Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enter into the public debate on Bill C-41. I was just having a private debate with one of the government members on the controversial section 718.2.
There are some good points in this bill as well as the bad ones. The emphasis has been on section 718.2 regarding the phrase of sexual orientation. I wish to go on the record as being totally and absolutely opposed to the point that we would introduce that phrase and give the protection under the Criminal Code.
I may be wrong but I think this is the first time the House has given to people the protection of sexual orientation which is totally undefined, whatever their sexual orientation may be and however repulsive that may be to a large number of people. They will now be protected under the Criminal Code.
If we go back to the charter of rights and freedoms that was passed in 1980 at that time the House specifically said that sexual orientation shall be left out. Then we found that the courts have introduced it. They said it shall be read in. I wonder who gave them the power to read it in when this House said it shall not be in there.
Thousands and thousands of petitions have been presented in this House and the government has not listened to any one of them. There is an article in today's Ottawa Sun regarding some members of the Reform Party who delivered to Parliament in a wheelbarrow thousands and thousands of letters objecting to the term sexual orientation. Not one of them was listened to by this government.
I do hope government members took note of what happened in this province last Thursday when the government was thrown out for not listening to the people. A new government was introduced which promised some serious policy, not only in balanced budgets but also in social reform.
Most unfortunately, perhaps the Liberals will pay more attention to that than the tens of thousands of Canadians who have registered their strong disapproval to this clause. It has identified certain segments of society and has given them special protection. That special protection is not available to anybody else. We pride ourselves as Canadians for being fair, treating everybody equally, that no one is better or worse than anybody else.
Yet because of a person's sexual orientation, which is undefined and may be reprehensible and disgusting, that person is not only protected but we are also going to mete out a more severe punishment to people who are victims within those groups than those who are victims of a group not mentioned in the section. That is why I find it repulsive. It is not only the fact that sexual orientation is in here which I find repulsive, but also the fact that a few Canadians have been identified and are being told that they are entitled to special treatment but nobody else is. All of us are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law but we now find that is not the case.
I fully expect the citizens of Canada will remember this at the next election. They will ask MPs how they voted on June 14, 1995 on Bill C-41 when this type of amendment to the Criminal Code was introduced for the first time. I am fairly sure a large number of people who voted Liberal last time will not be voting Liberal the next time based on the fact that the Liberals have totally ignored the wishes of Canadians and have pushed this through much against their will.
Moving on to other sections, section 745.1 deals with people under the age of 18. Because we have focused on section 718.2 we have not talked about the other sections. Section 745.1 deals with the sentencing of people under the age of 18 convicted of first degree murder and second degree murder who shall be eligible for parole between five and ten years.
No more than 10 years shall the person spend in jail if he or she commits a murder in this country while under the age of 18. No more. What is the value of human life when we let our young people run through the streets committing murder and violent crime and we say the maximum is 10 years in jail for the crime?
There is a trial going on at this very moment which has despicable and heinous videotapes of the most repulsive crimes that perhaps have ever been committed in this country. Had these people been under the age of 18, the sentence would have been no more than 10 years in jail.
Where is this country going when it comes to criminal justice? Canadians from coast to coast are saying that they want safer streets and safer communities. And we turn around and pat those criminals on the head saying: "Do not do it any more. Perhaps you should know better".
It is time we got tough on crime, time that we told criminals we do not want to see them back in court again. The sentence should be appropriate. It should give them the message that we are serious about being serious on crime.
Section 717 regarding alternative measures and sentencing allows more appropriate sentencing. A couple of weeks ago we heard that a court in Saskatchewan banished a native for one year to live in isolation because he raped and humiliated someone. That is not sufficient.
If we are going to give the courts the right to alternative measures then we should have some real serious messages built into the system that the punishment must fit the crime. To banish someone to the wilderness who is perfectly capable and acquainted with living in the wilderness is basically to tell him to go home for a year and stay there. When this country is totally and absolutely fed up with violence against women and everybody, we find that a sentence like that is repulsive.
We already have a private member's bill to try to repeal section 745.6. That is the open door for people who are sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 15 years. It used to be the faint last hope and now we find it is the open door to get back on the street. That also has to be closed.
I have one final point, on section 722. We have to applaud that one, because it now gives victims the right to be heard in court. We must say that is an advancement, because victims need to be heard. We need to hear the pain they have suffered. It is time that criminals realized they are destroying our society and society is going to speak back and hit back to ensure that criminals get the message once and for all that we have had enough with crime and criminals. We want to do what we can through tougher sentencing and tougher laws to ensure that crime statistics start going down rather than up.
I could speak all day on this particular subject, but I think I have put my point across. There are five bad points and one good point in this bill. Therefore, I think Reform and everybody else in this country wants this bill defeated.