. One of the other aspects of that debate is recognizing that it is not just the House of Commons. In fact, it entails having Ottawa work with different jurisdictions, the provinces and territories and possibly other stakeholders to deal with this issue. At the very beginning we recognized that it is an international issue of grave consequence that is having a serious impact around the world.

Even though, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case cited here in Canada, we have still seen Canada play important roles regarding leadership and trying to convey very strong messages on important issues.

The first question I asked my colleague across the way was with respect to a petition. I first heard about this issue through a group of individuals in my own community of Winnipeg who took the time to explain the issue to me personally. The degree to which that exploitation is taking place is fairly offensive, and I think the vast majority of Canadians would be very surprised.

I have had the opportunity to travel, as other members have, outside of Canada, and I have seen members of the Falun Gong group promoting and encouraging a higher sense of public awareness that goes far beyond our borders. That is one of the reasons I did not have an issue tabling petitions on it.

If I reflect on some of those petitions, they highlight the core issue. For example, they recognize that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. They make reference to the fact that back in 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive and nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate the Falun Gong.

These are the types of issues that are being raised through petitions. I would suggest that these do more than just make those of us inside this chamber aware, because they engage citizens by requesting that they look at the petition, try to better understand the issue, and then sign in support of it. They reference David Matas, someone I have known personally for many years.

The former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, David Kilgour, conducted an investigation in 2006 and concluded that the Chinese regime and its agencies throughout China had put to death tens of thousands of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs were seized and put up for sale at a high price.

Many doctors opposed to forced organ harvesting have collected about 1.5 million signatures in petitions over the years from countries all around the world. This bill references 50-plus countries, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has called for immediate action to end the unethical practice of forced organ harvesting in China and an end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.

The European parliament has taken some action to date with a resolution condemning organ harvesting abuse in China. The resolution called on the government of China to end immediately the practice of harvesting organs from prisoners of conscience.

To the best of my knowledge we have not seen a motion or resolution to that effect, and that surprises me. There have been a number of attempts made by some members to bring legislation forward. There appear to be a number of outstanding concerns that we hope to draw out during this second reading debate, and the debate that might follow in the coming days to address some of those concerns.

This issue has been raised already. The people who have signed these petitions are asking the Government of Canada to take action. This is not a new issue. It has been around for a number of years, as my friend pointed out. Even former prime minister Stephen Harper was unable to get it to a vote. We will have to see what takes place here.

This issue is recognized in the Criminal Code. Many aspects of this proposed legislation, from what I understand, are already covered in the Criminal Code, if not directly, definitely indirectly, dating back to 2005 when the Criminal Code was amended.

I would suggest that we look at clauses 279.01 to 279.04 of the code. The main trafficking in persons offence prohibits engaging in specified types of conduct in order to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of another person. Exploitation is defined broadly and includes causing a person “by means of deception or the use or threat of force or any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.”

In addition, it is an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that the tissue or organ was derived from trafficking in persons. The concept of a material benefit is sufficiently broad to encompass the receipt of an organ in cases where the recipient knew the organ was obtained through deceit or any other form of coercion.

Canada's human trafficking offences also apply extraterritorially, in section 7(4.11), and therefore can be used to prosecute in Canada the Canadians or permanent residents who commit human trafficking offences abroad.

There are also provincial statutes that prohibit sales, purchase and dealings in human tissues or organs outside the applicable regulatory framework.

The point is that there are a number of issues, just as I am sure that former prime minister Stephen Harper recognized. Our government is looking at all aspects of this issue. We hope that the members across the way will maybe pick up on some of those points and possibly expand on them.

We know that there is an obligation for the government to work with other stakeholders, in particular our provinces and territories, and to listen to what Canadians have to say. We will have to wait to see how this debate ultimately evolves.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Senate public bill, Bill S-240, which proposes amendments that seek to tackle an issue that is of concern internationally and to Canadians, and that is the illicit trafficking of human organs.

Before I discuss the substance of this relatively small but important piece of proposed legislation, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the issue on which it focuses. As I mentioned, this issue has affected many other countries around the world, yet as my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North has said, it is important to note that, to our knowledge, no known cases have yet occurred in Canada, nor would we want them to.

Organ trafficking is a lucrative and dangerous form of transnational organized crime. According to a 2015 study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, this activity purports to net in excess of $1 billion U.S. annually in illegal profits. What this illicit revenue is used for can be far-reaching, but one can well imagine that some of it is funnelled into other criminal ventures, which can undermine public safety, fuel corruption and negatively impact the rule of law.

It is also important for members to understand what it is we are talking about when we say “organ trafficking”. According to the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, the only international treaty on this issue, trafficking in human organs includes the removal of organs from a person who has not provided free, informed and specific consent or who has received a financial benefit in exchange for the removal of organs.

We know that organ trafficking puts lives at risk. Medical procedures that might be performed in substandard and unregulated environments can impact those whose organs are being removed or those who are seeking organs themselves. Quite simply, this is an appalling and dangerous business, and it requires a strong legislative and operational response. It is against this backdrop that I would like to turn my attention to the substance of Bill S-240.

As I said earlier, this legislation is short and proposes amendments to both the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, despite the protests of my colleague across the way, there are still some questions we must address.

I will start with the Criminal Code proposals, the most significant of which relate to the creation of new criminal offences punishable by considerable periods of imprisonment. Bill S-240 would enact four new offences targeting organ trafficking and related conduct.

The first offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(a), would prohibit obtaining an organ in order for it to be transplanted into one's body and in a situation where the person who has received the organ knew or was reckless as to whether or not the person who provided the organ gave informed consent. This particular proposed offence appears to be focused on the beneficiary of the organ and not on anyone else who may be involved in organ trafficking generally.

The second offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(b), would more squarely address the facilitators. This offence would target those who carry out, participate in or facilitate the removal of an organ in cases where they know or are reckless as to whether or not a person provided informed consent to have the organ removed.

The third offence, in proposed paragraph 240.1(1)(c), would address those who enable illegal organ removals by prohibiting acting on behalf of or at the direction of or in association with a person who has removed an organ and where the accused knows that the organ was removed from someone who has not provided informed consent or was reckless as to that fact.

Finally, Bill S-240 proposes an offence at proposed subsection 240.1(3) to target those who are involved in obtaining an organ for consideration. In essence, this offence would make it illegal to obtain an organ for money, even in cases where the organ was provided by someone who provided free and informed consent.

As I mentioned, these proposed offences would be subject to a significant maximum penalty, imprisonment for 14 years. As with other indictable offences, a sentencing court would also have discretion to impose a fine of any amount.

I am interested in our discussion of these proposed new offences, and I say this because I have a number of questions on these proposed new offences. While I will not be able to raise all of them here this evening, I wonder, for example, whether it is the role of Parliament to use criminal law to target someone who has purchased an organ, perhaps in another country where it may be legal to do so, in a situation where the individual who provided the organ did so freely, in a safe manner and under circumstances that were closely regulated. This type of action would be captured by the bill, because the bill also proposes to allow the prosecution in Canada of Canadians who go abroad to purchase organs.

These are extremely difficult and complicated situations. I can well understand why some who are faced with the prospect of serious health consequences or even death and who cannot otherwise obtain a necessary organ might look to other options for saving themselves or someone they love.

On the other hand, I also recognize the motivation behind the proposal and the need to ensure that individuals, often from developing countries, who may be vulnerable to abuse given their own economic situation, are protected from potentially exploitative practices.

Bill S-240 proposes a definition of informed consent that would be a key feature of the new offences. I would note that, as introduced, the bill did not propose to define this term but that a definition was added by the Senate out of concern for the need to be clear in the law, particularly given that we are talking about criminal offences.

From my own perspective, I welcome the changes by the Senate in this regard, in that they try to make the law clear and clearly understood. At the same time, the Senate committee did not appear to consider the impact of this change in any significant detail. I wonder, for example, whether this definition of informed consent is consistent with the approach that is taken in the medical assistance in dying regime or whether defining it in the Criminal Code in the manner that has been done is consistent with how that term is understood in the health law context.

I look forward to hearing more and considering these points further. I would also like to comment briefly on the changes proposed to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which would result in someone who has engaged in conduct captured by three of the four proposed offences being inadmissible to Canada. In thinking about this proposed change, I wonder whether it is, strictly speaking, essential given that the current laws on inadmissibility already address criminality and organized criminality. I am curious as to why the offence prohibiting the receipt of an organ for money would not provide a basis for excluding someone from Canada when the other newly proposed offences would.

There can be no doubt that Bill S-240 is targeting an important issue and this issue is deserving of our attention. However, as we are talking about criminal law, which is one of the most blunt and powerful instruments available to a government, I think it is critically important that we do our due diligence and fully examine the proposals contained in this bill and the full range of consequences that flow from its changes.

I worked on Bill C-75, which has several hundred clauses, and being in the cut and thrust of such legislation is hard work. We need to do the homework and take the time to make to make sure that the laws to be passed in the country are fair and balanced for all concerned.

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-240, which is private member's business relating to trafficking in human organs.

To begin, let me clearly state that our government is entirely committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account.

Additionally, our government has a proven record over the last three plus years of presenting a solid face on the international stage as it relates to trafficking in organs, to trafficking in people and to the illicit trafficking of arms exports.

Members in this House will recall that, not too long ago, under the leadership of our foreign affairs minister, our government introduced Bill C-47, which would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, to ensure that arms sold to other state entities were not going places where they could contravene international law, where they could cause all kinds of horrific things to occur. Quite frankly, we introduced that bill and we believe in the philosophy that underlies it because we understand the importance of global human rights and the equality of human dignity and ensuring that international law is upheld. We certainly share that philosophy when it comes to any and all other matters that concern trafficking and activities that occur across borders in illicit ways. That would relate as well to the trafficking of human organs.

We want to eliminate human organ trafficking around the world. That is why Canada's criminal justice system is at the forefront of these efforts. We want to stop these kinds of activities from happening abroad.

Furthermore, we certainly condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest terms, and we say that both in Canada and on the international stage. People can be sure that the officials who represent Canada at embassies and in international forums abroad share that same message, as would all members on the government side of the floor, when meeting with constituents in their home ridings, representing the government from coast to coast to coast and when travelling abroad to represent the Government of Canada and all Canadians on the international stage.

Organ transplantation and donation is governed by a comprehensive legislative framework at federal, provincial and territorial levels in encompassing health and criminal law. We are talking about significant coordination between different federal departments and agencies, which all have to work together to ensure we can guard against the trafficking of human organs. It takes cross-jurisdictional conversations as well to ensure officials at provincial and territorial levels, as well as public safety officials, ensure these sorts of things can be snuffed out and guarded against, and that this sort of trafficking is prevented as much as possible. Trafficking is prevented in drugs and human smuggling at home or when things arrive at our borders or shores.

We want to ensure we take a public health approach when we look at these sorts of things as well to ensure, first and foremost, that we look after the safety, security, health and well-being of Canadians. When we do that at home, we have the ability to share that story around the world and work with other partners on the international scene who may not have the same level of capacity Canada has to deal with these issues. It is a lesson and something we share across the world. Where we have the capacity to step up and lead, Canada always has. It has certainly been the story under this government.

We have to be aware of trafficking in human organs and other illicit goods, especially in the context of increased migration and flows of people who are on the move more so than we have seen since the end of World War II. In many cases, people are fleeing persecution. In some cases, they are fleeing gang violence and other activities that have caused them personal, physical, mental and psychological harm. Therefore, it is important we understand why people are on the move, what other illicit activities could be camouflaged with people moving around and how we guard against any trafficking at all, but certainly a proliferation of trafficking of things like human organs, persons or other illicit goods.

Another point is that the Criminal Code in Canada currently prohibits the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the donor. If we lacked that provision in our Criminal Code, think how terrible it would be to have an organ removed without one's consent. We have taken steps in our country to ensure that is not the case. It is reflected in our view that human dignity is to be upheld in all cases. Having someone's consent to have an organ removed is upheld in Canada.

With the few minutes I have left, it might be worth re-emphasizing for those who have been watching over the last few minutes how seriously we take the issue of trafficking in human organs, just like we take all matters that would have a negative or deleterious effect on the health, well-being, safety and security of Canadians or on the Canadian population.

[An hon. member]

Deleterious?

[Matt DeCourcey]

I hear one of my colleagues snickering about my use of the word “deleterious”. I would encourage that colleague to look it up and perhaps use it in debate in the House before the end of the coming session. I am sure he will find the usage of such words can be helpful in really painting a picture of the negative consequences that not addressing these issues seriously can have on individual Canadians and our population as a whole.

I just highlighted the importance of paying attention to these issues, of speaking out about the negative effects of these activities and speaking out on the international stage to send a message that Canada is and will continue to be a leader on these issues and all matters that affect the well-being of Canadians and people around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the urgency of this, I think the direction in which the debate is going makes clear that the key arguments have been made.

I would seek unanimous consent at this point to deem the motion adopted at second reading stage so we can proceed to the urgently needed study at committee, and review any amendments that allow us to move forward with the bill. I am seeking unanimous consent for that motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Unfortunately, we do not have unanimous consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science. I want to point out that she will have about nine minutes and then we will have to call it a night for this debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kate Young, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science and Sport and to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility (Accessibility), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the House. It is an important debate that we need to have. It will be a debate that will continue, I am sure.

What has been stated before, of course, is very true. Our government is committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account. We condemn the illegal and exploitive trade of human organs in the strongest of terms.

Organ transplantation and donation is governed by a comprehensive legislative framework at both the federal and provincial and territorial levels, encompassing health and criminal law. The Criminal Code currently prohibits the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the donor. I think that last part, informed consent, is especially worth noting. That is in and of itself the most important part of any discussion about human organ donation.

Organ trafficking is a growing concern internationally. I appreciate the fact that this has been brought to the House to debate, but no known cases have occurred in Canada, and we hope it never happens.

In Canada, organ transplantation and donation is governed by, as I mentioned, a comprehensive legislative framework at both the federal and provincial and territorial levels. Health regulatory offences apply where organs are removed, transplanted outside the regulatory framework, while criminal laws apply where the organ donor did not consent or was coerced.

More specifically, provincial statutes prohibit the sale, purchase and dealing in any human tissues or organs outside this regulatory framework. These laws require the explicit consent of the donor or next of kin in the case of deceased donation. Federally, the safety of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation regulations, administered by Health Canada, prohibit transplant activities unless carried out by a registered establishment.

In Canada, we talk a lot about encouraging people to donate organs. It is an ongoing issue. I think probably everyone in this House knows someone who has been on that waiting list, sometimes waiting months for an organ transplant. We have to encourage Canadians to make sure that they sign up so that they can become organ donors, if in fact the situation arises where they would be considered a donor.

That is what we need to address in this House. We need to encourage education so that people understand the differences between consent of an organ donation and what is actually going on around the world that I agree is abhorrent in nature.

The Criminal Code also includes a number of general and specific offences that can respond to the conduct targeted by Bill S-240. In 2005, the Criminal Code was amended to enact a number of specific offences that comprehensively address all aspects of trafficking in persons. For those who want to look it up, it is sections 279.01 to 279.04.

The main trafficking in persons offence prohibits engaging in specified types of conduct in order to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of another person. Exploitation is defined broadly, and includes causing a person “by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.” “Coercion” and “consent” are the two main words in this discussion.

In addition, it is an offence to receive a financial or material benefit knowing that it was derived from trafficking in persons. The concept of material benefit is sufficiently broad to encompass the receipt of an organ in cases where the recipient knew the organ was obtained through deceit or any other form of coercion. It is terrible to think that people get so desperate in this world that they know the organ they are receiving has been taken from another human being without their consent or through coercion. That is the worst possible point of this bill that we must address.

Canada's human trafficking offences also apply extraterritorially and, therefore, can be used to prosecute in Canada those Canadians or permanent residents who commit human trafficking offences abroad. There are Canadians who travel abroad and knowingly go there in order to receive an organ from someone who was either paid or coerced. That has no place in our civilization.

In addition to the human trafficking offences, criminal offences of general application could also be used to respond to organ trafficking. Depending upon the facts of the case, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, uttering threats, organized crime offences or extortion could all be used to address organ trafficking conduct involving coercion of the organ donor and all are punishable by significant penalties of imprisonment, as they should be. These provisions, however, do not have extraterritorial effect.

There are some real important issues that need to be discussed and I am certainly glad that my hon. colleague brought this forward. Trafficking in human organs is something that no one in the House would agree with. It needs to be debated, though, because there are laws that may conflict with this bill and we need to make sure we get it right. It is certainly something that, as a government, we are looking into. We need to address it and have the discussion both here in the House and possibly at committee stage.

We can all understand that some people take matters into their own hands and there have to be rules and regulations around trafficking in human organs to make sure people are not leaving Canada to get organs in this way. We also have to educate people in Canada to the fact that, yes, organ donation is a very positive thing to do, but people have to be able to consent and no coercion can be involved at all.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the debate on the bill, I would like to acknowledge that this is our last week in this place not only for the year, but it is the last time we will be sitting here in Centre Block for the next decade. I would like to thank everyone who works behind the scenes to make this place run smoothly for those of us who are honoured to be elected and serve Canadians here in this beautiful building, which is going to be restored over the next 10 years. Hopefully, it will take only 10 years. On our behalf, I thank all the staff, from Parliamentary Protective Service, to administration, to custodians and everyone in between.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill S-240. As vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I can say that the subject of black market organ harvesting is not a new one. Indeed, Bill S-240 is the fourth iteration of a bill that has been through many parliaments. These bills were written largely in response to credible and appalling reports concerning organ harvesting in China.

Organ trafficking is considered an organized crime, with a host of offenders including the recruiters who identify the vulnerable persons, the transporters, the staff of the hospital or clinic and other medical centres, the medical professionals themselves who perform the surgery, the contractors, the buyers and those at the banks that store the organs. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights has studied the issue of organ harvesting in China numerous times and has issued at least two lengthy reports and a number of statements. The reports discuss in gruesome detail the establishment within China of an actual organ-harvesting industry.

The first source of organs for transplants apparently was prisoners who were sentenced to death and executed. A second source of organs was prisoners of conscience. The earliest of these were the Uighurs, Chinese Muslims from the eastern part of the country. The chamber will recall the more recent reports of up to one million Uighurs being rounded up by the government of the People's Republic of China and forceably placed into re-education camps.

In our subcommittee, we heard that while China's official central government's statistics indicate that approximately 10,000 organ transplantations take place per year, the numbers may actually be as high as between 60,000 and 100,000 organ transplants per year. The one population that ultimately became the principal victims of China's organ-harvesting industry was the country's Falun Gong followers. Falun Gong is the adherence to the Falun Dafa spiritual practice that originated in China. According to testimony that our subcommittee heard on November 3, 2016, China's organ-harvesting industry developed in tandem with its systematic repression of Falun Gong.

I will admit to being a bit skeptical initially about reports on organ harvesting in China. The idea of taking another person's organ to sell on the open market suggests a level of depravity that ordinary decent human beings find difficult to fathom. However, the more I learn about human rights abuses committed by the Chinese government against its own people and more and more credible accounts, my skepticism dissipates into reluctant belief. In fact, in recent hearings in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights looking into the human rights situation of the Uighurs in China, we heard that the Chinese government has been forceably taking DNA and blood samples from Uighurs. Chillingly, those of us who follow these issues immediately began fearing the Chinese government might be looking for yet more organs to harvest from this population.

It is time, therefore, that the international community come together on this issue and establish the conditions that will render the organ-trafficking industry unprofitable. While the majority of organ trafficking occurs abroad, measures must be taken to ensure Canadians waiting on long organ donation lists are not perpetuating this brutality by purchasing trafficked organs. Trafficking in human organs is an abhorrent activity that should be included in Canada's Criminal Code. Further, Bill S-240 proposes amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that receiving organs or benefiting economically from this illicit trade would also make a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible to Canada.

The NDP supports Bill S-240 as we oppose all forms of trafficking in organs. We believe it is important to ensure that Canadians who have their names on the long organ donation lists are not inadvertently contributing to the demand for this horrendous crime.

As this is the fourth bill on organ trafficking in 10 years, the NDP calls for cross-party co-operation to ensure the swift passage of Bill S-240 and for this issue to be finally taken seriously. In addition to supporting this initiative, more should be done to encourage ethical, safe organ donation domestically. Canadians contribute to organ trafficking primarily through a phenomenon called transplant tourism. It is the most common way to trade organs across national borders. Recipients travel abroad to undergo organ transplants and there is currently no law in Canada against this practice.

Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a centralized list of people waiting for an organ. The Liberal government actually voted against a bill in 2016 that would have supported the creation of a national registry to help identify those wishing to donate organs and those who need them. Canada is the only developed country without national organ donation legislation, such as the 1984 United States National Organ Transplant Act. The Government of Canada should seriously consider the feasibility of a presumed consent system for organ donation where individuals opt out instead of opting in to organ donation.

In addition to the development and coordination of an advanced interprovincial organ-sharing system, the federal government must also facilitate the implementation of best practices and promote professional education and training opportunities. Canada is way behind on the issue of organ trafficking. In fact, the Council of Europe has had a convention against trafficking in human organs since 2008, and as of 2017, it has been ratified by 47 member states. Several countries, including Taiwan, Spain, and Norway, have already passed similar legislation. It is time for our country to catch up with the rest of the world and we can begin doing so today by supporting this bill.

It is not lost on many human rights defenders listening to this debate today that it is a profound anniversary marking the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 70 years ago. Those sentiments are inextricably linked after the horrors witnessed in World War II and the conviction of never again. I submit that those sentiments are profoundly linked here as well to Bill S-240. After World War II, the world sought to ensure such madness ensued against humanity never happened again. Organ harvesting and trafficking are a nauseating reality and we must put a stop to them. Canada must act and must start by passing Bill S-240.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill S-240 and to take this opportunity to respond specifically to comments that have been made by many colleagues so far in this debate.

This bill, as members may know, would make it a criminal offence to receive an organ taken without the consent of the patient. This issue is morally clear-cut, and I think all speakers have agreed to that basic idea.

We are coming up towards the second reading vote, where we will vote on the legislation's principle. Members who have questions about some of the particulars but agree with the general principle should give this bill speedy passage at this stage so that we can make any necessary amendments at committee stage and still ensure that the bill becomes law before the next election. If further delays by Liberal members hold back progress in this Parliament, then we will have to start at square one in the next Parliament.

During previous speeches, members made observations about the extraterritorial application of Canadian law proposed in this case, that under this bill someone would be charged for getting an organ overseas for which there had not been consent. Members have generally agreed that we should be concerned about the basic human rights of non-citizens, and that we should seek to prevent Canadians citizens from violating the human rights of others while abroad.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice discussed some of the challenges associated with prosecutions involving extraterritoriality. He noted that these cases can be difficult and expensive to prosecute, since they might require Canadian law enforcement to gather evidence overseas. This can be the case with extraterritorial prosecutions, but I would make two observations to counter concerns about the challenges associated with extraterritorial prosecutions in this particular case.

