Debates of Dec. 11th, 2017

The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, be read the third time and passed.

Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this morning to rise to speak to Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

Confederation is an important event for Canadians, but especially for Conservatives, since two Conservatives, Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, and George-Étienne Cartier, a minister and Quebec lieutenant, were involved in making sure that this country came together.

Sir John A. Macdonald, as our first prime minister, was at the Charlottetown Conference that took place between September 1 and 7 of 1864. It changed the course of Canadian, North American, and world history.

What would Canada be if not for John A. Macdonald, a man with a vision of a Canada from coast to coast, and of delegates in Charlottetown, recognizing that we would be stronger together? How would the manifest destiny so loudly proclaimed by our southern neighbours have turned out? They had tried invasion once before, only to be foiled by a combination of British redcoats, English and French-speaking Canadian militia, and loyal indigenous warriors, who worked together to bravely keep the invading Americans at bay.

We managed in that campaign to occupy Detroit and burn down half of the White House, but that is another story.

While we had repelled the Americans once before, many here in British North America at that time were very worried about a potentially victorious Union army turning its Civil War guns north and taking our territory. They had already taken a good chunk of Mexico only 20 years earlier.

Many of our early leaders thought we would be stronger together than we would be apart, and they were most certainly correct. We cannot say for sure if Confederation kept the Americans from launching a second invasion, but it certainly did not hurt.

Since Confederation, what about the contributions that Canadians have made to the world, in sports, medicine, industry, science, and our brave contributions to numerous wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations, where Canadians have always punched above their weight? These contributions were certainly aided by an optimistic and forward-looking country that continues to defy the odds. If Canada did not form as one, and each region of our nation was its own entity, would different parts of Canada have the same voice internationally as our united Canada has had throughout our history? I would say, likely not.

We would not be in the G7. We would not have the same sporting record, particularly Team Canada, women and men on the international stage. We would not have the enviable list of inventors, like Sir Frederick Banting, who is from my riding of Simcoe—Grey. We would not have come together in that meeting. We would not have had that opportunity in Charlottetown in 1864.

Charlottetown was in many ways the ideal location for such a conference. It was not involved in the daily tug-of-war among the provinces of Canada, nor the larger Maritime partners of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Charlottetown and Prince Edward Island were a neutral ground, where all players could speak freely.

At that conference, the delegates from the regions that now represent Quebec and Ontario were not even invited to begin with. The original conference was to discuss a maritime union between New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. When the Province of Canada heard about the conference, members invited themselves. It was an invitation to pitch a full union between the Maritimes and the Province of Canada. While welcome, their arrival did not stir much excitement, and why was that? Quite literally, it was because a circus had come to Charlottetown for the first time in 20 years, and the whole town was occupied with those sights and sounds, not something else.

Having been recently at my own party's leadership convention, which was held right beside an anime convention, I have a pretty good idea of what was going on in Charlottetown that day.

Despite the lacklustre start, meetings proceeded over the next few days with great success. What was even more successful were the relationships forged between individuals from across our then fledgling country. I am sure that the welcoming and friendly atmosphere, still present today, had something to do with building those friendships in Charlottetown.

I am also quite certain that the boatload of champagne, that today would cost about $200,000, contributed just a tad to making sure that people got along. That is Charlottetown.

Each time I have visited, I have felt the warmth of its presence. In fact, I and my family, this past February, learned of our own family farmstead, the Conway farmstead on Prince Edward Island. Charlottetown is friendly. Friendships are easily made. Charlottetown stays in one's memory.

There is no place in Canada that I could think would have been a better place to host the leaders of the Maritimes and the provinces of Canada. It certainly worked. Charlottetown, aided by a bit of champagne, charmed the delegates into unanimous support of the creation of a united Canada, based on the values we hold dear today. There were a number of steps afterward that led to the creation of Canada and what we would be known to become on the international stage. Quebec, a month later, nailed down the final details, then meetings in all the colonies to approve the union, and then finally in London in 1866, there was the approval of Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Charlottetown is where it started and, for this, I am happy to say that Charlottetown is the birthplace of Confederation. It is also why I am happy to support this bill.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill S-236 that was introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Malpeque. It was interesting to listen to my colleague, the opposition member, speak about the recognition that indeed Charlottetown is birthplace of Confederation and of this wonderful country we call Canada.

Why I want to speak in support of the bill today is because my political career began in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island. I will be the only member voting in support of this piece of legislation who has sat in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, with the hope that the House will recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of this wonderful country. In that, I have a great deal of honour in having sat in that assembly and now being in the House of Commons when this bill is being debated.

The history of how the meeting came about has been well documented. It was a meeting organized by maritime colonies to consider a union among the colonies. The Upper Canadian colonies invited themselves, literally, to attend the conference. From that, it is documented in history that, through that conference, a shared vision was created of a union of the British North American colonies and the creation of this new country.

