Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 265 by the hon. member for Yukon would establish a legislative committee to prepare a bill abolishing the defence of provocation as contained in section 232 of the Criminal Code.
The hon. member presented quite a case and I commend her for paying homage to the reason she brought forth the motion in the House. The Minister of Justice knows the case very well.
While the minister has indicated that reforming the law of provocation is one of her priorities, she cannot support this motion at this time.
Last June, the minister initiated public consultation on the subject by publishing a consultation document. In our opinion, it would be premature to strike a legislative committee while the Department of Justice is still studying public responses on means of defence based on provocation.
The law respecting provocation is complex and admittedly controversial. I think the hon. member referred to that in her own remarks. The defence of provocation is a partial and limited defence and I want to stress that. It applies only to a charge of murder.
Section 232 of the Criminal Code provides that a charge of murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the offence was committed by a person in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. Furthermore, the provocation must be caused by a wrongful act or insult that would be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control and it must also be shown that the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.
If the defence is successful, it does not result in acquittal. Instead it results in the accused being convicted of the crime of manslaughter which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Historically, the defence of provocation has been of very limited application; it was used by men defending their honour during an unpremeditated confrontation, or when their wife had committed adultery.
Nowadays, the defence of provocation is justified by the fact that the law must be tolerant toward human frailty, when a person is subject to a provocation that exceeds his ability to control himself.
Some recent cases which received significant media attention have given rise to concerns over the application of the defence of provocation. Some have suggested that the criminal law in this area condones violent behaviour by men against women and excuses extreme violence provoked by insults or injury relating to a person's sexuality or masculinity.
The Minister of Justice is well aware of these cases and of the growing public criticism of the legal rules that govern provocation, and she is taking a very serious look at these issues.
A number of groups and individuals, including the former Law Reform Commission of Canada, have drawn our attention to related issues and have asked that we restrict the use of that legal defence.
The criticism primarily has to do with the fact that the historical origins of this defence still form the basis for its use before the courts, and that current rules may not reflect modern values and ideals.
At the same time it must be stated that support for the abolition of provocation is not universal at this time. Other groups have recommended expansion of the defence, such as the Canadian Bar Association, on the basis that human frailty should be recognized by criminal law.
It is clear that there is a great deal of disagreement over the proper scope of the defence of provocation in modern Canadian society. Any move toward limiting this defence must be done carefully and with due consideration of all the options and the potential consequences of each of these actions.
As I mentioned, the Department of Justice is following up on the requests for a reform and on the change in the public's perception of the law on provocation, and it has conducted a careful review of the issues and various options for reform.
The Minister of Justice also met with provincial and territorial justice ministers to discuss this specific issue, and the federal and provincial justice officials are working together to determine the feasibility of the various options for reform.
In an effort to better understand how Canadians feel about this issue, the Department of Justice released a discussion paper in the summer of 1998 which formed the basis of public consultations. I am glad to hear that the hon. member also did a consultation in her own riding. The department is currently reviewing responses submitted by individuals and interested groups.
The minister is committed to ensuring that the law reflects modern values and works fairly for all Canadians. The law on provocation is very complex, as I said earlier, and is also tied to other areas of criminal law, in particular to the law of self-defence, adding further complexity to the task of reforming Criminal Code defences and again highlighting the need for an in-depth study before making changes.
In my opinion, the hon. member's motion to abolish the legal defence of provocation is premature.
Reforming the law on provocation is important, as I said earlier, to the Minister of Justice. She has taken the steps necessary at this time to ensure that any amendments will reflect and respond to the views and values of Canadians. Consultations have been done. We have finished the consultations and we are reviewing what options we will take.