First of all, we should not fail to criminalize bad behaviour just because prosecution is difficult. Even if we are only able to prosecute a small number of cases, the deterrent effect of the law will go a long way. We criminalize child sex tourism already, presumably recognizing the challenges involved in prosecution but also hoping that the law and the possibility of prosecution deter and reduce these crimes.

Second, though, organ trafficking and harvesting is a special case insofar as prosecution should be relatively easier than prosecutions for other crimes where extraterritoriality is involved. Recipients of trafficked organs are a special case because they will necessarily have prior and follow-up medical needs, and the transplanted organ will have a clear physical indication of a transplant. Circumstances related to the transplant will give doctors, and therefore law enforcement, clear indication of whether a person showed gross negligence around verifying that the donor consented.

Let us consider a concrete example and imagine that a patient is on a waiting list for a heart. He says to his doctor, “Doc, great news, I'm going to get a new heart. My cousin set me up. I'm going to Beijing six weeks from today, and I'll come back with a new heart.”

The doctor is perplexed. She replies, “That's not really possible. If there's a heart available for you, they're not going to keep it in the freezer for six weeks. The only way to plan that far in advance would be if doctors over there knew with certainty that someone who is a perfect match will die right before you arrive.”

This is a case where lack of consent is relatively clear, even if the patient may not fully understand at first. If someone is receiving a vital organ from a recently healthy patient in a country where organ harvesting is common, and is being told well in advance when an organ will be available, it becomes absolutely clear that someone else is being executed in order to remove the organ, on a schedule based on the availability of the patient.

In this hypothetical case, there is some very strong evidence already that can help lead to a conviction. That evidence exists based on the medical needs of the patient to consult with a physician here in Canada before and after.

In the scenario I have laid out, ideally, the doctor would advise the patient of what is likely going on. If the patient proceeded to receive the trafficked organ, the doctor would currently have no recourse, legal or otherwise. However, if Bill S-240 passes, a doctor in that situation might stand a better chance of persuading the patient to try a different path.

She might say to him, “You might not know this, but you taking an organ under those circumstances almost certainly means that it is being taken from an unwilling patient, who is being executed in order to get you an organ. Receiving an organ taken from an unwilling source is a serious criminal offence in Canada, even if done abroad. If you proceed with this, any physician who sees you in Canada will be legally obligated to report that you have received a transplanted organ and the circumstances of that transplant will become clear.”

It is hard to imagine a patient proceeding with his original plan after being presented with these new criminal law provisions and a reasonable probability of detection. While this is a case of extraterritorial application of criminal law, the medical realities mean fewer practical challenges.

The parliamentary secretary also mused about whether the reporting provisions in this legislation are overbroad. In an effort to ensure that any case of organ harvesting and trafficking is detected, a doctor is required to report the presence of a transplanted organ in every case. Might a narrower reporting mechanism achieve the same purpose?

The proper scope of the reporting mechanism is a good issue for the committee to study and should not be an impediment to those considering whether or not to support the bill at second reading, but still, l have a couple of observations at this point.

First of all, the parliamentary secretary argued about both the challenges of extraterritorial prosecution and a potential overbroadness of the reporting provision. The broadness of the reporting provision is precisely aimed at responding to what would otherwise be the challenge of prosecution; the one is a partial solution to the other. Further, it should not be particularly complex or onerous for the government to keep track on a list of those who have received an organ transplant, such that it can be verified if an organ was received properly. Requiring that reporting happens in every case ensures that those who participate in organ trafficking would be held accountable.

There are a few other points to make in response to what has been said. The member for Edmonton Centre mused about whether this legislation should include cases in which organs are purchased. He notes, quite correctly, that the bill presumes that a person who sells his or her organs is doing so from a position of vulnerability and therefore the bill proposes not to allow the selling of organs under any circumstances.

I appreciate that the member for Edmonton Centre acknowledges both sides of this question, saying as well, “...I also recognize...the need to ensure that individuals, often from developing countries, who may be vulnerable to abuse given their own economic situation, are protected from potentially exploitative practices.”

Let me make three points in response to this question about whether or not the bill should include a prohibition on purchasing organs abroad. First of all, this is also a subject where the application could be altered at committee. I would be sorry to see these provisions removed from the bill, but their presence should not be an impediment to supporting it at second reading given the possibility of amendment.

Second, the case the member for Edmonton Centre used, wherein a person goes overseas to buy an organ, in an environment with well-defined laws protecting the rights and the safety of the donor, is largely a fiction. There is a very small number of countries in the world where the buying and selling of human organs is legal and they are almost all very poor countries where the levels of health care are not anything resembling a respectable or desirable level. The decision by a healthy and aware person to sell their organ in a safe environment might be an interesting hypothetical for a philosophy seminar, but we should bracket that question and support measures that deal with the overwhelming reality of organ trafficking cases that involve exploitation.

Third, Canada does not allow the buying and selling of human organs domestically, so it is consistent with our Criminal Code to recognize the risks inherent in the commodification of human organs and the inherently exploitive nature of relationships in which people are selling body parts.

A number of members have said that there are no known cases of this practice happening in Canada, but whether or not the taking of human organs without consent has ever happened in Canada, the fact is that here in Canada it is already illegal and the bill deals with international organ trafficking, something we know is big and growing. It would be foolish to assume no involvement by Canadians in organ harvesting and trafficking. We have indeed heard anecdotally from hospitals of people going overseas to receive organs in China, although the particulars of the involvement of Canadians are obviously difficult to quantify. In the absence of a law prohibiting this practice, information about those going overseas to receive illicit organs should be released.

Let us move forward with the bill as quickly as possible and stop the excuses and delays. Let us make sure that we get this done before the next election.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about sections 36 and 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in my speech, which already address inadmissibility grounds with respect to criminality, serious criminality and organized criminality. That will be the majority of what I will be speaking about in my speech.

I am pleased to be able to take the floor to discuss Bill S-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which proposes new criminal law responses to tackle the issue of organ trafficking.

I would like to spend my time discussing the bill's proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Members will likely be aware that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets out a number of rules governing who is and who is not admissible to Canada. In particular, division 4, part 1 of the act specifies a number of situations where a foreign national or permanent resident will be inadmissible to Canada for reasons of security, for reasons of criminality of various types, or for having engaged in human or international rights violations.

Section 35 specifically articulates the grounds upon which a permanent resident or foreign national would be inadmissible for reasons of violating human or international rights, such as where the person has engaged in genocide or war crimes. Bill S-240 proposes to amend this section to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada for having engaged in conduct that would constitute an offence captured by any of the four new offences proposed in this bill. This amendment raises interesting issues that I look forward to hearing more about during our debates here in the House.

In determining whether someone is inadmissible, Bill S-240 would require the minister to be satisfied that the individual engaged in conduct that is captured by the bill's proposed new offences. In the summary of the bill, it notes that the minister who would be responsible for making such determinations would be the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, it is my understanding that the minister who is responsible for the inadmissibility sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is the Minister of Public Safety. It is unclear to me whether the sponsor of the bill is proposing that the ministerial responsibility for this new ground of inadmissibility be different than what is currently the case. It is important to ensure that the bill would not result in a situation where ministerial responsibility is either misunderstood or inconsistently applied in this act.

I would also be interested to hear more from the bill's sponsor in the House of Commons as to whether amending section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is appropriate, given the focus of the section is on international rights violations. It is not clear to me why the amendments are proposed here, rather than in sections 36 and 37 of the act, which deal with inadmissibility on the grounds of criminality, serious criminality and organized criminality.

I would also like to note that another private member's bill, Bill C-350, introduced by the sponsor of Bill S-240 in the House, dealing with the same issue, would amend section 37 instead of section 35. There appears to be some uncertainty as to where this kind of change should be made, and I am interested in hearing more about this in the House.

More fundamentally, I wonder whether this type of amendment is even needed. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already contains a number of different grounds upon which a person may be found inadmissible to Canada. Specifically, sections 36 and 37 of the act already address inadmissibility on grounds of criminality, serious criminality and organized criminality. These provisions, in my view, are broad enough to capture the conduct targeted by the proposed amendment. For example, permanent residents or foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada for engaging in serious criminality. While “serious criminality” is not defined, the provision makes clear that it includes engaging in conduct abroad that was an offence in the place where it occurred and that if it had been committed in Canada it would constitute an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 10 years' imprisonment.

Under this rule, a foreign national or permanent resident who engages in conduct that would be criminalized by the offences proposed in Bill S-240 would be inadmissible. I wonder then what the rationale is for specifically enumerating a new ground of admissibility.

The same holds true for subsection 36(2), which states that a foreign national is admissible to Canada for having been convicted of an offence outside of Canada that, if it were committed in Canada, would have constituted an indictable offence.

Beyond the question I have already raised concerning the need for specific amendments of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I would like to spend a few moments talking about what may be unintended consequences of Bill S-240.

As has already been discussed in previous speeches, one of the proposed new offences will criminalize any person who obtains or facilitates obtaining an organ from the body of another person where he or she knows or was reckless as to whether the organ was obtained for consideration. Others have spoken about how this would capture individuals who travel abroad to obtain an organ that was purchased in a country where it would be legal to do so. However, it is not only limited to this conduct.

For example, proposed subsection 240.1(3) will also criminalize medical practitioners who participate in the organ transplant surgery in the country where it is legal to do so. Under Bill S-240, that person will also be inadmissible to Canada. I wonder if this is an appropriate outcome.

I raise these questions because I strongly believe we need to fully appreciate the implications of any legislation that is brought before us. I do not believe that to this point, Bill S-240's proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act have benefited from the kind of detailed debate that is required. In fact, based on my review of the parliamentary record, I could not find a single question raised in the other place about the implications associated with Bill S-240's immigration-related proposals.

There can be no doubt that the issue of illicit organ trafficking is a serious one. There equally can be no doubt that we, as parliamentarians, are united in our concern and commitment to identifying appropriate solutions to address the behaviour of those who would seek to exploit the vulnerable, with no regard for their health or well-being.

Nevertheless, we should not let the seriousness of the issue detract from our responsibility to closely examine and, where possible, improve upon legislation that is brought before us. A number of issues have been identified with Bill S-240 that require more detailed examination, and I look forward to our continued consideration of them.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-248, a Senate bill that was brought forward to the House by the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I know the member is passionate about this issue and has worked hard to bring this legislation to this point, so I thank him.

The RCMP has stated the obvious. It says that there are far more people in the world in need of a new organ than there are organs available. As in any market where a dollar can be made because demand far outweighs supply, people can turn to the black market to find what they need. When a person's life is on the line, the will to survive may override morals.

As members in the House may know, I have been a passionate advocate for finding improvements to Canada's organ and tissue donation systems. While 90% of Canadians support organ donation, just 20% are registered as organ donors. There are 4,500 Canadians desperate for a life-saving transplant, and 250 die each year before that life-saving transplant becomes available.

If we can increase the supply of organs, we can reduce or eliminate the desperation that leads people to take such drastic measures to save their own lives.

The problem of organ trafficking is not just a Canadian problem. The World Health Organization says that 10% of all organ transplants involved a trafficked organ. This is about 10,000 a year, every year.

The country of Iran stands alone in the world as the only nation with a legal organ trade. However, the trade is closely monitored and it has eliminated the wait-list for kidneys. However, I do not believe the end justifies the means either.

On a positive note, it has spurred the rate of donations from deceased donors in Iran. It is important to note that deceased donors are not paid.

Organ trafficking is a horrible phenomenon that can be crudely reduced to this: Rich nations take advantage of poverty in poor nations to satisfy their need for organs. A Harvard study showed that the main purchasing nations were the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan and, yes, Canada. We target nations in South America, Asia and Africa. In Indian alone, it is estimated that 2,000 kidneys are sold each year.

This trade is big business. Profits are estimated to be between $600 million U.S. and $1.2 billion U.S. per year.

Organ trafficking is done through what is generally known as “transplant tourism”. Those in need of a transplant travel to one of these poorer nations to undergo their transplant under the auspices of a vacation. There are even websites that offer all-inclusive transplant packages for these so-called tourists. A kidney transplant, for example, will mean a transplant vacation costing anywhere from $70,000 U.S. to $160,000 U.S. Canada does not have a law that prevents this.

While kidneys are the most commonly traded organ, it does not stop there. Other common transplants involve hearts, livers, lungs, pancreases and corneas. Human tissue is also illegally traded.

The trade involves three basic groups, according to the United Nations' global initiative to fight human trafficking: traffickers, who force or deceive victims into giving up an organ; victims who have their financial desperation used against them to give up their organs; and victims who are deceived into a medical procedure during which they have an organ removed without their prior knowledge.

Like any other illegal trade supported by organized crime, there are many layers of offenders. There are the recruiters, both for donors and recipients; the vulnerable people, who are the victims; the immoral medical people and facilities; the buyers; the facilitators; and more.

What do we do to address this problem? Of course, if we had enough donors in Canada, people would not be desperately mortgaging their homes or spending their retirement savings to get that life-saving transplant.

I do not blame people who are facing death for taking whatever steps they can to save themselves. They are just as much a guilty party in this trade as they are a victim of the trade. However, we need to take a stand on this issue if we are to stop it.

Before I go any further, it is important to clarify this would not prevent a truly informed and consenting person from donating an organ to someone in need. We are talking about unethically obtained organs.

Bill S-240 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs. It would also amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national would be inadmissible to Canada if the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship were of the opinion that he or she had engaged in any activities relating to trafficking in human organs.

We face an interesting problem in the world of illegally obtained organs. Unlike other contraband items, customs officers cannot just seize an organ at the border. How can we tell if that tourist coming back to Canada has the same heart he or she left with weeks earlier? It would be a very difficult crime to detect. In many ways, the only way to detect this activity would be when those Canadians would go to their doctor, who suddenly would notice they had surgical scars and signs of a new organ.

Section 240 of the bill would require health professionals to notify a designated authority of such activity for investigation. Anyone found guilty of contravening these new prohibitions would be subject to up to 14 years in prison. I have concerns about the kind of relationship this would set-up between doctors and patients, but there really is no other way to do this.

Where does that leave us today? There is a saying that I think is very appropriate here, “When all is said and done, there is often a lot said and little done.” There have been four bills before Parliament in the past 10 years on organ trafficking, but yet we stand here today and continue to talk. It is time we get something done instead. Until we take aggressive steps to stop organ trafficking, the practice will continue to victimize thousands more every year.

Let us get the legislation enacted before the next election. If we do not, the whole process would have to start all over again. What a waste of time and money that would be. Thousands more could be victimized in the process.

At the same time, let us pass legislation like Bill C-316, my bill, which would help eliminate the demand for organ trafficking. Let us also focus more effort on acting on the recommendations of the health committee to improve our domestic supply of organs and tissues. Let us better promote the registration of organ and tissue donors, so our supply will exceed our demand. Honestly, imagine a day when people come to Canada to get a life-saving transplant because we have too many available organs. Would that not be an amazing goal?

Again, I applaud the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for putting the legislative proposal forward in the House. I look forward to voting in support of it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to start by tying up a loose end. Some members have spoken and raised the question of whether, effectively, this is already captured by other provisions of the Criminal Code.

The parliamentary secretary to the minister of science made comments that might be construed to this effect. She spoke about provisions around human trafficking, including human trafficking for the purpose of the organ, which can be applied extraterritoriality. She also spoke about how the harvesting of human organs would likely involve the commission of other crimes, such as assault if it were to take place here in Canada.

However, I want to be clear that human trafficking for the purpose of extracting an organ and the trafficking of organs are two different things. For example, someone who receives a harvested kidney is not, strictly speaking, engaging in human trafficking, but organ trafficking; hence, the need for new offences with clear extraterritorial application.

While organ harvesting would necessarily involve other offences, those offences, like assault, do not have extraterritorial application. There are no current laws that involve the extraterritorial application of prohibitions against the trafficking of human organs. My friend from Kitchener South—Hespeler spoke about whether existing provisions around inadmissibility could be applied in this case. He spoke about serious criminality and organized criminality.

Let us be clear, first of all, that we have not seen prosecutions related to this in the past, and colleagues who think that the existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Act or the Criminal Code are sufficient should hopefully be able to point to cases where this crime has actually been prosecuted. Given that none have been raised in the House, it suggests to me that we actually do need to clarify and strengthen the offences such as they exist.

In terms of this issue of serious criminality and organized criminality, we are talking about offences that offend any basic sense of morality but are not necessarily illegal in the country where they take place. We have spoken about the case of one country that seems to have systemized and organized process of organ harvesting from political prisoners. Therefore, provisions that deal with inadmissibility to Canada based on the commission of an offence in the country where it is committed would not apply in this case, because someone might be doing something involving organ harvesting and trafficking from political prisoners. That is legal and, in fact, state policy in one country, but we would seek to apply the extraterritoriality provisions here in Canada.

There is a need for laws to address an issue that is perhaps hinted at around the edges of the existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Act and the Criminal Code, but is very clearly not explicitly illegal. Again, if members opposite think that those provisions are sufficient or do exist, then they should be able to point to cases where prosecutions have happened. As my colleagues have quite effectively pointed out, we know that this happens and that Canadians are involved, and yet we are not seeing prosecution of it.

Regardless of whatever arguments one might make about the text of the law, the fact that this is going on without its being prosecuted should be clear enough evidence that we need to strengthen the legislative work. If nothing else, the reporting mechanism in this legislation would create a mechanism whereby these extraterritorial offences could be effectively prosecuted.

The other points that have been raised have been responded to effectively by my colleagues. I just mention as well quickly that the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler spoke about the possibility that medical practitioners could be deemed inadmissible to Canada in cases where they might be involved in something related to this.

Those who are involved in illicit organ harvesting and trafficking could be deemed inadmissible to Canada, but there is ample space in the legislation proposed for the discretion of the minister. Inadmissibility to Canada is based on assessments made by the Government of Canada, which can weigh various criteria in each case. If there were a concern about people being caught up in the net of this who should not be, again that would be dealt with by the provisions that allow discretion. In fact, the legislation says that prosecutions under Bill S-240 cannot proceed without the explicit consent of the attorney general. These are ample provisions to ensure that there is not some indirect application to people whom it should not be applied to.

We have to take action to help the vulnerable here. There are many details in this bill that should be discussed in greater detail at committee. If people have constructive ideas for amendments, doing so at committee is the right place for that.

However, let us make a clear statement on the principle of the bill. That is what we do at second reading. We go on the principle of the legislation. This is the fourth bill in 10 years on this. I think we should all agree with the principle that Canada cannot, in good conscience, consent to the trafficking and harvesting of human organs from nonconsenting people, that we can take a clear and moral stance on this fundamental human rights issue, the details of which can be worked out at committee to the extent they need to be.

Let us now, at second reading, take a clear stand and move this forward by sending it to committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House is suspended until 12 o'clock.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved:

That in relation to the Senate amendments for Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of Senate amendments to the bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry to the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments of said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the state of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess it is fitting for this government that we, in the final days of sitting in this chamber, are again talking about its favourite parliamentary procedure, time allocation, something that the Liberals said that they would never use when they were in opposition. Today we have time allocation on Bill C-51, particularly on the amendments by the Senate, the same Senate the Prime Minister said he was liberating by appointing independent senators to, because he wanted their feedback. He wanted additional debate. Today, they are once again shutting down that additional debate in the House.

This once again is an example of the Liberal government ramming things through. I am going to remind my friend from Winnipeg North that in 2011, the first time he spoke about time allocation, the first of many times he complained about it, he said that its use would mean he was “abandoning every principle I have on parliamentary tradition”. Abandoning principles seems to be all they have done in government.

My question is for either the minister or the member for Winnipeg North regarding the desire to have independent input from the Senate, with the changes made to the other place by the Prime Minister. Bill C-51 is an example of that additional insight from the Senate. I spoke last week on it. Why is the government curtailing debate on Bill C-51 through the use of time allocation? Once again, the Liberals are not adhering to their promises on omnibus bills or time allocation, nor are they keeping with the Prime Minister's promise to have an independent Senate that could provide input on bills. Why are they using time allocation and discounting the input from Senator Pate and others?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the comments by my friend and colleague across the way. My favourite parliamentary procedure, one of the favourite duties I have in this place, is passing good laws that are informed by robust consultation.

I believe the member for Winnipeg North would agree with me that we have had substantial debate on Bill C-51. The bill benefited from the very direct engagement of the hon. members in the other place. We have taken serious account of their message back and have recognized that their proposed amendment is well intentioned. We are committed to continuing to work with the hon. senators and Canadians generally, as we seek to move forward and look at the law of consent and the incapacity to consent. This is something on which there will be ongoing discussion, dialogue and commitment by our government.

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

Madam Speaker, I have found myself, as a New Democrat, in the awkward position of agreeing with the work the Senate has done. I was one of those who voted in favour of Bill C-51, because I agree with the focus of the bill and the provisions in it. Ultimately, what the Senate has attempted to do reflects very much what I attempted to do at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

My issue with the government's approach and its parliamentary tactics comes from the fact that for the various justice bills, Bill C-32, Bill C-39, Bill C-51 and Bill C-75, the Minister of Justice could very well have packaged many of the inoperative provisions of the Criminal Code in Bill C-39 and Bill C-51 in one bill that would have passed through Parliament relatively quickly. Instead, she packaged in some other provisions that have been more contentious, and therefore, has forced the government to use extraordinary measures like time allocation.

With all the evidence from legal experts over the years who have talked about the inoperative provisions of the Criminal Code, why could the Minister of Justice not have packaged the provisions in Bill C-39 and Bill C-51, which would not have had any argument, in one bill? Instead, three years into the government's mandate, we find ourselves still deliberating on these provisions, and nothing has changed.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way sat on the justice and human rights committee, which has debated many justice bills.

As for the member's characterization of parliamentary tactics, the only parliamentary tactic I employ and that our government employs is to work as co-operatively as we can with all members in the House to have informed debate about particular bills the government puts forward, seeking feedback from hon. members in this place and the other place and valuing the work done at committee.

With respect to all the justice bills that have been advanced, we have been working expeditiously to move forward with Bill C-39, Bill C-51 and Bill C-75 so that we clean up the so-called zombie provisions and the unconstitutional provisions. I would look to all hon. colleagues in this place to work with us to make sure that these pieces of legislation move forward as expeditiously as possible.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging that in Bill C-51 there are provisions that would remove sections of the Criminal Code that have been found to be unconstitutional by appellate courts. However, following up on the question put by my friend for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, it is disappointing that the government still has not removed unconstitutional sections, sections the Supreme Court of Canada has found to be of no force or effect.

It has now been over two years since Travis Vader had his conviction on two counts of second degree murder overturned as a result of the application of an inoperative section. Two years later, Bill C-39 remains stuck at first reading. The only thing preventing inoperative sections of the Criminal Code from being removed is the government. Can the minister explain to the McCann family why, after two years, they are still waiting for section 230 and other inoperative sections of the Criminal Code to be removed?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the comments and questions from my colleague across the way with respect to the then Bill C-39, which is now incorporated in the broad criminal justice reforms contained within Bill C-75.

I am very pleased that Bill C-75 has passed third reading in this place and is in the other place for debate and discussion. We look forward to its deliberations with respect to these very important and bold reforms presented in Bill C-75. I would look to all members in the House to assist in encouraging the members in the other place to proceed in an expeditious fashion so that the provisions the member opposite references will be passed as part of Bill C-75 and we can remove those provisions from the Criminal Code.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that we are debating this minister's attempt to shut down discussion on serious provisions in the justice bills being brought forward in the same week the minister has her lawyers at the B.C. Supreme Court arguing that residential school survivors from St. Anne's do not have the right to procedural fairness.

Now, the minister is a lawyer. She would know that procedural fairness is a fundamental principle of law. For example, in the case of H-15019, a survivor of horrific child rape, the minister's staff sat on evidence of a perpetrator and then fought this survivor every step of the way, all the way to the Supreme Court. It is now arguing that survivors do not have the right to procedural fairness for the injustices committed by her officials. The minister has spent—what is the number?—$2.3 million fighting these survivors, and she is at the Supreme Court this week.

In light of all the documents they have attempted to seal under sealing orders, including the Phil Fontaine affidavit, which accuses the government of breaking its word, how is it possible that we have such belief in this minister to do the right thing and that she would treat survivors of residential school abuse in such a manner? How is it possible?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to unequivocally state that I do not agree with the member opposite's characterization of the work we are doing.

I will say, with respect to his comments about shutting down debate and discussion, that with respect to the issue at hand, Bill C-51, this House has debated Bill C-51 for a total of 10 and a half hours, including three hours of debate on the message from the other place. The Senate debated Bill C-51 for four hours. It benefited from a total of 19.5 hours of study at committee, between the House and the Senate, which heard from 63 witnesses.

We are talking about Bill C-51. I look forward to having this become law so we can ensure that we codify the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. J.A., that we further support sexual assault victims and that we ensure that we can move forward with charter statements that will be introduced with all government legislation once this bill becomes law.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-51, Bill C-57, Bill C-87, Bill C-88, and Bill C-21, all of these bills have had notice given of time allocation in the last week we are sitting before the Christmas break. Is this not just another indictment of the failure of the Liberal government when it comes to managing the business of the House?

The Liberal government said it was going to do things differently. All of a sudden, like the kid who spent the entire semester at school partying, when that final assignment comes due, it is a rush to try to get it in, in the nick of time, before the deadline. Is this not just another example of the Liberals' failure to manage the business of this place?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, I reject the characterization of the significant work our government is doing to move forward with many pieces of significant legislation and to look to this House and to Canadians for input, debate and discussion on how we can move forward with what our government has committed to in terms of law reform.

To characterize this as last-minute, reflects the lack of importance the member opposite places on engaging with Canadians, having robust discussion, and listening to committees and hearing their recommendations and incorporating them to improve government bills.

This is a commitment our government will continue to follow to ensure that our laws benefit from the vast experience, in this case, of criminal justice stakeholders and victims groups. We will not disregard that. We have been working in a consistent manner, from day one, to ensure that our legislation, the bills we introduce in this place, reflects the desires of Canadians. It is our responsibility to ensure that these bills move forward in the most expeditious manner possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not satisfied with the minister's previous response to my question. We can look at the legislative track record of the Minister of Justice, starting with Bill C-28, the victim surcharge bill, which was rolled into Bill C-75. We had Bill C-32, which was rolled into Bill C-39, which was then rolled into Bill C-75, and now we have Bill C-51.

I talked about tactics. Time allocation is a tactic. It would have been an unnecessary one if we could have dealt with the substantive provisions in all those bills, but instead, the government's strategy was to basically string us along with the introduction of these justice bills that would clean up the inoperative provisions of the Criminal Code and then leave them in some kind of purgatory stuck at first reading.

When the Minister of Justice took office, everyone knew that there were zombie provisions in the Criminal Code that had to be cleaned up. This has been a topic of discussion for decades, and every year, the Criminal Code is faithfully reproduced with all of these mistakes.

Again, why did the Minister of Justice, in 2016, the first year of her mandate, not take the provisions in Bill C-32 and Bill C-39 and elements of Bill C-51 and package them in one bill? We could have had that passed, done and dusted by now, but instead, they were rolled up with contentious provisions, and they are still being debated. Bill C-75 has only just been sent to the Senate. Who knows how long it is going to take there?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of reintroducing the Criminal Code, I am incredibly proud to be part of a government that has taken action, which has not been taken for decades, as the member mentioned, to ensure that we have a modernized Criminal Code, that we remove the unconstitutional provisions, the zombie provisions, that we update the laws around sexual assault and intimate partner violence and that we look at the victim fine surcharge as well as section 159. All of these are issues raised in government bills the member opposite has spoken to.

We are moving forward with comprehensive reform of the criminal justice system, and that starts with looking, in a substantial manner, at the Criminal Code. This is what we have sought to do and what is contained in Bill C-51 and also in Bill C-75.

I look forward these two pieces of proposed legislation becoming law so that we can do what has not been done for far too long, which is modernize the Criminal Code.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to emphasize is that in preparation for bringing forward Bill C-51 and previous legislation, there has been a great deal of background work with many stakeholders in different jurisdictions. I wonder if the minister could provide her thoughts on the importance of having done a lot of the preliminary work and give us a sense of some of the background work leading to the introduction of the legislation itself. Not only has there been a thorough debate, with questions and answers, in committee and in debates inside the chamber, there was also a great deal of consultation prior to the legislation even being introduced.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we formed government, we could have, as has been suggested here by members opposite, introduced legislation to do what potentially we knew needed to be done. However, we sought to engage broadly to get feedback to ensure that the commitments the Prime Minister asked me to address in terms of a robust review of the criminal justice system, including sentencing reform, were done in a manner that was reflective of what Canadians were saying and what the actors in the criminal justice system were saying.

We engaged right across the country in a series of many round tables in each jurisdiction to get feedback from not only defence counsel, prosecutors and the judiciary but from victims groups. I also engaged in three separate federal, provincial and territorial meetings with my counterparts to come up with the bold and necessary reforms we make to address delays, efficiencies, and effectiveness in the criminal justice system.

As well, we had forums where we talked about sexual assault and what we could do in terms of improving the laws around sexual assault and making them compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada decisions. We did this in consultation with actors in the criminal justice system, victims and representative groups not only here in Ottawa but across the country. We provided a report on our consultations entitled “What we heard”.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was appalled when I heard that the Liberal government was trying to remove section 176 of the Criminal Code. This is the only section of the Criminal Code that can directly protect the rights of individuals to freely practise their religion, whatever that religion might be. It was recently used in a case on June 9, 2017 here in Ottawa.

Why did the Liberals back down on removing section 176? Was it due to public backlash and they did not properly investigate this? Why are they not trying to hybridize this under Bill C-75?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I believe I understand the member's question. With respect to section 176, he characterized it as backing down, but what we did is we listened to what the committee members sought to say around religious officiants and we recognized the recommendation in terms of the amendments that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made and acknowledged that and accepted that. We did make some amendments to ensure that this reflected all religious officiants as opposed to the confined way it was drafted in terms of the amendments that were proposed at the House committee. Basically the answer is that we listened to what the House of Commons committee said. That is the importance of committees in this place that we take incredibly seriously.

In terms of hybridization of offences, we are proposing in Bill C-75, which is not the bill at issue here today, a number of offences to be hybridized, to contribute to the broad and bold criminal justice reforms that will address delays, efficiencies and effectiveness in the criminal justice system. By hybridizing certain offences, it gives prosecutors the ability to exercise their discretion and proceed in terms of criminal charges in the most expeditious manner as appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the good things about time allocation is it does give us more time with the minister here on the floor of the House of Commons, particularly to speak on justice issues. I spoke in debate on the bill last week with respect to the charter statement document that her department is developing for each piece of legislation. My concern about this so-called charter statement is that it could send a chill suggesting the government feels that there would be no charter claims available, when it is not Parliament but a court that determines whether there is a charter violation.

I refer the minister specifically this morning to the editorial by Chief Fox on Bill C-69 in The Globe and Mail demonstrating that the charter statement in that piece of legislation obviously did not respect the views of many indigenous leaders. We are talking about justice, about the charter statements. I would like the minister to comment on how her department consults with respect to charter statements for government legislation if there are indigenous rights underlying the substance of the bill. Chief Fox's commentary was on Bill C-69 and its anti-pipeline focus, but I would like the minister to comment broadly on the use of charter statements and how she obtains input from indigenous leaders in the preparation of those statements.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Durham raising charter statements because one of the significant pieces of Bill C-51, when hopefully it becomes law, is it will be a direct responsibility of the government to introduce a charter statement with each piece of government legislation.

I would be happy to speak with the member for Durham at any time, not necessarily in the House, about the robust legislation and activities of the Department of Justice. I would extend that invitation to him.

In terms of charter statements, they are the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to look at government legislation. Charter statements are not legal opinions, but they detail where the charter is potentially engaged by a piece of legislation that the government is putting forward. It provides a window into how government decisions are made or the thought processes that government went through in terms of putting forward a piece of legislation. This is something that has not been done before. This is something that is contained within Bill C-51. With the coming into force of that bill, the charter statements will be applicable to all pieces of government legislation.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister alluded to the repeal of section 159 of the Criminal Code. Section 159 is another unconstitutional section relating to anal intercourse. More than two years ago, with a whole lot of fanfare, the government introduced Bill C-32 to repeal section 159. Bill C-32 was such a priority of the government that the bill remains stuck at first reading.

The Liberals then, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford pointed out, rolled Bill C-32 into Bill C-39, which would remove, in addition to section 159, other unconstitutional sections. Bill C-39 is such a priority of the government that after being introduced on March 8, 2017, it remains stuck at first reading and two years later, section 159, an unconstitutional section, remains there in black and white in the Criminal Code. Can the minister explain this?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again to the question and comments of my colleague across the way with respect to section 159 and the legislation that has now been put into Bill C-75, removing this provision in the Criminal Code is a priority of our government, as are all of the provisions contained within Bill C-75. I am very pleased that Bill C-75 has passed third reading in this House and will be debated and discussed in the other place. I look forward to the results of the deliberations from the other place.

I would say that we are committed to ensuring that Bill C-75 moves through the parliamentary process, benefits from the parliamentary process and becomes law as soon as possible. From what I can account for from the member's comments is that there are major pieces within Bill C-75, if not the entirety of Bill C-75, that are in the interest of moving forward and amending the Criminal Code and addressing the issues that have been raised by members in this place.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Justice being here today.

The member for Durham raised the question on the process of charter statements. Recently, we had some debate in this place regarding the back to work legislation for Canada Post. A former justice and current senator described the charter statement put out by the Minister of Justice in very negative terms, which I will not use here today. I also read the statement. It was a page and a half fig leaf giving the government some sort of charter coverage, so to speak, in regard to it.

The minister has said that this process will be continuing on for each piece of legislation. How much direction does the minister give to her staff in the Ministry of Justice, and how much political imperative does she give, or is there an objective process? I would hope she would be willing to explain that, because parliamentarians would like to know the answer.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, again I am pleased to stand up and speak to the charter statement, which is a very substantial part of Bill C-51. I have, as the Minister of Justice, introduced charter statements with each piece of government legislation that I have introduced in this place. I will say that charter statements are meant to be informative. Charter statements are meant to make the thoughts and the thinking behind government legislation accessible to Canadians, not to provide legal advice to Canadians or legal advice to this place. As the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General and the chief law officer of the government, I provide legal advice to the government.

What I believe is incredibly useful, and I have had feedback in this regard, is to have a discussion about where the charter is engaged with respect to specific pieces of legislation and to reference case law that has considered the issues in terms of specific charter sections to give an idea or window into government legislation and where the charter may or may not be implicated. This is the idea behind this. Again, it is not legal advice.

I will not comment on comments that were made by the hon. members of the other place, but I take great pride in ensuring that our charter statements provide the information and the accessibility not only to members in Parliament but to Canadians generally. This is a practice that will continue. This is a practice that has assisted in terms of getting a window into the eyes of where the charter is implicated in terms of government legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #976

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

Consideration of Senate Amendments

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is a broad and complex bill. If I have the time, I will entertain further discussion of the merits of the bill, which I feel is a good bill.

Bill C-51 proposes many different things in clarifying provisions relating to sexual assault, repealing unconstitutional provisions of the Criminal Code, clarifying and strengthening our charter by ensuring the government prevents charter statements for every piece of government legislation and seeking to avoid unnecessary litigation by enhancing our understanding of the criminal law.

This debate is essentially about the Senate amendments to the bill with respect to the issue of sexual assault.

As these issues were covered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it debated the bill, this is an interesting analogy to bring to the attention of the House. We did not support the amendments that were brought forward by Senator Pate, amendments that were adopted by the Senate.

When we were debating the sexual assault provisions in the bill, there was enormous discussion.

The bill's intent is to codify the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in J.A. and Ewanchuk.

In the decision in J.A., the intent was to set out and make it clear that someone would not be capable of providing consent when unconscious, but also that there were other instances in which the individual might be unable to provide consent.

In the case of Ewanchuk, the issue related to a misunderstanding of the law, clarifying that a mistake of law was not a defence to sexual assault.

When the legislation came to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we introduced amendments to clarify what people were concerned about when they came to testify about the bill. We heard from a wide range of witnesses, representing groups on all sides of the spectrum, from defence counsels and prosecutors to women's groups, victims' groups, etc.

We wanted to ensure that it was very clear that unconsciousness was not a bright light, meaning that anything short of unconsciousness would be seen as potentially not allowing one to say that consent was not extended.

As such, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made an amendment to make clear that consent had to be contemporaneous at the time of the sexual activity, that it must be ongoing, that it would not be valid if made in advance and that the person engaging in sexual activity was allowed to withdraw consent at any time. That amendment was supported by all members of the committee.

We also had an amendment to clarify Ewanchuk with respect to the mistake of law defence. We were concerned that the bill as originally drafted would possibly allow people to conclude that a mistake as to fact would no longer be a defence. We clarified that portion of the bin the bill to make it clear that it was only a mistake in belief as to what the law was that would no longer provide a defence allowing a mistaken belief as to fact to continue to constitute a limited defence.

For clarity, that means if someone who erroneously believes that when married, a spouse has to consent and that there cannot be sexual assault in marriage, that is a mistake as to law and it is not permitted anymore as a defence. That clarifies the Supreme Court decision in Ewanchuk within the Criminal Code.

That was what our committee had done, but the Senate went far beyond that and made amendments that sought to set out an additional framework of what type of capacity was required for consent.

The Senate added that lines 17 to 20 be replaced to say:

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity in question for any reason, including, but not limited to, the fact that they are

(i) unable to understand the nature, circumstances, risks and consequences of the sexual activity in question,

(ii) unable to understand that they have the choice to engage in the sexual activity in question or not, or

(iii) unable to affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity in question by words or by active conduct;”, and...

(3.1) For greater certainty, capacity to consent at the time of the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge cannot be inferred from evidence on capacity to consent at the time of another sexual activity

These are all very well-meaning amendments. They are amendments that seek to clarify capacity, but I am afraid that these amendments may have unintended consequences, could prolong cases a great deal by leading to enhanced questioning in all of these areas and, in fact, go way beyond what the Supreme Court said in J.A. and go beyond the intention given to the legislation, which was to codify the decision in J.A.

The Minister of Justice has advised us that she will be undertaking further consultations with relevant groups across the country and may come back to us with further clarifications to the legislation on capacity. However, I believe that putting forward these very detailed amendments that were not considered by the witnesses who appeared at the House committee or Senate committee because these were not on the table in the legislation, so we did not hear from the wide spectrum of witnesses on their thoughts about the draft language, leads to us using very specific draft language that the legal community across Canada was not consulted on.

I would also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the committee considered amendments very similar to this that were brought forward by my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in the New Democratic Party who sat on the committee at the time. When those amendments were brought forward, I found them to be confusing. I asked a question of the officials from the Department of Justice that I would like to put on the House record. This is from the record of the justice committee. I asked the following:

Can I ask a question, either to [the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford] or the officials, or maybe to both? I have two questions, actually.

One, with the fact that we have “unconscious” and then a general provision saying for anything else, is there any potential that by adding two specific examples into the second paragraph, the courts may then narrow the scope of what it's intended to mean?

Two, would somebody not being aware that they are not obliged to consent to the activity not be a mistake of law, a misunderstanding of the law, as opposed to incapacity?

The official from the Department of Justice who answered the question, Nathalie Levman, counsel for the criminal law policy section, stated the following:

Regarding your second point, I agree with you. I'm concerned that this doesn't necessarily speak to the capacity issue that proposed paragraph 153.1(3)(b) speaks to.

That raises a number of different points about your first question, which is that the law on when a person is so incapacitated that no consent is obtained in law is complex. The case law is difficult and there may be a number of different factors that are relevant. Singling out two factors, one of which may not relate to capacity, may have some unintended effects. As to what those effects could be, I cannot speculate, but I just point out that it is a complex issue of law, this particular paragraph, proposed paragraph 273.1(2)(b).

That brings me back to my argument. The fact that the Department of Justice was unable to say clearly what the intended amendment would even mean and talk to us about the ambiguity that the amendment potentially offered leads me to conclude, as I believe my Conservative and Liberal colleagues all concluded at committee, that adding these words into the law, while well intentioned, may have factors that we had not considered. I think this would certainly render a provision to the law that the courts have now interpreted for a considerable amount of time even more complex than it needs to be, leading to multiple questions that I could see being asked now to deal with the all of the different situations put forward by the Senate amendment.

I applaud Senator Pate for her decision to be an advocate on this issue, but I regret that I cannot agree with the position that she took in terms of proposing the amendment to go forward at this time.

I would prefer seeing the Minister of Justice do wide consultation, which would then allow, when a bill comes forward, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to have the benefit of the draft language to share with all of the different witnesses coming before committee, so that all of them could expound on whether or not they find that language to be helpful or problematic, etc.

That being said, I would also like to speak to another amendment that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights made to the bill. There has been a lot of discussion about the provisions that the bill removed from the Criminal Code that had been ruled either unconstitutional or inoperative; inoperative ones, such as challenging someone to a duel. We would all agree that is no longer an issue for many Canadians, and that that was properly removed from the legislation.

Another one that would be removed as inoperative is possessing, printing, distributing or publishing crime comics. Again, I think most of us would agree that there is no need for a specific provision as to that. Fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft is another one. While it is comforting to know that if someone actually does practise witchcraft and is not being fraudulent about it, they are allowed to do so in Canada. I do believe that removing the potential of fraudulently practising witchcraft is definitely a good step.

Another is issuing trading stamps, who knew it was illegal to issue trading stamps? However, I am pleased that we removed that from the Criminal Code. I am also very pleased that we worked with—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that the discussion is between the Speaker and the orator at this point. If anybody else has anything to add, they will be able to do that during questions and comments.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased that my colleagues on the committee from all parties worked together to be sensitive to religious communities across Canada to retain the provisions that obstructing a clergyperson in conducting a service was retained in the Criminal Code.

While there were many good arguments made that there are general provisions in the Criminal Code that could have dealt with those matters, the fact is that this was a specific provisions that made a difference to people of faith in this country. Whether it was absolutely necessary, because there could have been other provisions, or not, the fact is that people of faith are concerned today. We live in a world where hate crimes are increasing.

We live in a world whether people of faith are exposed to graffiti on their temples, churches, synagogues and mosques, where we are seeing people attacked on the street for wearing faith-based gear, where we see, more and more, reports of those who are of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic in our society. People who came to testify told us very strongly that they felt recognized, seeing this provision in the Criminal Code. As such, I think all of us on committee unanimously agreed to leave that provision in the Criminal Code and, in fact, to make it gender neutral in order to make sure that all religions could feel part of that provision.

I applaud, first of all, my friend from Niagara Falls who raised the issue initially, and all of the members of the committee who worked together, very consensually, to make the modifications to the bill, including retaining that provision.

I would be very pleased to entertain any questions my colleagues have on the bill.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal friend for his speech and for entertaining our brief heckles at one point in the speech.

I am going to ask the member the same question I asked the Minister of Justice this morning about charter statements that are explored within Bill C-51, an approach of the government, in terms of giving a statement that the charter has been considered and the government feels there is no violation or question of a constitutional nature.

I would ask the member to contrast that with the editorial in The Globe and Mail today by Chief Fox, an indigenous leader from Alberta who said that they were not properly consulted with respect to Bill C-69. We have an anti-resource to market bill by the government, where clearly indigenous leaders say that the duty to consult was not met.

In a charter statement environment, how is the government consulting indigenous Canadians? It is clear that there is legislation before Parliament right now that first nations leaders say they have not been consulted on. My concern with the charter statement is it is a way of the government putting out “chill”, saying that it has considered all arguments about charter or constitutional provisions, and therefore this legislation is okay.

Is the member aware of how the government is consulting indigenous peoples as a part of the charter statement preparation?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to this because I heard my colleague for Durham on this subject last week and I have been reflecting about his questions on charter statements. Personally, as a member of the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights, I appreciate seeing the charter statements that my colleague the Minister of Justice has tabled on her bills. Let me explain why.

When I read those charter statements it enables me to understand where the government is saying that the charter is being followed and complied with, where there are potential flaws in that argument, where are the risks, where are the things that our committee should be looking at in the bill because they have voiced either tentative support or concerns and then said that they are addressed in this way or that. I have benefited from the charter statements as an MP and as a member of the committee by better understanding what I should be looking at in my duties when I am reviewing the bill.

The question of how the consultations are happening with indigenous Canadians is better posed to cabinet, but I can explain to my colleagues why I think it is valuable for all of us in Parliament to have charter statements.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my friend the member for Mount Royal in my capacity as vice-chair of the justice committee. I agree with the hon. member's comments with respect to the Senate amendments. He is right that the justice committee looked at amendments introduced by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. There were witnesses who appeared before the committee and made submissions that the codification of J.A. in section 273 and the expressed inclusion of the word “unconscious” would create uncertainty in the law in those cases that are just short of consciousness or where someone perhaps is significantly intoxicated.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on those submissions and his position with respect to the inclusion of the word “unconscious”, which does codify J.A. in my opinion.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, in reciprocal language, I want to tell my hon. colleague how much I appreciated working with him as well on the justice committee. He always has an excellent understanding of all of the issues before us and expresses himself very well.

I also was concerned about the same issue. I feel the amendment that the committee made clarified the point that consent needs to be ongoing and expressed. As a result, I think that attenuates the concern that we heard. I want it to be very clear that the law is not that there is some bright line before unconsciousness and that being unconscious is the only threshold for not being able to give consent. There are lines before unconsciousness where people would be unable to consent.

The hon. member is right to raise that as an issue. That was not what this legislation was ever supposed to mean. Hopefully, our amendment at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights helps to clarify that.

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

Madam Speaker, I did value my time with my hon. colleague at the justice committee last year. I was going through the Supreme Court's decision in J.A. It does acknowledge in that decision that the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament. Thus, the court has acknowledged the role Parliament has.

I think it would be wrong for us to rule out the ability of this body to do what it wants with the Criminal Code. Criminal Code interpretation and its formation is a give-and-take between Parliament and the courts. The courts do respect our role in this.

I just want to read a few quotes from the Senate debate because I found it quite interesting. The senators acknowledged that:

Without Senator Pate's amendment to Bill C-51, we will have failed to capture the scope of consent laid out for us by the Supreme Court, supported by experts in the law of sexual assault in Canada.

Feminist experts in sexual assault law have advised that inclusion of the word “unconscious” risks creating a false threshold for the capacity to consent.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that. We had some very interesting testimony at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, particularly from Professor Janine Benedet, who said on record that any clarification we can give would be beneficial. I see the Senate's amendments as trying to do that and living up to some of the witness testimony that we heard.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to say that my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was also a great addition to the justice committee while he was there. While the member for Victoria is irreplaceable, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford did a great job in almost replacing him. It was a pleasure serving with him.

With respect to what the member is saying, I entirely agree that it is appropriate for Parliament to legislate what consent and capacity are. However, it is inappropriate that none of the witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had the proposed language by Senator Pate in front of them when they testified before our committee, nor did the people testifying before the Senate's constitutional and legal affairs committee.

An appropriate way for Parliament to legislate is for the government to carefully consult, put forward language, and then have both committees carefully study it, with all witnesses having the benefit of that language in front of them. I am hopeful that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, will do that.

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

Madam Speaker, could my colleague expand on what took place at committee? It is worth noting that a number of amendments were brought forward. My friend made reference to the religious freedom amendment, which is a very important one. Could he provide further comment on the amendments moved at committee?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. As I was mentioning, in our discussions at committee, we wanted to clarify consent. Therefore, rather than using the words the Senate has used, which we believe go far beyond what the J.A. decision codified, we clarified the provisions by saying that consent must be present at the time the sexual activity in question takes place, making it clear that it has to be ongoing consent and not implicit consent from a previous act that applies to the current act.

We wanted to clarify that only a question of law was being removed from the defence not mistakes as to facts. Therefore, we clarified that by saying that “The question of whether no consent is obtained under subsection (3) or (4) or 265(3) is a question of law.”

The committee carefully considered all of those issues, in addition to the issues brought forward by the Senate, and actually rejected the issues brought forward by the Senate.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be participating in today's debate on Bill C-51. I find it unfortunate, however, that the government has again had to resort to time allocation on a justice bill. The bill passed the House of Commons. I was certainly one of the members who voted in favour of it. However, I find myself in the awkward position of actually agreeing with what the Senate has done to the bill, because it very much mirrors the attempt I made at the justice committee last year to codify the nature of consent and provide a bit more definition in the Criminal Code.

Before I get to the Senate amendments more specifically, I want to talk more generally about the government's record on justice bills. While I do have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Justice and I very much agreed at the start of the government's mandate with what she was attempting to do, the pace of legislative change from the Minister of Justice has been anything but satisfactory. We started off with Bill C-14. It received a lot of attention and debate in Canada, as it should have, but we have to remember that the only reason the government moved ahead with Bill C-14 and we passed it in 2016 was that the government was operating under a Supreme Court imposed deadline. There was really no choice in the matter. Furthermore, when Bill C-14 was passed, we very nearly had a standoff with the Senate because of the provision in the bill about reasonable death occurring in a predetermined amount of time. We knew that that particular section would be challenged in the court system.

The other substantive piece of legislation the government has passed is Bill C-46, which was designed to move in conjunction with Bill C-45. Of course, Bill C-46 was problematic because the government has now removed the need for reasonable suspicion for police officers to administer a Breathalyzer test. They can basically do it whenever a person is legally stopped, whether it be for a broken tail light or for not stopping completely at a stop sign. If an officer has a Breathalyzer test on their person, they can demand a breath sample right then and there, without the need for reasonable suspicion. I have seen mandatory alcohol screening operate in other countries, notably Australia.

In my attempt to amend that bill, I stated that if we were going to apply such a draconian measure, it should be applied equally, because if we start giving police officers the ability to decide when or where to test someone, we know from the statistics, notably from the City of Toronto, that people of a certain skin colour are more apt to be stopped by the police than others. If such a provision were to be implemented, it should be applied equally at all times.

Moving on, there is Bill C-28, which deals with the victim surcharge, but is still languishing in purgatory at first reading.

The government then moved forward with a number of cleanups of the Criminal Code, the so-called zombie or inoperative provisions and the many redundant sections of the Criminal Code. That is the thing about the Criminal Code: It is littered with out-of-date provisions that are inoperable because of Supreme Court or appellate court rulings, but they are still faithfully reprinted every single year because Parliament has not done its work to clean up the Criminal Code. As my college the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has noted, it has led to some very bad consequences, notably in the Travis Vader case, where the judge used an inoperative section of the Criminal Code to convict someone. That conviction was then overturned. So these section do have very real consequences.

My contention has always been with section 159, which was brought forward in Bill C-32. Bill C-32 was then swallowed up by Bill C-39. Then Bill C-39 was swallowed up by Bill C-75, which has only just passed the House and now has to clear the Senate. We have no idea how much longer that is going to take. The House is about to rise for the Christmas break. We will be back functioning at the end of January, but Bill C-75 is a gigantic omnibus bill and full of provisions that make it a very contentious bill.

My argument has always been that for such an ambitious legislative agenda, especially if we are going to clean up the Criminal Code as Bill C-51 proposes to do, I contend that the Minister of Justice, had she had a good strategy in dealing with the parliamentary timetable and calendar and how this place actually works, would have bundled up the non-contentious issues in Bill C-39 and Bill C-32, which was morphed into Bill C-75, together with the non-contentious issues of Bill C-51 and made it a stand-alone bill, and we could have done that work.

These are issues that we cannot really argue against because it is a moot point; the Supreme Court has already ruled, so keeping them in the Criminal Code just leads to further confusion. Here we are, three years into the government's mandate, and the Criminal Code has still not been cleaned up to this day. For an ambitious legislative agenda, that leaves a lot to be desired. I heard Michael Spratt, who regularly appears as a witness before the justice committee, describe Bill C-51 as dealing with the lowest of the low-hanging fruit. Therefore, if we had been serious, we could have made some very reasonable progress on that. Be that as it may, we have Bill C-51 before us and we have to go over it.

Before I get into the specific amendments brought forward by the Senate, I think it is worth going over some of the things we are talking about. Among the things Bill C-51 would repeal is the offence of challenging someone to a duel. It used to be illegal to provoke someone to fight a duel or to accept the challenge. We will get rid of that section because it obviously reflects an earlier time in Canada's history. It is the reason why in this place we are two sword lengths apart. Members of parliament in the U.K. used to go into that place with swords on their hips. The bill would also get rid of section 143 dealing with advertizing a reward for the return of stolen property. It would get rid of section 163, dealing with the possession of crime comics, a legacy of a 1948 bill by a member who thought that crime comics negatively influenced kids by encouraging them to commit crimes, and that they were not a part of a good upbringing. The section on blasphemous libel would be dropped. Fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft is probably one of my favourite ones.

While Bill C-51 is making some much needed changes to sections of the Criminal Code, as I said earlier, we would not be arguing these cases in the House three years into the mandate of the current government if the bills had been bundled up into a single bill, which I am sure could have had royal assent by now.

We did have a very interesting discussion at the justice committee on section 176. When I first read Bill C-51 and it mentioned that this section would be repealed, I read right over it. However, when hearing witnesses at committee, it became quite apparent that section 176 had a lot of very deep meaning to select religious groups. After hearing all of that testimony about the importance of having section 176 remain in the code, I am glad to see that the committee members were able to work together to polish the language to ensure that it would now be applicable to all religious faiths, and not just single out the Christian faith. Now, if someone were to interrupt the religious proceedings of any faith, that would be dealt with appropriately under section 176.

The heart of the matter before us is the Senate amendments to Bill C-51. As I mentioned, it is kind of awkward for a New Democrat to be recognizing the work of the Senate. I value the people who sit as senators. I know there are some very determined people who certainly try to do their best there. My problem has always been with a 21st century democracy like Canada having an unelected and unaccountable upper house. I have to face the electorate for the decisions I make and the words I say in this place, and for what the Senate as a whole does.

I am going to be rejecting the government's motion on Bill C-51, because I agree with the substance of what the Senate was attempting to do in Bill C-51. It very much reflects some of the testimony that I heard at committee, and I have also reviewed some of the Senate Hansard transcripts of the debates it had on Bill C-51. While it is true that the amendments were not passed at the legal and constitutional affairs committee of the Senate, they were passed at the third reading stage. When we see the transcripts, we can see that the hon. senators in the other place were trying to codify what they saw as some missing aspects of the bill.

If we look at the heart of the matter, it comes down to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. J.A. The Supreme Court ruling reads:

When the complainant loses consciousness, she loses the ability to either oppose or consent to the sexual activity that occurs. Finding that such a person is consenting would effectively negate the right of the complainant to change her mind at any point in the sexual encounter.

In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it would be inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions to the concept of consent when doing so would undermine Parliament’s choice. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases and has proved to be of great value in combating stereotypes that have historically existed. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.

The court in a sense is recognizing the very important part that Parliament plays in this. One thing I have learned during my time as our party's justice critic is that, in looking at the Criminal Code, ultimately, we in this place are responsible for drafting and implementing the law and it comes down to the courts to interpret it. There is this kind of back and forth. When the justice aspect of the government and the parliamentary part of it work in tandem like that, we hopefully arrive at a place where the law is reflective of today's society.

However, it is not only the J.A. decision that we should be looking at. On October 30, which coincidentally was the very same day that the Senate sent the bill back to the House, there was a decision in the Alberta Court of Appeal, R. v. W.L.S. In that particular case, an acquittal on sexual assault charges was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal acknowledged in its decision that the complainant was incapable of consenting.

Senator Kim Pate provided us with a message. She said:

In regard to our discussions concerning Bill C-51, I write to draw your attention to the recent case of the Alberta Court of Appeal, concerning the law of incapacity to consent to sexual activity. Please find a copy of this case attached.

The Alberta Court of Appeal heard this case on October 30, the same day the Senate passed the amendments to Bill C-51. The court overturned the trial decision on the grounds that the trial judge had wrongly held that nothing short of unconsciousness was sufficient to establish incapacity. While this erroneous understanding of the law was rectified on appeal in this case, as we know, the vast majority of cases are never appealed. The trial judge's decision demonstrates the very error, fed by harmful stereotypes about victims of sexual assault, that many of us are concerned the original words of Bill C-51 risks encouraging.

Senator Kim Pate is basically acknowledging that there is a role for Parliament to play in providing a more explicit definition of consent, what it means and when consent is not given. While I am certainly one of those people who trusts in the power and ability of judges to make decisions, the judicial discretion, I align that thinking more with the decisions that they make and not in the interpretation of the Criminal Code. There is room in some parts of the Criminal Code to be very specific so that there is no judicial discretion, and that we are very clear on what consent means and what it does not mean.

Turning to the actual Senate amendments, they would be adding specificity in both clause 10 and clause 19. Basically, those particular aspects want to ensure:

(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity in question for any reason, including, but not limited to, the fact that they are

(i) unable to understand the nature, circumstances, risks and consequences of the sexual activity in question,

(ii) unable to understand that they have the choice to engage in the sexual activity in question or not, or

(iii) unable to affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity in question by words or by active conduct;

Adding this kind of specificity to the Criminal Code is very much a good thing. In paragraph (b), it says “including, but not limited to”. I think adding that kind of specificity will help with certain cases. From the very interesting Senate deliberations on this subject at third reading, we can see that senators were not very happy with how Bill C-51 left a bit of a hole.

We have made much of the witness testimony at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Professor Janine Benedet did look at this particular aspect of the Criminal Code. As I said in my exchange with the member for Mount Royal, one thing she stated was:

Any clarification we can give will be beneficial. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, but there has to be the idea that consent has to be informed, that you have to have the ability to understand that you can refuse—because some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not know they can say no to sexual activity—and that it has to be your actual agreement. Those are all things that can be read into the code as it's currently written, but sometimes are not fully realized in the cases we see.

Adding that specific part would be very much in line with what Professor Benedet was saying at the committee. That is why I will be rejecting the government's motion and voting in favour of the Senate amendments.

Turning to the Senate deliberations on this bill, in some of that debate it was said that R. v. J.A. outlines the requirement for active consent. However, the Senate very much found that without the specific amendment by Senator Pate to Bill C-51, we would have failed to capture the scope of consent laid out for us by the Supreme Court, supported by experts in the law of sexual assault in Canada.

Feminist experts in sexual assault law have advised that the inclusion of the word “unconscious” risks creating a false threshold for the capacity to consent. There were also deliberations that the current wording in Bill C-51 poses a serious risk that women who are intoxicated would be blamed if they are sexually assaulted. They would not be protected by this bill.

Further, some have noted that the weakness is in the definition of what constitutes non-consent. According to a legal expert who provides sexual consent training to judges, there is not enough precedent or awareness among judges to believe that the proposed wording in clause 10 and clause 19 of the bill is clear enough.

I see my time is running out, but I will end with some of the really scary statistics we face as a country. Statistics Canada estimates that some 636,000 self-reported sexual assaults took place in Canada in 2014. Shockingly, it also estimates that as few as one in 20 were actually reported to police. Those are statistics which should give us great pause and lead us to ask ourselves what more we could be doing. The Senate amendments are very much in faith with trying to keep that.

I would also note that this is probably one of the last opportunities I will have to rise in this particular chamber to give a speech. I want to acknowledge the history of this place and what an honour it has been for me, in my short three years here, to have served in this House of Commons chamber. I know we will be going forward to West Block, and an admirable job has been done there.

I finish by wishing all my colleagues a merry Christmas. I hope they have a fantastic holiday season with friends and family, and that we come back in 2019 refreshed and ready to do our work on behalf of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I disagree with the member regarding the government's overall approach to legislation. Since the last election, we have seen a government that understands the importance of having safe communities in all regions of our country. Therefore, the government has developed pieces of legislation that ensure our communities are going to be safer, that there are actions against offenders, and that there is a sense we are moving forward with a comprehensive approach to make changes to the Criminal Code as necessary.

Would my colleague recognize that the many different pieces of legislation when put together and passed in a timely fashion are actually significant changes overall which will be for the betterment of public safety here in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect, I will have to disagree with my colleague. Yes, I agree there are some very substantive provisions in Bill C-75 and Bill C-51 which we do support. The problem is that in Bill C-75, the government rolled in those changes with other more contentious issues and therefore has forced the legislation down to a snail's pace where it now has been sent to the Senate.

Three years into the Liberal government's mandate, when we look at its accomplishments at cleaning up the Criminal Code, so far nothing has been done. The zombie provisions of the Criminal Code are still on the books. The Criminal Code is reprinted every single year. The 2016 edition, 2017 edition and 2018 edition all contain those mistakes. If I am going to look at the government's performance based on its amendments to the Criminal Code, I am sorry but it is a failing grade.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have eight minutes for questions and comments after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has eight minutes remaining for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, expressed understandable frustration over the failure of the government to move forward with the removal of unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code. During her speech, the minister almost unbelievably encouraged opposition members to work with the government in moving government legislation forward in an expeditious fashion as though it was somehow opposition members who had been an impediment to getting these sections removed from the Criminal Code.

In fact, two years ago, following the Vader acquittal that overturned a guilty verdict on two counts of second-degree murder, our justice committee wrote to the minister. I stood with the McCann family in December 2016. The minister finally got around to introducing a bill in March 2017, but it is stuck at first reading.

Is there any possible explanation for how a bill that could be unanimously adopted in the House is still stuck at first reading almost two years later, other than the complete mismanagement and incompetence by the government of its own legislative agenda?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. It is a real head-scratcher.

He recalled a few hours ago that when Bill C-32 was introduced, the government made much fanfare. There was a huge press conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. A number of stakeholders were behind the minister. It made headlines across the country. That bill still remains in purgatory.

It was then rolled into Bill C-39, and we had hope that this was moment we would be moving forward with the much-needed amendments to the Criminal. However, again, that bill remains in purgatory at first reading.

Finally, Bill C-39 was rolled into Bill C-75. The House of Commons has only just passed that bill and sent it to the Senate.

Here we are more than three years into the government's mandate and we have only just sent that package of Criminal Code reforms to the Senate. Who knows how long it will take in the other place, given how massive that bill is, how many debates will be needed in the Senate and how many stakeholders will appear before the legal and constitutional affairs committee.

For a government that came to power with such a huge and ambitious mandate to reform our criminal justice system, the evidence of its legislative progress has been very lacking. I would agree with my colleague that the government's management of time in the House could certainly use a few lessons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to ask questions of the New Democrats.

My understanding is that the NDP is supporting the legislation. A lot of work was done at the committee stage, as was referenced. Even the amendment before us from the Senate was also discussed at the committee stage. My understanding is that it was generally felt at that time that we should move ahead without making those changes.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts and maybe even correct the record if I have misinterpreted this inappropriately? Did the NDP members participate in the discussion at that time? If so, what were their thoughts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did. I was not there for most of the committee's deliberations on Bill C-51 because of a family matter I had to deal with at home, but I was there for the clause-by-clause consideration.

I moved an amendment at committee stage, which my Conservative colleagues supported. It sought to clarify some of the language. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the leader of the Green Party, also moved an amendment that was very much in line with what the Senate has attempted to do. I voted in favour of that one as well.

My short answer to the member is, yes, we in the NDP did support Bill C-51, with the constructive criticism that more could have been done. Now the bill has come back to the House with Senate amendments. While I still support the bill in principle, I will be voting against the government's motion. I very much agree with what the Senate has attempted to do to add more clarification to this part of the Criminal Code, which is warranted. With many sexual assault cases, the judicial discretion has sometimes left much to be desired. This is a crime in Canada that goes unreported much of the time. Adding more clarity to what does and does not constitute consent will be very valuable for Canadian society going forward.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendments relate to section 273 of the Criminal Code, which set out a whole host of factors in which consent is deemed not to have occurred. The issue relates to subsection 273.1(2) that codifies, on its face, the J.A. decision by adding the word “unconscious”. There was some debate and some disagreement among some witnesses about whether adding those words would be helpful or whether they would create uncertainty in the law. That was the basis upon which Senator Pate introduced her amendments, which ultimately passed in the Senate.

A counter argument to that is that the wording is sufficiently clear because it does, yes, incorporate the word “unconscious”, but it goes on in paragraph 273.1(2)(b) to refer to there being no consent for any reason other than the one referred to in proposed subparagraph (a.i), which is the word “unconscious”. Perhaps the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford could address that point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the deliberations that were made in favour of keeping the bill as is. However, when I was doing research for my speech on the bill today, I had the opportunity to look at the transcripts from the Senate's third reading debate on it. I was very moved by Senator McPhedran's deliberations on it.

More than 30 years ago, she was one of the co-founders of LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. She knows many people in the legal community, especially feminist scholars of criminal law. I was very moved by her comments that without Senator Pate's amendments to Bill C-51, we would have failed to capture the scope of consent as laid out for us by the Supreme Court.

While, ultimately, the New Democrats support Bill C-51 as is, I support what the Senate has attempted to do, and was very much moved by the senator's arguments in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House, especially as we get closer to this beautiful building being shut down for many years to come.

First, I would make reference to the other place. The Senate contributes a great deal to the public debate. It goes through amendments and gives an assessment of what has been proposed by the House of Commons through legislation. I truly appreciate the work of many senators and the amount of time they put into trying to improve legislation before them.

However, from what I understand, a lot of discussion on the amendments proposed by the Senate took place in a standing committee of the House. I do not want to take away from the seriousness of the offence we are talking about, but I think a majority of Canadians see this legislation as positive and long overdue. It would go a long way in making our system that much better.

I will start with the purpose of the legislation, what we have debated over the last while and the time frame. I want to address many other aspects that were raised by the opposition, particularly around the area of timing, the number of legislation and so forth.

With respect to the purpose of the legislation, I will highlight four areas.

First, the bill would clarify and strengthen certain aspects of sexual assault law relating to consent, admissibility of evidence and the legal representation for the complainant during rape shield proceedings. One only needs to listen to some of the debates we have had at second reading and some of the discussions that took place during the standing committee to get a good sense of the nature of the problem and why that aspect is so critically important.

Second, the bill looks at repealing or amending a number of positions within the Criminal Code that have been found to be unconstitutional by appellant courts and other provisions that are similar to ones that are found as unconstitutional.

Third, the bill looks at repealing several obsolete or redundant criminal offences.

Fourth, which is a strong positive, the bill would require that a minister of justice table a charter statement in Parliament for every new government bill, setting out the bill's potential effects on the charter. A good number of members have raised concerns about this, but I see it as a welcomed addition.

I have indicated on numerous occasions that the Liberal Party founded our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We take it very seriously. I like to think that this is a good example of a very tangible action that clearly demonstrates we are a government that genuinely supports Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, to have a minister responsible to give his or her interpretation on how legislation could affect laws is a positive thing.

It is something that could complement future decisions. A court could take into consideration ideas, concepts, thoughts and expressions that might have been raised while the legislation was being debated in the House. I would argue that it gives a little more depth to the legislation itself. I see it as a very strong and positive thing.

Those are the four core points that I would highlight. However, I want to address some of the things I have heard during the debate earlier this morning and during questions and comments. Members across the way have asked why time allocation is important. I am often quoted by some members of the opposition, suggesting why I would support time allocation. I can remember sitting in the third party benches in the far corner over there, just a few years back. I recognized back then that time allocation is an effective and necessary tool at times in order for government to deliver on its commitments to Canadians. It is something we have taken very seriously.

Let me give an example. Last Thursday we brought forward another piece of legislation. I believe it was Bill C-57. When we brought that bill forward, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan started the debate at about 3:30 p.m., and he continued to debate the bill for two and a half, maybe three hours. There is no doubt that it was somewhat enlightening. Some might argue that we are looking at a limited amount of time, and we need to acknowledge that there is a limited, finite amount of time for the House to deal with legislation.

If the opposition chooses to prevent legislation from passing, it does not take very much. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is very capable of articulating at great length. He could stand in his place and talk for two or three hours. If I was provided the opportunity to talk about a budget and all the wonderful things we do, I would like to think I could probably talk for a few days because there are so many good things this government has done for Canada's middle class. It would be a wonderful thing to be able to share that information with my colleagues across the way. However, the reality is that if the opposition were to allow me to do that, I suspect it would be somewhat hurtful for the government, given the limited amount of time we have inside the chamber.

I use this as an example because a number of members across the way have been somewhat critical of two things. One is why we found it necessary to bring in time allocation on this legislation. The other is related to the overall approach by this government on justice.

On the time allocation issue, both the Conservatives and the NDP often like to get together on a united front, and if they were determined to prevent legislation from passing, they could put government in a very difficult position where it would need to try to push the legislation through. That is in fact a responsibility of government.

Many pieces of legislation that we brought forward, including this bill, are because we made a commitment to Canadians in 2015. This legislation is another commitment fulfilled by this government.

If we were to give all the time asked for by the opposition, we would not have been able to pass a couple dozen bills. Canadians, rightfully so, expect the government to have a full legislative agenda. That is, in essence, what we have.

A New Democratic member criticized the government by saying that we have legislation here and there, and why is this bill not passing, and why is this other bill still in the Senate, and why are we still debating it here. There are two reasons. One, there is a process that does have to be followed. Two, at times individuals or political entities have an interest, for whatever purpose, to not allow legislation to go through. That means there is legislation that is at different points of discussion and debate. We have legislation still with the Senate. We have some getting ready for committee stage, some at second reading and some at third reading.

Let there be no doubt that when it comes to the issue of justice, we do very much take a holistic approach at delivering on that issue. I think it is safe to say that as a government, we want to ensure that legislation we bring forward is all about protecting Canadians.

This is one piece of the whole pie that is having that desired impact. We want to show compassion to victims. The Conservatives often say we are not sensitive to victims, yet we have legislation that enshrines victims rights in certain situations. We as a government recognize the importance of not only showing compassion to victims, but also bring in legislation where we can and other measures through budgets, to demonstrate that compassion to victims.

It is also important that we hold offenders accountable. Again, this government takes this very seriously. In the past, when I have addressed that particular issue, there has been a comparison made between the Conservatives and the Liberals. There is a big difference between the two parties on the issue of offenders. Within this legislation we talk about offenders. However, there is a significant difference. Many of the Conservatives like to take a hard line on crime, as if that rhetoric will make our society a better, safer place to live. We, on the other hand, have a different approach to it, which is seen in this legislation as I get back into some of the details of it.

We recognize that incarcerated individuals at some point in time will be released back into society. There is a responsibility for us to ensure that we prevent victims in the future by ensuring that the majority of those individuals who are released become more productive citizens of our country.

We also recognize the importance of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I made reference to that at the beginning when I talked about the scope of the legislation. I made reference to the fact that we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand it and this legislation would ensure there is a stronger place in recognizing the importance of the charter.

I would like to cite something specific that was provided to me in recognizing the importance of charter statements:

Respect for the Charter is a critical aspect of governing and legislating in Canada.

That is something we would argue and one of the reasons we are asking members to support this legislation. It then states:

Requiring the introduction of a Charter Statement for every new Government bill represents a new, more open and more transparent way of demonstrating respect for the Charter.

The Minister of Justice has already tabled nine different charter statements in Parliament for her own bills. She has demonstrated leadership on that aspect. The proposed legislation would make the minister's existing practice a legal duty. The duty would extend to all government legislation.

Obviously, there has been a great deal of discussion on clarity in regard to consent. That was very well discussed. There was a great deal of discussion at the committee stage, where from my understanding the committee members believed it was okay to proceed to third reading with what had come out of the committee stage. I cannot recall anything coming from the official opposition regarding the need to reopen the area of an additional definition of consent, and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong during questions and comments. That is a very important aspect of the legislation.

I have heard a couple of members talk about a clause that dealt with religious freedom, something which was taken into consideration at the committee stage. I want to raise that because someone, in posing a question earlier today, reflected on how the government backed down on a clause in the form of an amendment. It is important to recognize that the minister and the department did a wonderful job in the work prior to the introduction of the bill in the House, in meeting with the different stakeholders and working with other jurisdictions to present the legislation. It comes through the department after that consultation.

A clause came up which was looked at concerning something to be taken out of the Criminal Code and it was deemed that we did not want that to happen. That was at the committee stage. To me, that speaks well of our standing committee process. Within the standing committee, the members identified an issue that ultimately was amended and there was a change in the legislation. It is not the only change that occurred.

I raise that point because from the very beginning of the original consultations and the work done by the department, we have been working with stakeholders to ensure that we have good legislation that I believe will ultimately serve Canadians well.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one issue I want to ask the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader a question about is the defence disclosure requirements in Bill C-51. This would mark the first time there would be a positive obligation on the part of the defence to turn over evidence, other than a few minor exceptions that are not in the least bit controversial and are well accepted. In this regard, for a defence counsel to tender evidence and records that in any way related to the complainant, it would have to bring forward an application at least 60 days before the trial.

We are not talking about records relating to the sexual activity of the complainant. Those are addressed in section 276. We are not talking about records in which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the complainant, such as therapeutic records. Those are dealt with in section 278. We are talking about any record relating to the complainant.

I would submit that this expansive definition would create an unwieldy process that would result in significant delays, not to mention the real risk of mid-trial applications, and therefore adjournments, and would do much to undermine trial fairness. Could the hon. parliamentary secretary comment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of defence disclosure, I do not have the background to provide the type of detailed answer the member would like to hear.

What I do know is that at times, we need to recognize that there is a need for change. I talked about compassion for victims. This is a good example that could be used, when we talk about defence disclosure. As we evolve our court system and the way trials are conducted, at times we need to recognize that there is a need for change. Will it have a negative impact in terms of delays in justice? I am not in a position to provide the type of answer the member across the way may be looking for. However, I believe this is the right direction to be going.

If the member wants a more detailed answer, I would suggest that it might be more appropriate to ask the minister or the parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, excuse me while I shed a few tears for the troubles of being in a majority government. The parliamentary secretary should have an inkling of understanding, because he once sat in this corner, of the vast amount of power a majority government wields in this place. Frankly, I find it inexcusable at this stage in the 42nd Parliament that the only substantive justice bills that have been passed by the current government are Bill C-14, which was the result of a court-ordered deadline, and Bill C-46, which, of course, was the companion bill to Bill C-45.

Our contention on this side of the House has been that it would have been unnecessary to even use time allocation if the government had taken the non-contentious parts of Bill C-32, which was rolled into Bill C-39, which was rolled into another bill, and made those a standalone bill. For example, we have provisions in the Criminal Code such as challenging someone to a duel, possessing crime comics and fraudulently practising witchcraft. For decades, legal scholars have complained that these faithful reproductions in the Criminal Code lead to confusion. It should have been no secret to officials in the justice department that as soon as the justice minister assumed her mandate, we could have moved ahead with a bill to get rid of those inoperable, redundant sections of the Criminal Code, probably with unanimous consent.

Looking back at the last three years of the government's legislative agenda, particularly with justice bills, would the parliamentary secretary not agree with me that it would have been smarter to package the non-contentious reforms of the Criminal Code in a standalone bill, rather than having us, at this stage, at three years, with not a single reform of the Criminal Code yet passed by this Parliament?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from day one, this government has been introducing legislation. I believe the first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which gave the tax break to Canada's middle class. From that day to this day, this government has been very diligent in trying to pass legislation in as orderly a fashion as possible. At times we have had support from the NDP to use time allocation. The NDP on occasion has recognized the odd piece of legislation it prioritized. The idea of using time allocation has been recognized by all parties in this chamber. It is just that we have different priorities.

The government's priorities are to fulfill the commitments it made to Canadians in the last election as much as possible, and a good number of those commitments have to be done in the form of legislation. It might not meet the timing of my New Democratic friends, but this has been a very busy government on a number of fronts.

The justice file has been an important priority for this government. That is one of the reasons there are a number of legislative items in different stages. If the member wants to see them pass, it should make a suggestion. I would definitely recommend to the government that it accept unanimous consent to have this bill and other pieces of legislation passed right now. If the NDP has identified legislation it wants passed, I will be pleased to advocate on the NDP's behalf that we allow for the unanimous passage of government legislation. I do not know if the Conservatives will agree. We might have to lobby them together.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's comments on the promises of the Liberals during the election on the substantive changes they were going to make. In particular, in my province of Saskatchewan, many people were swayed by the Liberal promise that it would get rid of mandatory minimum sentences. We will not all agree on that issue, I know, but in my province, the rates of incarceration for indigenous people are horrendous. It is a human rights issue by any stretch of the imagination. We have been waiting a very long time for the government to do something substantive on justice issues that will make a difference to people's everyday lives and bring justice and honour their human rights.

I would share with my hon. colleague how very disappointed I am at this point in the Liberals' mandate to not see the issue of getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences. If the most important relationship to the government is the relationship with first nation people, it was a TRC call to action to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences, and I would be the first to stand up to pass that bill with unanimous consent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. If we were to look at the amount of legislation the government has brought forward over the last few years, there are a lot of good things in it. I am hoping that we will get as much of it, if not all of it, passed, because it is something I believe Canadians would be very supportive of. I will concede that we might need that second mandate to achieve all the wonderful things we want to achieve. That is not up to me. It will be up to Canadians to ultimately decide in 2019.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University.

I find it very impressive that my colleague opposite hopes to have a second mandate. I hope that will not be the case.

I am rising today in the House to speak to Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

This bill has sparked lively discussions and important debates because it deals with sensitive subjects both for parliamentarians and the general public.

The bill has some value because Canada's Criminal Code needs to be updated. Passages or provisions that have been deemed to be unconstitutional or that could result in challenges based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms need to be amended, removed or repealed, as do any passages or provisions that are obsolete or unnecessary or that no longer have a place in today's criminal law.

Bill C-51 has four main sections, namely the provisions pertaining to sexual assault, the provisions that have been deemed unconstitutional or that are similar to other provisions that were, the obsolete or needless provisions, and the charter statements.

I would like to focus on the part of the bill that would amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to sexual assault in order to clarify their application and to establish a regime concerning the admissibility and use of a plaintiff's or witness's private records in possession of the accused.

In light of all the much-needed efforts made by all parties concerning the reporting of sexual assault, I agree with the provisions of Bill C—51 pertaining to sexual assault because they are very reasonable, and the Conservative Party has always advocated and voted for improving laws when they strengthen the rights of victims of crime, including victims of sexual assault.

The changes proposed by Bill C-51 are necessary if we are to be consistent in our efforts to support victims of sexual assault.

As a woman, a mother of two daughters and an advocate for enhancing the rights of victims of crime, I fully support the changes proposed by the bill, which would clarify and strengthen the sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

It is obvious that these changes will help the government provide solid support to victims of the serious and deeply traumatizing crime of sexual assault.

Despite this positive step forward, it is vital that we also amend the Canadian Criminal Code to toughen penalties for criminals convicted of sexual assault, so that victims feel supported from the moment they decide to report their attackers.

Furthermore, the Criminal Code should have significant minimum sentences for perpetrators; otherwise, victims will never feel like justice has been done.

It is indeed important to modernize the Criminal Code and keep it up to date in order to ensure that justice is done, eloquently and effectively, for the sake of victims and their loved ones. However, as I was saying earlier, the Criminal Code needs to have significant minimum sentences, not maximum sentences. We already know that in most cases, these sentences are rarely imposed by judges. A minimum sentence is a stronger and far more effective deterrent for perpetrators and also sends a positive message to victims.

Parliament has adopted clear provisions that define the concept of consent in the context of sexual assault.

Section 273.1 includes an exhaustive list of factors pertaining to situations where no consent is obtained. I am pleased that Senator Pate's amendments on this were not adopted. It is essential to keep the concept of consent intact. Consent can never be obtained when a person is unconscious.

The wording in Bill C-51 clearly recognizes the many possible reasons why a person cannot provide consent even if they are conscious.

We had to preserve one of the primary objectives of this bill, namely to ensure that we did not make legislative measures more complicated than they already are or make the concept of consent contentious. Far too often, in court, defence attorneys use the concept of consent against victims.

For the victims, nothing must undermine the definition of consent, which requires the complainant to provide actual active consent through every phase of the sexual activity. It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if they express their consent in advance.

I can only imagine what state sexual assault victims would be in, if, during an evening, they provided consent to “normal” sexual relations but were drugged with the date-rape drug and violently sexually assaulted.

If the government wants to better protect victims of sexual assault, it is vital that it keep this provision, especially since we also support former MP Rona Ambrose's private member's bill, Bill C-337, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code with regard to sexual assault. This bill would restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to individuals who have completed comprehensive education in respect to matters related to sexual assault. Furthermore, it amends the Criminal Code to require that reasons provided by a judge in sexual assault decisions be in writing.

In closing, I would like to add that this bill, if it were serious about this matter, could have proposed that the Department of Justice be required to assess the impact of any change to the Criminal Code on the rights of victims of crime contained in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. That is the only reason for my strong reluctance to vote for this bill. I believe that, without this provision, we run the risk of passing legislation that could negate the rights contained in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

However, I will agree to vote for Bill C-51 because, on the whole, it is a good bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that there are a number of aspects of Bill C-51 that are welcome in clarifying, in some cases, the law around sexual assault.

I think everyone in this House would agree that sexual assault is an extremely serious offence. The lives of those who are victims of sexual assault are forever changed. It is why I have to say I am very disturbed that, on the one hand, there are some positive aspects to Bill C-51 but, on the other hand, the government would turn around in Bill C-75 and hybridize the offence of administering a date-rape drug. The government is actually reclassifying that offence from what is now a solely indictable offence, the most serious type of offence in the Criminal Code, to an offence that could be prosecutable by way of summary conviction.

I was wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on what kind of a message it sends to water down sentencing for administering a date-rape drug. I would submit it sends exactly the wrong message.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is right. It does send a strange message. On the one hand, they want to clarify a situation, but on the other, they make it impossible to clarify.

I have always advocated for victims of crime. What bothers me the most about Bill C-51 is that it mentions the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a lot but does not mention the Victims Bill of Rights at all, even though it is supposed to help victims. Plus, the Victims Bill of Rights takes precedence over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Unlike their attackers, victims of crime get life sentences. In many cases, there is no minimum sentence for perpetrators. A judge may hand down a maximum sentence knowing full well that the offender will never serve it in its entirety. Many offenders get out of jail after serving a third of their sentence, and that is what makes victims of crime nervous. Sexual assault and rape are life sentences for victims. We have no idea what those women and young boys go through. Yes, boys can be victims too.

For those people, and as far as I am concerned, Bill C-51 does not go far enough. I would have liked an explanation as to why Bill C-75 was scrapped when it should have been kept. I would also like someone to mention the bill introduced by our former leader, Rona Ambrose, that addressed this problem.

Bill C-51 is a good bill, but there is still more work to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the happier moments in the deliberations on Bill C-51 was the decision by the committee to reinstate section 176 of the Criminal Code that goes after people who, by threat or force, unlawfully obstruct or prevent an officiant from celebrating a religious or spiritual service. The committee heard from a lot of witnesses that this was very important to keep in the Criminal Code. I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts about the all-party consensus to keep that in the bill and what it may mean for constituents in her riding.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that we need to keep that particular aspect.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to discuss Bill C-51, an act involving a variety of issues that have been put together. I will not deal with the entirety of the bill, but I will give a brief summary and deal with certain sections that are of particular concern.

This legislation has been described as consisting of four separate parts. The first part is provisions that deal with sexual assault and rules around that. I do not pretend to be an expert on this, and my speech will not concentrate on those areas of the bill, but what I am hearing from some of my colleagues is how certain sexual assault offences would be treated less seriously in this legislation than in previous legislation. That does concern me. I wonder why the government is making these changes. I do not see any reason to treat sexual assault offences less seriously in the future than we have in the past.

There are a couple of other provisions where it makes sense that they are grouped together. They are dealing with things that may be obsolete, or provisions that have been found to be unconstitutional. It makes sense those two would be together in this legislation, as they are sort of a cleanup in the legislation. They are no longer functional, and it is a housecleaning bill in that sense.

Then, for some strange reason, the government has put a provision in the bill about charter statements. It would require that statements and legal opinions about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms be attached to all government bills.

If I could give some advice to the government for the future, perhaps it should not try to package these four separate areas together. Issues around sexual assault in particular need their own legislation to be dealt with so members can properly discuss it and look for ways to provide justice both to the accused and to victims going forward. As has been mentioned, this is a criminal offence that has very profound life-changing consequences for those affected by it.

I am particularly interested in a couple of things the government has put together as far as obsolete provisions or provisions that have been found to be unconstitutional or are similar to other provisions that have been found to be unconstitutional. I understand the government's reason for putting in clause 28, where it repeals the offence to supply or procure a drug or instruments used to cause the miscarriage of a female person. I understand why it is putting that clause in to get rid of that element of the legislation.

Let me express my disappointment with it, because what that is doing is cleaning out what is left of the abortion legislation that we have in Canada. I know with the Morgentaler rulings and so forth it was struck down, so I can understand the government's legal reasoning on this makes sense. If I shared its philosophical perspective I would do this as a matter of housecleaning, but it does bring to the notice of the House that Canada is the only democratic country in the whole world that does not have legislation dealing with abortion. I, and I know other members of the House find that to be an absolute disgrace. This is really the last housecleaning aspect to get rid of what is left of legislation in our Criminal Code dealing with abortion.

Members of the House, particularly members who agree with me that this is a disgrace, should contemplate on this final bit of housecleaning to get rid of what is left of legislation that protected the life of the unborn and should actually think about possibly opposing this legislation on the final vote to send a message that we think something needs to be done to defend the life of the unborn. Again, I understand the government's legal reasoning behind it. I am not questioning it. However, I think the duty of the House is not just to always rubber-stamp what the courts have said. It also needs to send a message about what we feel is right and moral, even when the courts, in my view, usurp the role of the House.

The other change in this legislation that has caught the attention of a considerable number of people, including me, is regarding obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergymen. Originally the government was arguing that this was an obsolete provision that needed to be taken out. However, I think what has happened in regard to this clause actually demonstrates that our democratic processes do work well in this country. Many Canadians were very concerned, because this clause has actually been used. I have been informed that not that many years ago it was used, I believe, with respect to St. Patrick's here in Ottawa. Members can understand why this would be of major concern.

I think the government was right to expand the definition beyond Christian clergy, such as a Roman Catholic priest. One can see very clearly how a rabbi conducting a service in a Jewish house of worship could be very concerned if someone came in to do a demonstration with respect to Israel, or if at a Muslim service something were to take place. A lot of foreign policy questions are, in some people's minds, now tied to religion. I think it was very important that the public spoke out and clearly said to the government that it is unacceptable to remove this and that it is something they want protected.

All forms of freedom of speech need to be protected and are of importance. Religious freedom of speech is not a singular, individual one, but rather it is done collectively. When a clergyman is officiating a service that is interfered with, it is interfering with something that is very profound and sacred to a group of people. It is invading their privacy. It is taking away from them an intimate, special moment, an act of connection with their god. The government's original suggestion was that this was redundant to other pieces of legislation, but I think it is clearly understood that is not the case. This is something special and distinct. The government did a wise thing by backing down under public pressure and to understand what this means to many Canadians.

My final concern with this legislation has to do with the requirement for charter statements being put into this bill. The bill is suggesting that every time the government brings forward a piece of legislation, it must table a charter statement in Parliament with the bill. If the current government wants to do that, that is its choice. I understand it has been done eight times. However, I have a couple of concerns with this.

When a legal statement involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is attached to a bill, it may very well give the public an incorrect impression as to the legality or illegality of the bill. I would expect all governments to check and be very thorough about whether or not a bill or a piece of legislation they are putting forward is just. However, a legal opinion from one, two or even three lawyers in the Department of Justice may be seen as something more than it is, something more consequential and more powerful.

My other concern about this is it could very easily be a way for the Department of Justice to steer, through its own opinions, political opinions of the government. Governments have the right to disagree with their own lawyers. They have the right to put forward legislation that pushes the grey line of charter rights. We have a notwithstanding clause. Governments do not even have to universally follow the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the way it is construed. That is a concern I have. Again, if the government wishes to do it, it should feel free to do so. However, this is something that is creating an extra hurdle or perception that I am not sure members of this House would universally agree with.

Those are my concerns. I understand the basis for the legislation. However, there are things about this bill that I cannot support.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague for clarification. He was speaking about the hybridization of section 176 sending the wrong message that unlawfully obstructing, threatening or harming a religious official is not a serious offence. With the experience that he has had and the discussions that have taken place on previous bills in this House, I wonder if he could elaborate on whether or not he believes that the government is serious about keeping the act the way it is or changing it to be softer.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, generally when the government hybridizes an offence, it allows the prosecutors to put the charge in a less serious form, whether it is a year, two years or more or two years less. This allows the government to keep the crime in the Criminal Code legislation but allows prosecutors to put a much softer charge to it. I think the message is that the government still views it as a crime, but not that serious of a crime, and it is sending a message to prosecutors that if they do prosecute, not to prosecute all that hard and go for a very minimal sentence.

I do not think that is a good message to be sending. Offences against religious worship are very serious. We can ask people in the Jewish community how they would feel if a neo-Nazi came in to intimidate them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member would see hybridizing as a negative thing. It would allow our courts, Crowns in particular, the opportunity to ensure that certain situations would not go through a criminal court if it was not necessary. The example I used before was kidnapping. If someone stalked and apprehended a child from a schoolyard, who knows the horrors that could happen. However, that is quite different from a hotly contested divorce settlement where a child takes it upon himself or herself to leave one parent to go to another parent. Both situations would be classified as kidnapping. When we hybridize something, it allows the Crown to use more discretion.

Is my friend suggesting that we should not have hybridization in our justice system?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was not saying that as a broad principle for every situation every time, but with some of the examples being put forward in the legislation, it is not particularly wise to be hybridizing particular offences.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling things I find with the bill is that we have had to, once again, shame the government into removing something it ought to have known should not have been in there in the first place. I am speaking about the protection for religious services and the ministers associated with them.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the fact that the bill is so far delayed that it probably will not make it out before the election year is upon us.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to comment on how the government mishandles its own schedule. I should leave that for our House leaders. We do not want to necessarily teach the government how to actually handle its own schedule. Suffice it to say that, yes, the Liberals are often incompetent and do not know what they are doing when it comes to handling legislation, legislative timetables and things like that.

I am not always sure I want the government to be more efficient, since most of the legislation it puts forward is poor legislation. Therefore, to some degree, I actually appreciate the fact that the Liberals do not pass a lot of legislation, as they are inefficient and often do not have a real idea of where they are going, because the direction in which they do head tends to be net negative, in my opinion, for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-51 and, in particular, the Senate amendments.

My intention in my remarks today is to focus on two issues that arise out of this bill. One is the question of advance consent in general, at a philosophical and practical level, and whether we think that a person ought to be able to consent in advance to something happening in the future and some of the issues related to that in this bill. The other is I want to talk about section 176 and the way in which the government approaches our response to potential acts of hate and violence and disruption that are perpetrated against faith communities in Canada.

The issue of advance consent is very much one that has been discussed back and forth and from different perspectives. I note that with respect to the idea of someone consenting in advance to sexual activity, this is a subject on which the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal, at certain points in time, disagreed. There was a court decision in R. v. J.A. in which the person accused of sexual assault argued in the context of that particular case that sexual assault had not taken place because the complainant had consented to being rendered unconscious, allegedly, and consented, allegedly, to engaging in sexual activity. The Ontario Court of Appeal actually agreed with the arguments of the accused in this case, and said the “only state of mind ever experienced by the person is that of consent”.

I think the Ontario Court of Appeal got it wrong. Many people would say that it is not only wrong but deeply offensive to suggest that a sexual act could be performed without a person's explicit consent in the moment, on the basis of alleged prior consent in advance.

In my view, the Supreme Court got it right when it said:

It is not possible for an unconscious person to satisfy this requirement, even if she expresses her consent in advance. Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-51 puts that legal court decision into the Criminal Code by noting that there is never consent when a person is unconscious. Proposed paragraph 273.1(2)(a.1) states:

For the purpose of subsection (1), no consent is obtained if

(a.1) the complainant is unconscious;

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is the right decision. It is one that I agree with and it is one that is reflected in the law.

It is noteworthy at the same time that the Ontario Court of Appeal thought differently and indeed advanced arguments for the idea that a person could provide so-called advance consent in this case. It reflects the fact that in different contexts around different debates, people have made arguments about the supposed legitimacy of advance consent. We see in another case the use of that argument, and I will get to that in a few moments.

The cases against so-called advance consent as something we should allow or accept are myriad. One of the obvious arguments against it is that one's past self, in one's wishes and inclinations, might disagree substantively from one's future self. One might think that at such and such a point in the future under certain circumstances one will want this or feel this or accept this. However, in reality, when one experiences those things, one feels totally differently in the context of that new situation. The idea of a past self irrevocably dictating the conditions and events that are going to occur with a future self is unjust to the future self and it violates the autonomy of the individual at that point in time in the future. Our past selves differ from our future selves, and perceptions about how we will experience certain events in the past might differ from how we actually experience them in the moment when they are taking place.

It is on this basis of recognizing the importance of autonomy, not in the sense of a past self-binding and future self-binding but autonomy in the sense of individuals making determinations about themselves in the moment and being able to ensure that they are comfortable with and accepting of everything that is happening while that thing is happening, that the court, the House, and this legislation recognize the fundamental wrongness of advance consent in the context of sexual activity.

I develop this point in spite of the perhaps pre-existing agreement in the House because it has some relevance to our discussion of other issues with respect to consent. In particular, some members would like to see us allow advance consent in the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide. It is important for members to reflect on the argument for and against allowing advance consent in the one case when we consider the possible application of that same principle in a different case.

Questions were asked in the House, for example, about the case of Ms. Audrey Parker, a tragic situation for her, and other cases, where the idea of advance consent was brought up. Some have argued, especially some of my friends in the NDP, that people should be able to provide consent in advance that their life be taken if their condition advances to a certain point and if certain conditions are met.

I find that prospect very troubling, that a present self could irrevocably bind a future self, especially that the person could establish parameters under which that future self would be bound even in a case where that future self might, in the moment in terms of practical expression, not want that to happen.

The particular context in euthanasia of providing advance consent is, of course, that people have to imagine how they would experience certain conditions, certain development of a disease, and how they would feel about it, how they would respond and what they would want in the moment. The idea and the argument that some advocates have made is that the person should be able to issue an advance directive, so that even if they in that moment do not have the capacity to make a decision, their past self would decide for them in the present.

This can create a situation, though, where one might ask what happens if a person with somewhat lost capacity, but nonetheless with a condition set out by their past self, then says he does not want his life taken. His past self had established this living will, this advance directive of sorts, that would then theoretically involve the state and medical professionals taking his life in a case where he did not want that to happen in the moment based on something his past self said.

This is not a purely hypothetical case. There is currently a case before the Dutch courts in which a patient was held down by family members while a physician injected her with lethal medication. The doctor was acting based on an interpretation of an advance directive and of past statements made by the patient.

We do have cases where there is an application of the idea of advance consent to euthanasia, and we have a very scary situation, frankly, where a person's life is taken when he or she is saying in the moment, “No, I don't want this to happen”, but someone else is interpreting something the individual said in the past as overruling the individual's expression in the moment.

The present self who is facing this kind of violence, I would argue, is maybe at a point of lower capacity than the person previously had, but I still think it is a very scary situation or proposition.

I would encourage members to reflect on the question of advance consent and to take a consistent position on it. I would suggest that members set a similar standard for consent in these cases. It does not seem, to me, to make sense to have a lower bar for the consent required to die than consent required for sexual activity, to abhor advance consent in the case of sexual activity, and yet to support it in the case of death and dying. We do not know exactly where the debate on advance consent in the context of death and dying is going to go. I know there is an expert panel the government has put forward that we expect to hear a report back from relatively soon. I know there are members of the government caucus who have said that they are supportive of the idea of advance consent.

However, if we think about the case that I spoke about in particular and how we would feel if a past version of ourselves had said we wanted something, which all of a sudden, in the moment, in a situation, we really do not want to have happen, and yet we are told that we had said we had wanted this in the past, so our past self can dictate to our present self. I would see that as really going against a pretty basic principle of autonomy that I know is important to many members.

I leave that for the consideration of the House. It is very relevant to our discussion of Bill C-51, in terms of the way in which the bill codifies the point that in the context of sexual consent, one cannot consent in advance, that a person who is unconscious can never consent, regardless of what they said beforehand. Again, to underline this, I very much agree with that particular change to Bill C-51. I want to encourage members to think about what that means for some of the other conversations that are happening.

This bill deals with Senate amendments. There is a proposed Senate amendment that provides some specific language around that section. I know that some of my colleagues are favourably disposed towards the intent of the senator who brought this forward, but are concerned about some of the unintended legal implications of it, namely, that if certain things are spelled out explicitly, there might also be things that are not spelled out in the section. The sense, and I think it is a good sense, is that the existing language in that particular section of Bill C-51 does the trick in hitting the particular point on the mark. That is what I wanted to say about the issue of advance consent.

I would like to make a few comments about section 176 of the Criminal Code and the back and forth we have seen in our discussions on that section and on some of the other actions the government has taken in this regard.

Section 176 deals with the disruption of a religious service and vandalism against church property, and so forth. Our caucus has done a great deal of work with civil society to bring attention to the importance and value of this section, and to oppose initial efforts by the government to remove this section.

The government argued that section 176 could be removed, because it was redundant. Clearly the offences that are covered by section 176 are things that other charges could apply to, but that does not mean that the offence, in terms of putting a particular emphasis on it and ensuring fulsome prosecution in these cases, is redundant. By analogy, our Criminal Code speaks specifically of hate crimes, and I have never heard anyone argue that hate crimes legislation is redundant because the violence associated with hate crimes, namely, vandalism, but more particularly assault and those sorts of things, are already illegal.

I have never heard anyone ask why we need hate crime provisions because those things are already illegal. I think all of us accept that the message sent by having a particular category of prosecution associated with hate crimes is appropriate, because hate crimes are not just aimed at doing violence to a particular individual but also at making an entire community feel threatened and unsafe in living their lives as they do, including the practice of their faith and the public actions they take that are associated with their identity, and so forth.

Hate crimes legislation is about ensuring that groups of people are not targeted on the basis of their identity. That is why we treat a hate crime as something distinct from an act of assault on its own. If members accept that principle with respect to hate crimes and hate crimes in prosecution, it would seem to me that the same principle goes to section 176. Someone who actively disrupts a church service or commits acts of vandalism or violence against religious clergy are not just trying to enact specific violence against an individual or place. It is not merely an act of trespassing or vandalism, rather an action that carries with it a real chill for the ability of people of faith to live freely and confidently without worry of that kind of violence. That is why section 176 is not redundant. It is critically important.

Another argument the government used was to say that the language in section 176 is outdated because it refers to a clergyman and is not, in its textual implications, inclusive of all faiths and genders. However, in reality, the section was clearly being applied in a way that was fully inclusive. It really was an odd argument to make that we should take the section out completely because it was not, in its language, inclusive when all that was really required was to change the language. Even changing the language did not change the actual practical effects of the law.

In the end, in response to a really strong reaction and groundswell from different communities working collaboratively with our party, the proposed deletion of section 176 by Bill C-51 was abandoned. We were pleased to see that.

At the same time, we then saw the government, in Bill C-75, proposing to hybridize offences under section 176, effectively reducing the sentence for these offences. In the previous discussion in the House on this issue, my friend from Winnipeg North offered a defence of the idea of hybridized offences. I do not think anyone has argued there should not be any cases where the level of available discretion would not cover a spectrum associated with hybridized offences.

However, I think a lot of those who advocated significantly for section 176 to be preserved, and were initially pleased by the government's stepping back from their decision, kind of saw in the hybridization of this particular offence yet another indication that the government does not really understand the importance of this and does not accept the value of having strong, clear language with appropriate associated sentences in the Criminal Code to protect the practice of faith in this country.

It is ironic because the government talks a good game a lot of the time when it comes to fighting hate. When it comes to motions or statements around these kinds of issues, the government always seems to be ready.

We had considerable debate in the House on Motion No. 103 on the question of “Islamophobia”. All of us in the House should read that it is important for us to take a strong stand against, in this case, anti-Muslim violence or hatred, and that it is important for us to take a strong stand against those who express bigotry against any community. However, we wanted the government to provide a definition of what it meant by “Islamophobia”, and it refused to do that. Unfortunately, the House was not able to come together in a way that might have been desirable to send a clear unified statement on that issue.

Despite the specific language of Motion No. 103 speaking of the need to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear”, the government's actions with respect to section 176, an actual section of the Criminal Code that provides real legal protection for those practising their faith, show that in so many cases, it is only interested in the statement and not the substance.

For faith communities and leaders across the board who wonder what substantive protections exist, they should look to and expect the government to underline the importance of section 176, not to be weakening its application as we are seeing.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the existing text of Bill C-51, where it attempts to amend the Criminal Code with respect to consent, some of the main issues that the senators had, and I very much agree with them, was that while we had a clear definition of what consent meant, where the vagueness became problematic was in no consent.

The existing text of Bill C-51, under section (2.1), it has “(a.1) the complainant is unconscious” and then follows up with “(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity for any reason other than the one referred to in paragraph (a.1)”, which is kind of vague. I know a lot of senators had problems with that.

Given the concerns that experts in sexual assault law have, what does my colleague think about the Senate's attempts to clarify that part of the Criminal Code? If the Senate amendments were allowed, we would basically have no consent defined as being unable to understand the nature, circumstances or risks, unable to understand that a person has a choice and unable to affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity.

My colleague talked about judicial discretion. Certainly we have different opinions on that when it comes to sentencing. However, it seems to me that in the interpretation of this very important part of the Criminal Code, given the problems we have had with case law in sexual assault, this is perhaps one area of the Criminal Code where we do not really want to have too much judicial discretion, where perhaps it is good to have a very clear road map of what precisely no consent means. Would my hon. friend comment on that part?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague and his party will consider the arguments I made with respect to advance consent and its other application as well. It is important to reflect on that. I know they have been very clear on the issue of advance consent in this case, but it is important to consider in the other context that it can be asserted as well.

With respect to the Senate amendments, the existing language in Bill C-51, as proposed when it was sent to the Senate, was, “For the purpose of subsection (1), no consent is obtained if...(a.1), the complainant is unconscious; (b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity for any reason other than the one referred to in paragraph (a.1).”

This clearly sets out the conditions in which a person is unable to consent. The proposed amendment from the Senate says, “For greater certainty, capacity to consent at the time of the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge cannot be inferred from evidence on capacity to consent at the time of another sexual activity.”

The question is whether that addition adds anything, given the certainty already established under the new section 2. We agree with the principle. It is just a question of the practical legal application. My judgment at present is that the existing language in Bill C-51 is sufficient.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned section 176, which is the part of the Criminal Code that deals specifically with protection for the clergy. However, it also deals with protection for houses of worship and for worshippers at those places. He said that rather than consider removing it, that the section should have been strengthened. I would like to hear his ideas on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at strengthening the legal mechanisms in place that address the issue of violence against clergy, the targeting of people on the basis of their faith or attacks against houses of worship, section 176 is the place to look. We often hear about the importance of these issues from the government and yet it is weakening the one section. An important discussion would be how we might be able to strengthen it. I am not sure I can say exactly whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing, but it is something that has hit home for a lot of people.

I was recently at a Hanukkah event in Toronto and had an opportunity to meet someone who was recently the victim of an anti-Semitic attack. This is a case that has been in the news, where a number of Jewish boys were attacked with what seemed to be a clear intention around hate and faith-based intimidation, intimidation against a faith community associated with that.

Also, when I was recently in Halifax, I visited Saint Benedict Parish, which is a Catholic church. A friend of mine is a priest there. That church was subjected to vandalism on Easter Sunday.

Many members of Parliament have had an opportunity to interact with people and see these cases. They do happen and they happen far too often in the country. We can take steps to address them. However, expressing the opinion of the House through a motion does not necessarily make that much of a difference to the people on the ground. It is really a question of what the law says and what we do as legislators, as lawmakers, and not simply what we say expressively about these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick on section 176 of the Criminal Code and the whole idea of freedom of religion and ensuring that services are 100% functional. I would argue that it demonstrates how effective a standing committee can be. It is not necessarily a government backing away as much as it is committee membership listening to what presenters and Canadians as a whole have to say.

An amendment was brought forward and it was unanimously accepted. Therefore, members from all political parties at committee recognized the importance of keeping it within the Criminal Code, and that as a positive thing. It shows that standing committees can make a difference. Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, on that point, the government proceeded with hybridizing offences under section 176 in Bill C-75. Although members of the standing committee chose to make that change with respect to Bill C-51, we saw new government legislation in the form of Bill C-75 that again showed a lack of appreciation for this important section.

It would have been great if the same standing committee had shown the alleged independence that the member speaks of by fixing it the second time around as well. Unfortunately, sometimes, even on relatively independent committees, the PMO's hammer comes down and we do not see that change.

It is frustrating to see repeated attempts by the government in its legislation to weaken section 176. Yes, there was an amendment the first time around on this bill, but there was not an amendment the second time around.

In so many different areas, the government tries to do something, there is a public backlash, it waits a while and then we see it do something similar. Talking about the impact on faith communities, the Canada summer jobs issue has been in the news recently. I do not think Canadians are going to be fooled by the fact that the government is trying to make what looks like a change in an election year. Many faith communities have seen what the government's intentions are with respect to their freedoms and liberties. To change the tone of the discussion in an election year is not the best indication of what it has in mind or what it would likely do if it were re-elected.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in this place, especially as we approach the time when it will be closed and the last week we will be here.

It is an august place, a place where many interesting debates have happened since it reopened after the fire. As for the one before the fire, we are coming up the 100th anniversary of Prime Minister Laurier, who was a leader of note. He established Alberta and Saskatchewan as provinces, and passed away the following year. Not only did he establish Alberta and Saskatchewan, he was in favour of free trade agreements. In 1911, he lost an election on a free trade agreement. We may see that happen again in 2019.

Also I remember well the debates on the flag issue, which was a focus for the country in the sixties. The debates between Diefenbaker and Pearson are legendary in this place. The flag issue is one that had a lot of Canadians focused on this place and on the debates, which resulted in the maple flag we have today.

I also remember when we had a loyal opposition party leading a charge to leave the country. A lot of people were a little confused about the debates that went on in this place when the leader of the loyal opposition wanted to split up the country.

Many debates have happened in this place, with many people who are orators, intelligent people expressing their opinions and representing Canadians. At this time, I am one of 338 who has the honour and privilege to stand in this place, but not for much longer as this building will close this week and we will move to another place. Again, it is a privilege to look around and see the magnificent edifice and beautiful place in which we get to work.

Today I rise to speak to C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. Since it was introduced the first time, and again as it has come back from the Senate, there have been learned people standing and speaking to this. It is an omnibus bill. It is very complicated and one some people in the House are able to understand, comprehend and speak very clearly about. Others speak of its broad issues, but not as intelligently as some of the members in the House who have legal backgrounds.

However, it should not be a surprise there are issues when we get a bill this big, although many people would agree with some of the things in it.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague from Niagara West.

We agree with some things in this omnibus bill. It contains some worthy provisions. Clarifying the law in relation to sexual consent is very important. Repealing unconstitutional provisions in the Criminal Code is a positive aspect. I was also very happy the government backed down, as we have heard many times, on the removal of section 176 of the code. I heard a lot about this one from my constituents. Many faith groups, including those in my riding of Bow River, were deeply concerned about that section.

The section provides protection to those practising their religion. We have freedom of religion in Canada. One of thing I may not agree with everybody on is religion, but I would fight to the death for those people to be able to express their religious beliefs. Religious communities need to be able to worship without fear of interference and disruption. This is truer now than ever. Hate crimes against religious groups are on the rise in Canada. A section of the code that gives these groups clear, unambiguous confidence in their right to worship as they please is far from redundant.

When we were talking about the inoperative sections of the Criminal Code and Bill C-51, it was the unfortunate decision by the government to initially include section 176 of the Criminal Code among the sections it deemed to be obsolete. Section 176 is hardly redundant, hardly obsolete and certainly not unconstitutional. Indeed, section 176 is the only section in the Criminal Code that protects clergy from having their services disrupted, something which is very serious and goes to the heart of religious freedom.

The government turned a blind eye when it introduced this, and the Conservatives called them out on it. As a result, tens of thousands of Canadians spoke out, telling the government that it was wrong.

My learned colleague on the other side previously mentioned that a committee was able to resolve this. It was one of the outstanding features of the committee that it unanimously came to that. However, it is my belief that there was such push-back in religious communities that the people sitting on that committee realized the mistake in that initial document and changed it.

Municipal governments must react much sooner when they may have made a mistake. If in coffee shops they hear about something, they pass it the next day, and at the next meeting, they can fix it. This is a much longer process, but at the committee level, members heard from religious people of faith in our country that this was not the appropriate thing to do.

I will move on. Clause 14 of Bill C-51 proposed to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code, which makes it a crime to unlawfully obstruct a religious official. Conservatives were the first to identify this clause. As a result of the public backlash, the Liberals on the justice committee amended Bill C-51 to remove it.

However, only months later, the Liberals hybridized section 176 in Bill C-75. Currently, it is a solely indictable offence, which is reserved for the most serious offences. However, by hybridizing section 176, it could be prosecuted as a summary conviction offence, which is reserved for less serious offences. That means that offenders could just get a fine, and I think that would downgrade the importance of religious freedom. For people who practice it and leaders of religion, this would be downgraded to a less serious offence. That is not right.

While the specific changes would not have a significant impact on the maximum sentence, unlike some of the other offences the government is hybridizing, it would send a message. I would submit that it would send exactly the wrong message. It would send the message that disrupting a religious service and infringing on the freedom of religion of Canadians, which is not just any freedom but a fundamental freedom in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not that serious. That is just wrong. It is why the Conservatives opposed it and stood up to fight Bill C-75.

Then there were amendments that came back from the Senate. The Senate put forward amendments because there was concern that this would add confusion in cases where a person was not unconscious but was, for example, highly intoxicated. Unfortunately, while the Senate amendments may have been well intentioned, they would simply cause more problems and solve a problem that really does not exist. We would support voting against these amendments, because we believe that they do not clarify; they just make things more confusing.

Conservatives fully support all changes in the bill to clarify and strengthen sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. These changes would help support victims of horrific sexual assault crimes. Conservatives also support repealing or amending sections of the code that have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

It is important to keep the code clean and up to date for efficient and effective justice for victims and their families. Bill C-51 would merely clarify that consent can never occur when an individual is unconscious. That is consistent with the J.A. decision.

Bill C-51 would not, as the Senate amendment argues, potentially create a bright line for consent on the basis of consciousness. In that regard, proposed paragraph 273.1(2)(b) provides that “no consent is obtained...for any reason other than [unconsciousness].” This language clearly acknowledges that there are many possible reasons a person may be incapable of consent, despite being conscious.

The Senate amendment would likely lead to additional complexity and confusion over what evidence was relevant to determine consent. Instead of adding certainty to the law, it would lead to further litigation involving these factors. For those reasons, we oppose this amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Bow River is quite right. It was only after Conservatives pointed out the attempt by the Liberals to remove section 176 of the Criminal Code, the only section of the Criminal Code that protects religious officiants, and tens of thousands of Canadians lent their voices in opposition to the removal of section 176, that the government finally got the message and backed down. The member also noted, disappointingly, that, after backing down, the government reclassified section 176 so that it would be a hybrid offence. As the member pointed out, that sends exactly the wrong message.

We also saw recently the government back down from the changes it made to the Canada summer jobs program. It had imposed a Liberal values test on organizations that wished to hire summer students. Contrary to their charter rights, the government forced them to check off a Liberal values box to receive funding. We saw more than 1,500 applications rejected, and thousands more organizations simply did not apply.

I see a theme in all of this, and it is a theme of a government that really does not take religious freedom, which is not just any freedom but a fundamental freedom under our charter of rights, seriously. Would my friend agree?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and leadership on this particular file. His knowledge of it is tremendous, and I acknowledge the fact that he is able to speak so clearly about many parts of it.

When it comes to religion and the guarantee we have in this country for it, it is basic to the fundamental rights we have. It needs to be protected at all costs and not removed, as initially it was. It was wrong to say that this was obsolete and should not be in here. That was a mistake. I think that is why we saw every religion across the country uniting against this.

It was so important that people out there understood what this particular proposed legislation was about. They understood from coast to coast to coast, in every religion, that this was wrong. It was against the principle of religious freedom. It is important that the Liberals finally backed away, but they still hybridized it. It is still not as it should be and not as strong as it should be.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could continue on section 176. This is one of the things that generated a lot of emails in my office.

As my colleague mentioned, this is a fundamental right in Canada. He also mentioned the fact that the values test for Canada's summer jobs was something the government was promoting. Again, people in my riding of Oshawa who wrote to me felt that they were under attack for their beliefs.

This is something our country has stood for, the right to have one's own beliefs. I wonder if the member could say what he thinks is motiving this, because I do not see any solid reason for it. What does he think is motivating the government to do these things and makes these changes?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals might be thinking in introducing this, I am really not sure. People talk about sending out trial balloons to see how people might respond, but this is too serious an issue. As my colleague has stated, we do not run trial balloons about taking away fundamental rights in our country. That is not why people run political trial balloons.

We had outright anger from people asking how the Liberals could do this. It is part of the fundamental rights we have in this country. To understand why they would want to take this away baffles me. That is why the response across the country was so significant.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River mentioned that this is the last week we are going to be in the House. I never really thought about that in terms of this being maybe the last time I rise in this building before it is shut down for what could be the next decade or so. I want to just comment on what the member for Bow River said.

It is an honour and a privilege for all of us to serve in this place. This building is certainly historic, and the fact that we have an opportunity this one last week to rise is not lost on me. As I said, I do not know if any of us will make it back here 10 years from now. Who knows? Some of my younger colleagues over there may.

It is great to get a chance to stand and talk about Bill C-51, the justice omnibus bill. It contains a number of changes on a variety of matters. One of the things I find interesting, and I know it has been mentioned before, is that the Liberal government railed on and on about how omnibus bills were so bad and the fact that Conservatives would put so many things in them and how the Liberal government was going to be different and would not behave this way.

I find it interesting and somewhat comical that the Liberals railed about what the Conservative government did in the past, yet here they are, and some of the Liberal omnibus bills are actually greater in size than the ones we moved forward during our time in government. I needed to mention that. I think there is some irony there. I know the Liberals campaigned on that.

I am here to talk about Bill C-51, but I would love to talk about how the Liberal government said it would act differently when it got into government, yet we see that this has not necessarily been the case.

I will give credit where credit is due. I know there are some things in the bill we were encouraged to see the Liberals move on. There was some strengthening of penalties for sexual assault. These are definitely important things. I will talk about that briefly. The Liberals got rid of some obsolete laws as well. There is some cleanup there.

There are some things we still have concerns about. My colleague from Bow River and other colleagues have mentioned it, but it is somewhat troubling that the Liberals would even consider the removal of section 176. This is something that is very near and dear to the hearts of a lot of my constituents in the Niagara West area. I come from an area where there are a tremendous number of churches, a number of Dutch Reform churches, but not just Dutch Reform. There are all denominations. The fact that the Liberal government would actually consider removing that just shows how out of touch the government is sometimes when it comes to some of these issues. I will get to that in a second.

I want to talk about the sexual assault piece. I want to say that I am pleased. As I said, I will give credit where credit is due. The Liberals followed our lead to strengthen the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code around consent, legal representation and expanding rape shield provisions. Standing up for the rights of victims of crime is something our party has always been very serious about. We are aligned with the provisions the Liberals have in this legislation in terms of strengthening those issues.

Among other things, there is a private member's bill introduced by our former Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, Bill C-337. This bill would make it mandatory for judges to participate in sexual assault training and ensure awareness among the judiciary, in addition to education about the challenges sexual assaults create. The bill was designed to hold the Canadian judiciary responsible for the ongoing training of judges. We were pleased to see this bill passed in the House. Now that it is in the Senate, we hope it will move it forward.

I want to talk a bit about section 176. That the government would consider removing it is certainly troubling. It is good to see that it backed away, as has been mentioned. This was the only section of the Criminal Code that directly protected the rights of individuals to freely practise their religion, whatever that religion happened to be.

In fact, section 176 was recently used, on June 9, 2017, in a criminal case here in Ottawa. It is imperative to see that interrupting a religion service is really not the same as interrupting other services. If we think about the various religions that are practised in this country, with the Sabbath maybe being on Saturday for some and on Sunday for others, the fact remains that people are there to worship. That fact that it would even be considered that they would not have the ability to do that or that it would be okay to interrupt is very troubling.

It is good to see they have backed off on this, but we are still concerned with the message the government sent to religious communities, that they are not important.

My colleague, the member for Bow River, mentioned last summer's summer jobs program, which was a concern. I had a number of churches in my riding that did great stuff. They were running day camps for disabled, helping to feed people and doing a ton of things that I thought were great in nature, just for the overall encouragement of the community. A lot of these organizations were not even considered. We will see how it works this summer. I see there have been some changes.

I really believe that churches, especially in my community, regardless of the denomination, are great community leaders. I always say we have a great community spirit in Niagara West. It has a lot to do with the people in my community of Niagara West, but also there are a number of churches that encourage volunteerism and that give back, feed the poor and do a number of these things that are all very fundamental to healthy communities.

A safer Canada is certainly a concern. It is a government's responsibility to make sure its citizens are kept safe. We see what is happening with gang violence in Canada. When we soften penalties for gang crimes and reduce them to administrative fines, we are not only doing ourselves a disservice, but there are real consequences for Canadians when gang members are being let off in our streets.

One of the things we want to do as a Conservative government is put an end to the revolving door for gang members. Now, even if someone is a known notorious gang member they are entitled to bail. We would make sure repeat gang offenders are held without bail. I think that is reasonable when we look at what gang members may do in a community, how they might terrorize a community. We would also make sure it is easier for police to target and arrest gang members.

Canada's Conservatives always put the safety and security of Canadians ahead of the interests and comfort of violent criminals. We would work hard to impose tougher federal prison sentences for the leaders who order others to do their dirty work for them.

The other thing that is important is we want to make sure we are recognizing and supporting the rights of victims over the rights of criminals. We have seen some troubling things that have happened in recent days in the country. We saw issues with Terri-Lynne McClintic and with Christopher Garnier, and the fact that Tori Stafford's killer was in a healing lodge instead of behind bars. We have seen cop killers who have not served a day in the military getting services. These are things that are all troubling, not just to us as Conservatives, but to Canadians at large. We just learned recently that Tori Stafford's father is now reporting that her co-conspirator, Michael Rafferty was transferred to a medium-security prison in March. He was just informed about this happening.

We can see some of the things we are dealing with in the country. We realize violent repeat offenders are people who probably should have a harder time getting bail if these are things they are doing on an ongoing basis.

As we look at what is going on right now in our justice system, I think there are opportunities to make sure we are looking at returning terrorists from ISIS. That is another issue. I realize I am almost out of time, but I could spend a lot of time on that. We realize that some of these individuals who have gone over purposely to kill and destroy are people we should be looking at, and making sure we are doing our job to keep them behind bars to ensure they are not a threat to society here in Canada.

In conclusion, the government is failing to protect victims of crime. The Prime Minister did nothing after learning of Catherine Campbell's killer receiving taxpayer funds, having never served a day in the military. We have pushed and pushed the Liberals to put Tori Stafford's killer back behind bars, and to transfer her from the healing lodge. We believe we need to continue to work to protect the rights of those who need it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Niagara West, my neighbour in the Niagara region, spoke about a potential provision that was released by the Leader of the Opposition in regards to bail. He makes it seem as if everyone is eligible for bail all the time, which is not necessarily true. It is a bit misleading.

In terms of the provision that the Leader of the Opposition outlined, constitutional experts have suggested that it is somewhere on the spectrum between unconstitutional and grossly unconstitutional.

I am wondering if his party is going to listen to experts on this. Is his party going to push forward with these types of provisions? Why are the Conservatives not listening to the experts in terms of the constitutionality of what they are suggesting?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges we have here is that there are certain groups in society that continue to reoffend and at the end of the day, the job of any government is to protect the victims. Of course we are going to consult with experts and talk to people.

One of the challenges we have is the fact that we feel that the government does not worry about the rights of victims as much as it worries about the rights of criminals. This is the thing that we need to address. We have to find a way to stop the revolving door in our justice system. We need to make sure that we stand up for the rights of victims.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I have been here since 2004. It is interesting to realize that for 10 years the House will not be located here. It reminds me of how honoured I am to be here.

I do want to ask the member about this whole soft on crime agenda of the Liberals. He mentioned section 176. In my community, people perceive that as an attack on religious freedom.

He also talked about the Canada summer jobs program.

Bill C-75 would actually change indictable offences into summary convictions.

My colleague asked if we on this side have consulted experts. It seems members on the other side do not want to consult with Canadians.

The entire agenda of the Liberals moving forward is soft on crime policies, especially policies that would change something that was an indictable offence into a summary conviction. What kind of message does that send to Canadians?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that we are talking about. When we consult with Canadians and we talk to victims of crime, they tell us that sometimes they do not feel that the punishment fits the crime.

We understand that we have to deal with the constitutionality of what is going on in terms of what is required by law, but that does not stop the fact that at times there is the perception of a revolving door in our criminal justice system.

My colleague mentioned section 176 as an example. Religious freedom is paramount and is protected in our Constitution. If we look at religious freedom as an example, the fact that the Liberal government would even consider not dealing with that is of concern to us. His point in terms of summary conviction for some of these things is also a concern to us in many ways.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have told us they feel at times that the rights of criminals seem to trump the rights of victims. This is the balance that we need to deal with. We need to continue to listen. We need to act on this and do the right thing for victims.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay. This may be one of the last times I rise in this incredible institution before it is closed for renovations. It makes me reflect on why we are here. It is because this is the centre of power in Canada. Are we here to be apologists for power, are we here to mimic the power or are we here, sent by the ordinary people who work hard and pay their taxes, to be a voice to power, to speak truth to power, to speak for those who have no access to the insiders and the powerful? Our position in this House does matter when we rise on issues.

Therefore, tonight I will be rising to speak on Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. I find it ironic that we are discussing this bill that is going to drop from the Criminal Code comic books that may cause people to commit crimes. That is something that is considered a priority of the current government, when this week, at the B.C. Court of Appeal, the Attorney General for this country, the Minister of Justice, had her lawyers attempt to deny basic issues of justice for survivors of residential school abuse.

Speaking of people who come into this place to be a voice to speak to power, they come across all party lines. Therefore, when the Prime Minister appointed the Minister of Justice, I thought there was finally a moment of historic change, because very little attention is ever paid to the work of the justice department, which is the absolute brass knuckles at denying indigenous rights across this country. I thought that having an indigenous justice minister was dramatic and that it would bring change. However, what I have seen over the last three years is a pitifully poor standing.

Instead of moving hard and clear on UNDRIP on refusing the recent UN call to deal with the forced sterilization of indigenous women that meets the test of both torture and genocide, instead of standing up for the Indian residential settlement agreement, we are here with a minister who has her priorities focused on the issue of people who fraudulently practise witchcraft. I did not know that was a major crime in this country, but I am glad the justice minister noticed it. The possession of comic books that may cause crime is another great priority for her. For the folks back home, we no longer have to worry about the rules around duelling, because it has not happened in 200 years, and our justice minister thinks that is a priority. Meanwhile, this week, she is sending her lawyers against survivors of some of the most horrific abuse in the Indian residential school settlement agreement to argue in those hearings that the basic notion of procedural fairness does not apply to survivors of Indian residential school.

The issue of procedural fairness is a fundamental legal principle. It applies everywhere. It applies to criminals who have committed sexual abuse. They get the principle of procedural fairness. However, our justice minister says that survivors of residential school abuse do not have that right. I find that really disturbing.

We will be talking about and we have talked about the changes in the bill with respect to issues of consent and sexual consent. I think that is an important discussion. However, it is something the justice minister has sent her lawyers to argue. The children who had their genitals grabbed by adults in Indian residential schools could not prove that was sexual in nature. The government's position that survivors of child sexual abuse in residential schools had to prove the sexual intent of the adult is contrary to all the principles of justice, unless of course one is an Indian residential school settlement survivor. The current government will talk about its commitment to reconciliation, but it will not talk about how the justice minister has given her officials whatever tools they need to deny the basic legal rights of survivors of some of the most horrific crimes that have ever been committed in this country.

I am looking at Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code. The Liberals are changing the laws on advertising a reward for the return of stolen property. They dealt with blasphemy, finally. It has only been 300 years.

However, this week at the B.C. Court of Appeal, the minister instructed her lawyers to go in and attack the fundamental principle of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement which former prime minister Stephen Harper signed with Phil Fontaine and the guilty churches. In that agreement, the government agreed that it would set up a process to adjudicate claims in a non-adversarial manner, which saved the government millions and millions and millions of dollars from class action lawsuits, and as part of that, the government would have the obligation to bring forward the evidence of the known crimes and give the survivors a chance to speak.

We know what happened in the case of St. Anne's Indian Residential School. Justice department lawyers suppressed thousands of pages of police testimony. They suppressed the names of the perpetrators. They went into those hearings and told the survivors at the court hearing that there was no evidence to prove the horrific crimes of sexual assault, sexual torture, rape and forced abortions that were committed against those children in St. Anne's residential school. When it was exposed that the government had done this, the justice department and the justice minister opted to spend $2.3 million fighting against people. They are in my region and I have met some of these brave survivors, people who did not even have the bus fare to go to their own hearings to stand up against that justice minister.

She states in these hearings her rejection of an incredible affidavit that was brought forward by Phil Fontaine who signed the original agreement with the previous Conservative government. Phil Fontaine said that procedural fairness in the independent assessment process is a “fundamental principle”. The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the IAP were designed to be “fair, reasonable and in the best interests of IAP claimants.” He said, “I understand procedural fairness to mean whether the same rules that guarantee a fair hearing that a litigant would expect from the courts or another similar tribunal would apply to the adjudication of a claim under the IAP.”

He further stated that the Assembly of First Nations would never have signed an agreement that gave away the basic legal rights of the survivors to the Government of Canada, if the Government of Canada was not willing to defend that basic legal principle; that if it failed, as the defendant and as the Government of Canada, to provide the documents that named the perpetrators of the crimes and then went in and had those cases thrown out, to say that those survivors did not have the right to procedural fairness to have those cases reopened is a complete attack on the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that was signed in this House, which we saw the previous prime minister make that incredible statement for. That is what the justice minister is doing this week in British Columbia.

She also states through her lawyers that one should not give any attention to the statement brought forward by Phil Fontaine on the position of the AFN. She said, “Little evidentiary weight ought to be accorded to the affidavit of Larry Philip Fontaine”, and “Canada takes issue with the section of the Fontaine Affidavit entitled 'Procedural Fairness'”, that the paragraphs are largely subjective, speculative and that in hindsight, it is of no assistance to receive theoretical views of subjective intent.

There is nothing theoretical about it. We are talking about two fundamental cases in particular, not a thousand cases, but they spent $2 million against two survivors: H-15019 and C-14114. H-15019 suffered some of the most horrific sexual torture that one could not even begin to imagine. He went into the hearing, and lawyers for the justice department said that his evidence was not credible because he could not prove where the perpetrator was because they were sitting on the person of interest report of the perpetrator, who was a serial abuser. After that case was thrown out, they were forced to turn over the person of interest report, which revealed that this survivor had told the truth, and they are fighting against the principle that he has a right to procedural fairness.

In fact, the government is patting itself on the back because it claims in one of its affidavits that it is not trying to force him to give back the money that was finally awarded to him. It is trying to fight against the principle that it lied, suppressed evidence and that it has no legal obligation to the survivors whose cases were thrown out. I find the actions of the justice minister absolutely appalling. The justice minister stands in the House and has us address issues such as a bill regarding the issuance of trading stamps, a bill that has been pretty much redundant since 1905.

We have the first indigenous justice minister in Canadian history and she has spent $2.3 million fighting survivors of some of the most horrific abuse while the Prime Minister talks about the most important relationship being reconciliation with indigenous people. Her officials are going into the IAP to have the cases thrown out of family members of people who suffered the abuse. The Liberals say it is completely unacceptable that the IAP was not set up to address family members of the original survivors, and yet all along the adjudication secretariat had forms for those family members of survivors who had died and they had that right. This is a fundamental issue of case law. This is a fundamental issue of legal right. Yet the government says that none of these rights apply within the agreement that it signed with the Assembly of First Nations, and the perpetrators, the defendants, the churches.

If we are going to do anything in this House, we need to be willing to stand up and face the fact that for 150 years, Canada has allowed the horrific abuse of Indian children and now it is allowing the abuse of their most basic legal rights. In a B.C. court this week, the justice minister, who will use the endless dollars of Canadian taxpayers to fight people who have no funding, to go after their pro bono lawyer. The government will fight this case in B.C. superior court because it knows the survivors are in Ontario and they cannot even afford the fare to get there to defend themselves. That is the malevolence that has happened under the justice minister, and I say shame on her. If this is what she came to do in Ottawa as the first indigenous justice minister, to oversee the attack on people whose only crime was that they were indigenous children and whose only crime today is that they continue to speak up against the horrific abuse they suffered, then this country fails if it does not call this injustice out.

We could speak all night about how the justice minister is getting rid of bills on witchcraft, how she is dealing with blasphemy and that trading comic books makes kids commit crimes. We could debate that all night, but what we are debating is a sideshow for the real intent of the government to undermine the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, to make a complete mockery of any of the Prime Minister's words on reconciliation and to abuse the trust of the Canadian taxpayers by spending millions of dollars against survivors, who only want justice and only want this attack on their legal rights closed.

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

Mr. Speaker, in many ways I disagree with the way the member classifies this bill. Saying that this bill has absolutely no substance is a discredit to the efforts to strengthen certain aspects of the crime of sexual assault. Believe it or not, it is a serious issue, something that needs to be addressed, and yet the member across the way marginalizes that.

The bill deals with other aspects, such as ensuring there is a charter statement in other pieces of legislation that are brought forward. That is a substantial piece. We take a more holistic approach in what this government has done on the issue of justice, and I would challenge the member opposite to demonstrate that any previous government has done as much as the current justice minister has done to ensure there is a safer Canada today.

I find it very difficult to hear New Democrats talk about the plight of indigenous people. I come from the province of Manitoba where thousands of children were in the care of the Manitoba NDP government for 15 years and the NDP failed to address those core issues.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would classify that under my dossier of what a pitiful sideshow.

The Liberals say we are not taking the issue of sexual assault seriously. I do not know what the member was listening to, but let us talk about sexual assault. Let us talk about the case that the justice minister's lawyers had thrown out of a child who was raped by a priest. They said it was not credible because he could not remember the age he was raped at, six or seven. The justice department had that thrown out.

Let us talk about how the Liberals went to the Supreme Court to say that the case of a young child whose genitals were grabbed by an adult clergy should be thrown out because they could not prove sexual intent of the adult. That is the member's government.

Let us talk about H-15019, a victim of some of the most horrific sexual abuse imaginable. That member and his minister spent $2 million fighting against that survivor because they suppressed the person of interest report. That is what the member's government has done. That is what it is doing right now.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay cited a number of sections that are redundant and obsolete. I have been very frustrated that on something as simple as removing redundant or unconstitutional sections, it has taken the government almost three years to get around to finally doing it.

We have the case of Travis Vader, who was convicted on two counts of second-degree murder of Lyle and Marie McCann from St. Albert, which is a community that I represent. That conviction had to be vacated when the trial judge applied an inoperative section of the Criminal Code. It has been two years since the government introduced legislation on that front to remove section 230. It is such a priority of the government that the bill is stuck at first reading, something on which there is surely unanimity in the House to get those sections out of the Criminal Code.

Is this not really an illustration that on the big things and on the small things, on the hard things and the easy things, on all things, the government just cannot get it done?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague understood what I was trying to get at, that in the fourth year of the government's mandate, this is the Liberals' justice issue: redundant pieces of legislation that would be so easy to clean up. That is what is done when government is getting started. This is the fourth year. The Liberals are missing the boat on serious pieces of justice reform and justice action. The minister has been almost non-existent in the House. I cannot remember the last time she stood and answered a question.

Normally, a justice minister is in the top front line, the top three or four people in any government. The current justice minister is not.

When I look at the bill which finally after four years is dealing with comic books in the Criminal Code, I have to ask, is that it? Is that all the Liberals have to show after four years? That is not good enough.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the member started talking about the role of the justice minister in a particular case. I have heard the speeches from the hon. member. I have seen some of his tweets questioning the rule of law in Europe or the United States. Why does he rise in this place and suggest that elected officials have a role in determining where cases go? Is he intentionally misleading his constituents or does he not know what the rule of law does and that the justice minister does not have a role in individual cases?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would put that slightly above pitiful because when we are talking about the St. Anne's cases, all the cases are for the Attorney General of Canada. Whoa, it is the Attorney General of Canada; it is the justice department. They are the ones who are putting this in place. The suggestion is that it is the Attorney General of Canada but not really the Attorney General of Canada, and it is the justice department but not really the justice department that is undermining the rights of some survivors.

Look at how angry the members opposite are to be called out for the fact that they are using millions of dollars to go after survivors of sexual abuse as children. What a shameful, shameful government. What a shameful minister. Anyone who is not willing to do the right thing on this is going to be marked down in history as someone who went along with the ongoing attempt to destroy indigenous identity and is on the wrong side of history. The members across the aisle are as well.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Timmins has talked about the role of the justice minister. In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, we know about the Nuu-chah-nulth fishing rights case that the government has spent $19 million on for lawyers alone, never mind the over $10 million the Nuu-chah-nulth have had to spend defending their rights and the court costs in the tens of millions of dollars. The minister of intergovernmental affairs, when he was the minister of fisheries and oceans and coast guard, promised in the House that he would make a reasonable offer to the Nuu-chah-nulth. These are the same survivors of the residential school system who are constantly being re-traumatized.

Maybe the member can speak about the government constantly speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we have tried to show the triumvirate of power that exists between the Prime Minister's Office; the wonderful statements the Prime Minister has made on reconciliation and his public support for the Nuu-chah-nulth on this, his most important relationship; and the Minister of Indigenous Services and her department's handling of the file.

That said, we never talk about the role of the justice minister and the justice department, which is key. It is the justice department that was given direction by the justice minister at the time to carry on the cases against indigenous rights. The Nuu-chah-nulth won in court. For anyone else who wins in court, they move on. However, in response to an indigenous case where the plaintiffs won, the justice minister will sic her lawyers on them.

Was it $19 million the government spent? It will use as much taxpayers' money as possible to fight against the implementation of any agreement. It does not matter what the Prime Minister says. He will never have the legal blood on his hands. It is always the role of the justice minister. With an indigenous justice minister who is carrying on with this, whether it is $2.3 million against St. Anne survivors or $19 million against Nuu-chah-nulth or going after any case, again and again, it is the justice minister who needs to be called out.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting up because I am concerned about the personal attacks by the Liberal members against the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. I do not often agree with that member, but I would never question his desire for positive outcomes for indigenous Canadians and I share his concern. In fact, while he did not mention Stephen Harper by name, I do know that he referenced the apology for residential schools, and while I was not in the House, I think of that when we walk under the stained glass window when we enter the chamber.

I would like him to comment on this. The Liberals promised two central things that I am sure he is as frustrated about as I am. First, they promised never to take veterans or court or force them to go to court, which they have done and are doing currently. Second, in the case of reconciliation, the Prime Minister made a personal promise on that, yet there are indigenous people being forced into the courts. That is the point the hon. member is making tonight.

Can the hon. member elaborate on the fact that the Liberal Prime Minister is breaking these two central promises he made, which is having the worst impact on the families impacted?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up the issue of veterans. When we look at the delivery of services under the purview of the federal government, the two groups that are continually denied rights or that are continually over-promised and under-delivered to are veterans and indigenous peoples.

The Prime Minister will get up and make incredible promises that whatever is needed will be delivered, and then that money will not show up. It is the same with the department of Indian affairs. I remember the member saying, when he was in opposition, that the Liberals would never fight veterans in court, and yet what did they do? They forced the veterans to go to court.

This is not a level playing field. This is the Government of Canada that will spend every dollar it can to fight veterans, just as in the case of the St. Anne survivors, who are among the most marginalized poor people one could meet, some of the most decent, good, caring people who met with the minister of indigenous affairs and asked her to stop their legal battle. She promised that they would all get along together.

The government has endless dollars to fight veterans and indigenous people. If someone is an indigenous person or a veteran, they have to take that cost on themself. The government will go after someone for costs and punishment, whatever it is to intimidate the person not to take the government on. I just say that the justice minister needs to stand for something better than this kind of vindictive legal battle.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin with my prepared text, I would like to read a Facebook post by Mr. Rodney Stafford, who is from my riding. It starts with “Rodney Stafford is feeling angry”. His post reads:

I'm really trying to find the words to say right now. There are so many questions that have been unanswered regarding Terri-Lynne, and I'm NEVER going to rest until justice is upheld. NOW, knowing what all we have [all] been fighting for over the last three months, and the questions asked without real answers and run around, it has come to my knowledge as of today that MICHAEL RAFFERTY--THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTIONS THE DAY OF APRIL 8TH, 2009. THE ABDUCTION, BRUTAL RAPE, MURDER, AND CONCEALING OF EVIDENCE, WAS TRANSFERRED FROM HIS MAXIMUM SECURITY FACILITY TO A MEDIUM SECURITY FACILITY IN MARCH!!!!!! This means that ALL THIS TIME over the last three months, CORRECTIONS SERVICE CANADA AND OUR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT have been hiding the fact that NOT ONE, BUT BOTH people responsible for stealing the life of Victoria have been working their way to luxury. Where in the world does it make sense that the worst of the worst of criminals, not petty thieves, THE WORST OF THE WORST, CHILD KILLERS!!!, even get the opportunity at a better life. So now there are two child killers living in Medium Security penitentiaries, with frequent day passes, medical, dental, schooling, and access to air!!! I NEED CANADIANS EVERYWHERE TO HELP WITH THIS FIGHT!!! Our children and lost loved ones deserve justice and security within our country. I am so ashamed to be Canadian right now. During our meeting with Anne Kelly, Commissioner of Corrections, she was blatantly asked by Petrina if there was information about Rafferty that we didn't know about. Another dodged question. Corrections Service Canada NEEDS AN IMMEDIATE OVERHAUL if this is what they consider justice. Three, NOT ONE, but three appeal judges on October 24th, 2016 looked Michael Rafferty's lawyer in the face as they ALL stated he was right where he belongs. SAME AS THE TRIAL JUDGE!! So Corrections Service Canada, a year and a half later, says ha, no you're not. And lowers his security and transfers him. YET AGAIN WITHOUT MAKING CONTACT WITH ME regarding his transfer. Think about it??? That means, during the rallies and all this time that Canada has been fighting for real justice for Victoria and all our loved ones regarding the lowering of Security and transfer of Terri-Lynne, CSC has withheld this information about Michael Rafferty. I only received the information because I had requested it even though I was asked "There really hasn't been much activity on Michael Rafferty's file, would you still like me to send the information to you".??? "Oh ya", I said. Glad I did.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and please share the snot out of this. If Commissioner Anne Kelly is willing to sit and slap me in the face over and over again with the tragedy having lost Victoria to two brutal killers the way we all did, who is she willing to screw over??? THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE ON EVERY LEVEL!!!! CHILD KILLERS!!!!!!

That was written by Rodney Stafford, the father of Tori Stafford. It shows there is a justice issue at stake here that all Canadians feel is very important, and in this case, a father has made his feelings very clear.

Now, I would like to share my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51. The purpose of this bill is to streamline the Criminal Code of Canada by removing certain provisions that are no longer relevant to contemporary society. Bill C-51 is a justice omnibus bill. It is one bill containing many changes on a variety of different matters.

The Prime Minister and his Liberals call omnibus bills “undemocratic”, and the Prime Minister pledged that the Liberal government would undo the practice of introducing omnibus bills. Regardless, my Conservative colleagues and I are aligned with the need to strengthen the provisions of the sexual assault legislation.

Former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose led the way for supporting victims of sexual assault by introducing a private members' bill, Bill C-337. This bill would make it mandatory for judges to participate in sexual assault training and education to ensure that the judiciary is aware of the challenges that sexual assault victims face. Her bill is designed to hold the Canadian judiciary responsible for the ongoing training of judges and the application of law in sexual assault trials. As we all remember, this bill was passed by the House of Commons and we were hopeful that it would pass the Senate. It has not passed yet.

We are pleased that the Liberals are planning to strengthen the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code surrounding consent and legal representation, and expanding the rape shield provisions. The Conservative Party stood up for the rights of victims of crime when the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights passed in 2015, and will continue to do so in the future.

Bill C-51 would amend, among other things, section 273.1 to clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting. This is a reflection of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. J.A. It proposes to amend section 273.2 to clarify the defence of mistaken belief if consent is not available and if the mistake is based on a mistake of law—for example, if the accused believed that the complainant's failure to resist or protest meant the complainant consented.

This bill would expand the rape shield provisions to include communications of a sexual nature or communications for a sexual purpose. These provisions prevent evidence of a complainant's prior sexual history being used to support the inference that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity at issue, or that a complainant is less worthy of belief.

In addition, this bill would provide that a complainant would have a right to legal representation in rape shield cases. It would create a regime to determine whether an accused could introduce a complainant's private records at trial, which would be in his or her possession. This would complement the existing regime governing an accused's ability to obtain a complainant's private records when those records would be in the hands of a third party.

Another aspect of Bill C-51 that I strongly support is the removal of unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code. Canadians should be able to expect that the Criminal Code accurately reflects the state of law, and, yes, Canadians who made that common-sense assumption could be wrong.

I agree with a few other revisions, for example, clause 41's removal of section 365 of the Criminal Code, which states, “Every one who fraudulently (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration”, and clause 4's removal of section 71 pertaining to duelling in the streets, which states:

Every one who

(a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel,

(b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or

(c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel

There are a number of provisions to be removed. Obviously, it is long overdue that the sections dealing with duelling are removed.

One other positive aspect of Bill C-51 is the fact the government has finally backed down from removing section 176 from the Criminal Code.

One of the parts of the bill removes unconstitutional sections, as well as sections of the Criminal Code that, in the opinion of the government, are redundant or obsolete.

There has been much discussion on section 176. What is most interesting is that minister brought this bill before Parliament on June 5, 2017. Ironically, on June 9, 2017, a criminal court case in Ottawa dealt with the bill. It would seem that there was not a great deal of research done by the government on what that particular section of the code really meant. It is fair to say that section 176 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to obstruct or threaten a religious official, or to disrupt a religious service or ceremony. Section 176 is not unconstitutional, it has never been challenged in court, and it is not obsolete. Actually a number of individuals have been successfully prosecuted under it. Also, it is not redundant, as it is the only section of the Criminal Code that expressly protects the rights and freedoms of Canadians to practise their religion without fear or intimidation. Religious prejudice knows no borders and has no respect of persons. That is why I am glad that the government listened to the thousands of Canadians who signed petitions, wrote letters and emails, and made phone calls to MPs and the government to keep section 176 in the Criminal Code.

There was one other section of the code I did not agree with the government removing. That section has specific protection if someone attempts to attack the Queen. We all know this section is not used often. In fact, it has probably never been used. However, as state visits are rare, it should still remain in the code because it protects the person who represents the monarchy in Canada. It is still a very serious crime. Attempting to attack royalty, as Canada's head of state, is not the same as getting into a bar fight. The section is important and it has significant aspects.

I am pleased the government is no longer scrapping section 176. I am pleased with the clarification with respect to sexual assault. I am also pleased that a number of sections that are taking up space in the Criminal Code and no longer have any particular relevance are being removed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about changing the classification of an inmate. In my last intervention, I talked about the rule of law. One of the elements of the rule of law is that elected officials do not take part in those types of decisions. The justice system and the penitentiary system are independent of government.

During the previous government, McClintic was transferred from a maximum to medium-security prison. Could the member show me either in Hansard or in speeches he gave back home where he was just as angry about this type of thing? Why is it outrageous now, but was fully acceptable for the law and order government, which the Harper government purported to be? Why was it acceptable for that government to do it back then? Was it the rule of law then and the Conservatives did not interfere, but now for some reason a Liberal government can?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that member had heard my previous intervention on this whole issue, he would have heard me make it clear that it was not the government's fault she was moved. The fault comes in after the Liberals knew she had been moved.

The government has the ability to change the rules with respect to Correctional Service Canada. I give him full points that Correctional Service Canada makes those changes. I dare say the previous government did not know McClintic had been moved and I dare say that the current government did not know Rafferty had been moved.

Between McClintic and Rafferty, we heard from the government that changes had been made and these issues would not occur in the future. Ironically, Rafferty had already been moved. Perhaps Correctional Service Canada did not make the minister aware of that either, but that is where the problem comes in. The government has the right to make the rules, but it does not have the right to interpret them within the system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Oxford, who I have the privilege of serving with on justice committee, noted that in Bill C-51 the government initially sought to remove section 176 of the Criminal Code. This is the only section of the Criminal Code that protects religious officiants.

We have seen recently a significant spike in anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim vandalism and hate at churches, synagogues, mosques and community centres. In the face of this climate of hate in which persons of religious faith are targeted because of the fact they are practising their faith really speaks to how ill-timed and ill-thought out it was for the government to consider removing section 176.

Could the member speak a little more on that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that this legislation was poorly thought out.

When we heard members on the other side talk about all the research and all the things that went into the legislation, we would have to question why they would want to remove that section. We are hearing from every religious denomination about all the attacks on their properties and their persons. To remove that section just did not make sense. All of us heard loud and clear from our constituents how opposed they were to it.

As I pointed out, when the minister brought the bill in on June 5, 2017, there was already a court case going on in Ottawa at the same time. It had to be something the Liberals either completely missed or did not care about and they moved forward. However, this is a critical issue for many Canadians. As we see the increase in hate crimes with respect to religion, this is one where the push back obviously made the Liberals change their ways. It is appropriate the section is still there.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak tonight to Bill C-51. For those who are not aware, this bill is intended to clean up clauses in the law that are no longer useful or applicable and to strengthen some of the language.

First, Bill C-51 is another omnibus bill. The Prime Minister said that the Liberals would not have omnibus bills, but we continue to see them in the House day after day. I may have gotten used to the fact that the Prime Minister always breaks his promise. However, I want people to be aware of this so they understand, as we approach next year's election, that the Prime Minister does not keep his promises and if he makes new promises, Canadians can expect that behaviour to continue. The promises really are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, I object to this being an omnibus bill.

Usually when we think of justice bills, we think about what the government is trying to achieve in the country with respect to justice. Normally, we try to define what behaviour would be considered criminal, sentences that would be appropriate and commensurate with the crimes and that they are enforced in a timely way. However, I have to question what the justice minister is thinking with these pieces of legislation and actions that have been taken.

The government is in the fourth year of its mandate and what priority has the justice minister been giving time to? First, she has not put enough judges in place to keep murderers and rapists from going free because time has passed and the Jordan principle applies. That should have been a priority for the government, but clearly was not.

We heard earlier in the debate about how the government was pursuing veterans and indigenous people in court. That is obviously a priority for it, but one would think that other things would make the list. The Liberals prioritized the legalization of marijuana and the legalization of assisted suicide. Then it introduced Bill C-75, which took a number of serious crimes and reduced them to summary convictions of two years or a fine, things like forcible confinement of a minor, forced child marriage, belonging to a criminal organization, bribing an official and a lot of things like that. Those were the priorities of the government.

Then there is Bill C-83 regarding solitary confinement and impacts on 340 Canadians.

I am not sure what the priority of the government is when we consider the crime that has hit the streets. There is the increase in unlawful guns and gangs and huge issues with drug trafficking. I was just in Winnipeg and saw the meth addiction problem occupying the police and law enforcement there. I would have thought there would be other priorities.

If I think specifically about some of the measures in Bill C-51, the most egregious one to me is that the government tried to remove section 176, which protects religious officials and puts punishments in place for disrupting religious ceremonies.

Eighty-three churches in Sarnia—Lambton wrote letters and submitted petitions. There was an immediate outcry. It was nice that the government was eventually shamed into changing its mind and kept that section the way it was. However, why is there no moral compass with the government? We have had to shame it into doing the right thing many times, and this was one of them.

Terri-Lynne McClintic was moved to a healing lodge. I remember hearing the Minister of Public Safety talk day after day about how there was nothing he could do. I looked at section 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It says that the minister has full authority over his department. Eventually, of course, we shamed the government into the right thing. We heard today there may be a similar opportunity with Michael Rafferty, the other killer of Tori Stafford.

There is the Chris Garnier situation. He brutally murdered a police officer. He has PTSD and is getting veterans benefits when he was never a veteran. Again, we had to shame the government into taking action.

Then there was Statistics Canada. The government had a plan to allow it to take the personal financial transactional information of people's bank accounts and credit cards without their consent. Again, there was a total out-of-touch-with-Canadians response from the government, asking why it was a problem. Eventually, ruling by the polls, Canadians again shamed the government into changing its mind on that one.

Finally, there was the Canada summer jobs situation, which was very egregious to me. In my riding, numerous organizations were not able to access funding because of this values test that the government had put in place. The hospice, which delivers palliative care, was not even able to apply. It is under the Catholic diocese of Canada, which objected to the attestation. It has taken a very long time, but again, the government has been shamed into saying that the people are right and that maybe it will change it up for next year. Why does the government always have to be shamed into these things instead of having a moral compass to know what is right and what is not?

Bill C-51 would clean up a lot of things that were obviously a big priority for the government, like comic books causing crime. We know there have been huge issues about that in Canada. It would remove offences such as challenging someone to a dual. It would clean up the section on people fraudulently using witchcraft and sorcery. It would clean up a number of things. I do not object to it; I just do not see it as a priority when people are dying because of serious crimes.

Then there is the issue of sexual assault. The government spends a lot of word count talking about the fact that it cares about this. However, does it really care about sexual assault and strengthening the language on consent when it does not appoint enough judges to keep rapists from going free?

I was the chair of the status of women and we studied violence against women and girls. We know that one out of every thousand sexual assault cases actually goes to court and gets a conviction. If we want to talk about the sentences applied, they are measured in months and not years, when the victims struggle on forever.

Although there has been an attempt to make it clear what consent really means, there has been discussion in the debate today that it is still not clear. If people are interested to see what consent really means, there is a little video clip that can be googled. It is called Tea Consent. It is a very good way of demonstrating what consent is. I encourage everyone to take a look at that.

When it comes to the justice system and the priorities of the government, I cannot believe it has not addressed the more serious things facing our nation. We can think about what the justice minister ought to do, such as putting enough judges in place so we can have timely processing of events, and prioritize. If we do not have enough judges for the number of cases occurring, it is an indication of too much crime. However, it is also an opportunity to put the priority on processing murderers and rapists ahead of people being charged with petty crimes of less importance.

When it comes to looking at some of the actions the government should be taking going forward, it should be focusing on the issue of illegal gun activity happening right now. Ninety-five per cent of homicides is happening with unlawful guns or guns that are used unlawfully. There is a huge opportunity to do something about that. This should be a priority for the justice minister.

Our leader has put together a very cohesive plan that would reduce gun and gang violence. It is a great, well-thought out plan. I wish the Liberal government had some plan to try to do something to reduce crime in the country and to ensure that the people who commit crimes are actually held to account. I do not see that in Bill C-51. I have to wonder why it took so long to bring the bill forward.

As I said, the government is in the fourth year of its mandate and Bill C-39 would have made a lot of these fixes. It was introduced in March of 2017. Here we are at the end of 2018 and still none of this has gone through.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that she thought this was an omnibus bill. Everyone else in the House obviously disagrees with her because with an omnibus bill, the vote can be split, and no one requested to have the vote split. It only affects two acts: the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act.

Maybe the member could explain why she thinks this is an omnibus bill, as she is the only member in the House who thinks this.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am not the only one in the House who thinks it is an omnibus bill. Perhaps we are just so numb with the number of these that have come by. The most recent one was the 854-page budget bill, which was definitely an omnibus bill. We are so used to seeing them, and all of these things lumped together.

In this one, there are so many different issues that members have to look at many different parts of the Criminal Code in order to see them. This takes a lot of time, and of course we do not always get a lot of time because the government is continually doing time allocation to cut off the time for debate and study.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the issue with respect to section 176 was just an oversight. It was a mistake that was quickly rectified by the committee. I think we are all glad that it was. This underlines how important committee work is in fixing bills.

I want to move to the Senate amendments. Part of the issue that the Senate had with this bill was not so much with the definition of “consent”, but more with the definition of when no consent is obtained. I am thinking of a victim who is intoxicated voluntarily. We are unsure as to whether consent can be obtained. I am thinking of the Rehtaeh Parsons case. Rehtaeh Parsons was sexually assaulted while intoxicated, and the court acquitted the people who were charged.

The Senate is attempting to really add in more specific language to the Criminal Code so that we do not have judicial discretion. It is so that “no consent” is clearly laid out such that people have to be able to understand the nature, circumstances and risks and that they have a choice. They have to be able to “affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity”.

Could my colleague comment on those specific amendments the Senate is trying to make on this bill, and whether she agrees with the spirit and intent of the amendments?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we're definitely moving in the right direction with respect to defining “consent”, but when I still hear arguments back and forth that say it's still not clear, it sounds like we have not arrived at the exact answer.

If we can determine what makes a person mentally competent to give consent in the case of assisted dying, then we should be able to define consent for sexual activity. I do not think this definition is exactly where it needs to be, but I think it is moving in the right direction. We have to move away from the notion of people being unconscious. It has to be clear that if they are inebriated, they cannot give consent, and that people who have a mental challenge may not be able to give consent.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue on the omnibus bill discussion.

I gave a 10-minute speech explaining to the House the technicalities and how the orders have been changed so that they cannot be abused. With respect to the budget bill, the member mentioned that at 854 pages it was obviously an omnibus bill. It does not matter how long a budget implementation bill is. Obviously governments have to implement budgets, so they need legislation, which can be 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 pages long. As long as a bill implements what is in the budget, it can put in a number of things. Previously, there was a budget implementation bill that had a huge amount about the environment that was not in the budget, and that was abuse of the budget implementation bill.

This is to provide clarity so that members know what is abuse and what is not abuse with respect to budget bills and non-budget bills.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is asking the wrong question. The question really should be why the government does not keep its promises. Omnibus bills are one example. Liberals said they would not propose them and they have. He admitted that there are some out there.

Let us think about the other promises the government made but did not keep: the deficits that were going to be very small that are not, which are three times what they were supposed to be; the balancing of the budget within the mandate; and the restoration of home mail delivery. I could go on and on, but I can see that my time is up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will inform the member that there are only 12 minutes remaining in the time for debate on the motion before the House and I will interrupt him at 6:45 p.m.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for three plus years and this will be the last week for many of us in this beautiful building. I hope all 338 of us take the time to walk around each of the sections of this wonderful building and soak them in: the Railway Committee Room, the Reading Room, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons. This is one of the great institutions of our country. We all felt it coming to the House of Commons tonight, with the Christmas lights. We are so privileged, over 300 of us, to call this our home.

A good number of us will not be here when it reopens, whether it is in 12 years, 15 years, 20 years, whatever the case may be. Hopefully, we all take pictures. This is a great facility and such an honour. I had a distinguished 40-year career in broadcasting. The iconic curtains in the House of Commons have been here for so long. Come Wednesday or Thursday, we should treat this place like a basketball court, cut them down and each get a piece of the curtains.

I am here tonight to speak on Bill C-51. The stated purpose of this bill is to streamline the Criminal Code of Canada by removing certain provisions that no longer have any relevance in contemporary society. The Conservative Party is very supportive of Bill C-51 strengthening the provisions of the sexual assault legislation and has led the way for supporting victims of sexual assault by, among other things, Bill C-337 by my former Conservative colleague Rona Ambrose, which is one such measure.

Bill C-337 would make it mandatory, as we have heard in the House throughout the day, for judges to participate in sexual assault training and be aware of the challenges sexual assault victims face. The bill was designed to hold the Canadian judiciary responsible for the ongoing training of judges and the application of law in sexual assault trials. It would require that lawyers also receive training in sexual assault as a criterion of eligibility for a federally appointed judicial position. As members will recall, Bill C-337 was passed in the House of Commons and appears to be well on its way to royal assent in the Senate, although Ms. Ambrose, like the rest of us, is waiting patiently for the results.

Bill C-51 would expand the rape shield provisions to include communications of a sexual nature or communications for a sexual purpose. These provisions would provide that evidence of a complainant's prior sexual history cannot be used to support the inference that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in issue or that the complainant is less worthy of belief. The bill also provides that a complainant would have the right to legal representation in rape shield cases, which I believe is very important, but also creates a regime to determine whether an accused could introduce a complainant's private records at trial that would be in his or her possession. This would complement the existing regime governing the accused person's ability to obtain complainants' private records when those records would be in the hands of a third party.

There are some aspects of Bill C-51 that Conservatives were opposed to, such as the removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code, the section of the code that provides protection for religious services and those who perform religious services. It was absolutely ludicrous to remove this section of the Criminal Code when we have seen such a startling increase in attacks on mosques, synagogues and even churches as of late.

It should be noted that, according to Statistics Canada, over one-third of reported hate crimes in this country are motivated by hatred of religion, and removing section 176 would remove valuable protection for our faith leaders in this country.

I received many calls in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood over the removal of this section from the Criminal Code. This was brought up on June 5 here in the House, and a couple of weeks later when we recessed for the summer, I had many phone calls in my office in Saskatoon. I remember one phone call came from Pastor Eldon Boldt of Circle Drive Alliance Church. He was terribly concerned by this and was going to start a petition. He wanted the current government to know that this was wrong. He was concerned not only for his own well-being but for other religious leaders across the country.

In Quebec City, we had six people killed in a mosque attack. Our Conservative caucus at the time of that attack was just leaving Quebec City and returning to Ottawa. Also, 26 people were killed at the First Baptist Church in Texas. This is just a short list of what has gone on in this world.

Our religious freedoms are protected, and section 176 of the Criminal Code is certainly part of that protection. Religious freedoms are fundamental to all Canadians, and Conservatives are clearly proud to be among the first to stand and support religious freedoms of all faith.

I should add some words from the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, Canada's prime minister from 1958 to 1962, who hails from my province of Saskatchewan, in fact, Prince Albert. He said:

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.

If members come to my city of Saskatoon, I will take them to the Diefenbaker Centre where these words are etched onto the wall. It is very important, and these are great words from former prime minister John G. Diefenbaker.

There was a large public outcry against this amendment, and, thankfully, the Liberal members of the justice committee listened to all Canadians and voted to keep section 176 of the Criminal Code.

To summarize, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-51, which covers a broad range of amendments to the Criminal Code. Our current Prime Minister, of course, talked about omnibus bills being undemocratic. We talked about this in the House. I remember door-knocking back in 2015 as our former Conservative government was blamed, and maybe rightfully so at times, for the omnibus bills created in the House from 2011 to 2015. However, we see now that the bill before us, introduced by the current government, could also be considered an omnibus bill, because it has so many sections to the Criminal Code that we are dealing with. It is a promise, actually a pattern of promises, not kept by the Liberal government.

However, there are some amendments to the Criminal Code addressed in Bill C-51 that are quite necessary and really common sense. For example, we fully support all changes in the bill that clarify and even strengthen the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. These changes would help support all victims of sexual assault crimes.

Conservatives have always stood up for the rights of victims in this country. We have a proud record of introducing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the passing of Bill C-337, which would make it mandatory for all judges to participate in sexual assault training. Both of these actions are in support of victims. Sometimes we forget all too much about the victims in this country, and they certainly need to be supported.

I think the Conservative Party has supported victims very well in the past number of decades.

Additionally, we support repealing or amending sections of the code that have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. The removal of obsolete or even redundant provisions makes common sense. There is really no need for provisions about witchcraft or duelling in the streets. They are just not part of today's society.

However, an area of this bill which caused great concern for all Canadians was the government's removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code. We have talked about that. Thanks to the work of an effective opposition on this side, and the voices of all Canadians who spoke up in the summer of 2017 to challenge the government, the Liberals have decided to back down from these changes.

That just about wraps up my time. I just want to wish everyone who is in the House and who is watching the House of Commons on CPAC tonight all the best in the holiday season. As this could be the final time that I rise in 2018, I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-51 now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #977

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, December 6, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 26. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.