When we look at Canada today as being a beacon in the world for people fleeing oppression, war, and various other atrocities occurring across the world, we can look at the creation of this country. What I am particularly proud of, as a parliamentarian sitting today in the House of Commons, is the diversity of the backgrounds of the people sitting in the House of Commons representing this country.

In my own case, on my father's side, my ancestry is Irish. We all know that the Irish fled Ireland during the Great Famine to come to a new world for new opportunities, and they found it in Canada, on Prince Edward Island. On my mother's side, my ancestry is French Acadian. My ancestors fled Grand-Pré in Nova Scotia. They were fleeing strife and war, and found a welcoming environment in Prince Edward Island. To this day, this country still reaches out to people fleeing oppression, war, and a number of atrocities across the world. That is what Canada is all about, and that is why I am proud to be a parliamentarian standing for those freedoms and rights.

We cannot forget that it was the indigenous people who welcomed us. Regardless of our cultural backgrounds, they welcomed us here. It was the Mi'kmaq of Prince Edward Island who welcomed the Acadians as they were being expelled by the British from Grand-Pré in Nova Scotia. They also welcomed the Irish who were forced to flee Ireland due to famine.

Today, having the opportunity to speak in support of Bill S-236 that would recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, is indeed an honour for me, as I indicated, having served in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island for 18 years. I can recall the first time that I took my seat in that legislative assembly. I looked around and, although small, I recognized the history of that chamber.

From that meeting, in that chamber, this wonderful country, this great nation called Canada, came about. We it owe our forefathers, who had the vision at that time, to recognize that we had to overcome a number of obstacles and disagreements to come up with a shared vision. That shared vision continues. It is debated from time to time, and each new Parliament adds dimension to that vision as Canada evolves as a nation on the world stage.

From where we are today, it all began in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. That is why I am pleased to speak in the House of Commons here today, now as a member of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, in support of Bill S-236 that will recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to support the bill before us.

I do so with considerable pride. As I join my colleagues who represent the great people of Prince Edward Island, I do so as a proud native of the city of Charlottetown and a proud son of Prince Edward Island.

The fact is that this bill, as necessary as it has now become, is really just a statement of historical fact. In 1864, the Fathers of Confederation came together on Great George Street in Charlottetown to lay the foundation and lay the principles of what has, today, become a great nation. The people of Charlottetown and the people of Prince Edward Island, throughout my lifetime and before, have always celebrated the fact, with great pride and distinction, that it is there, in Prince Edward Island, that this country was born, that those who have founded this great country have put the principles and the compromises in place that make Canada what it is today.

Very briefly, as a son of Prince Edward Island, I want to add my voice and my support, and my thanks to my colleagues from Prince Edward Island, to the member for Malpeque, and to the member for Egmont, both of whom I have known for many decades, and all of the great people of Prince Edward Island. I express with considerable pride and with consideration passion my support for the bill before this House.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, this is the moment we have been waiting for, and I will conclude with many thanks to all colleagues who have contributed to the debate and discussion of Bill S-236, an act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation, including especially those who took the time during third reading to express their vision for Canada's future.

I want to quote a member from each of the parties. The member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, with the official opposition, said:

This bill gives us the wonderful opportunity to remember and honour our national history, to recall the humble beginnings and soaring dreams of the first of our leaders, who dreamed of a united Canada.

I cannot think of a better way or better time for us to celebrate our accomplishments, both at home and around the world, than by passing a bill like this in our sesquicentennial year.

The member for Victoria, with the third party, said:

Being proud of a country's heritage and commemorating important historical events is worthwhile for most countries, but I think it is especially so for Canada. We should feel proud of our accomplishments. We are a country comprising remarkably diverse regions and remarkably diverse people.

As Canada moves forward to the next 150 years of nationhood, I hope we can strive to be more inclusive of other voices and cultural narratives so that they might also be celebrated and acknowledged.

The member for Charlottetown said:

As we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, we can see the evolution of our country, our democracy, and our values. Our very roots, as evidenced by what took place in Charlottetown, were not about conflict or war: They were about finding mutual ground and working out our differences.

Those three quotes, from different parties in this House, sum up to a great extent what Canada is all about. The passing of this bill means a great deal to Prince Edward Island and to our provincial legislature, which passed an unanimous motion encouraging the support of parliamentarians, and to the Atlantic region as we share and develop the Confederation story. For Canada, this has been a chance to recognize and honour Confederation, and reflect on important ways in which we must work to shape the future of our country.

To close, it is the character of Canada, that vision founded in 1864, some of the things coming out of that meeting, that we are a country that works by negotiation. We are seen on the world stage in that light as well. It is that idea of coming together in common cause that has shaped our history since its founding.

The Charlottetown Conference certainly may be viewed as the watershed moment in the story of Confederation, the point at which Confederation turned from idea into prospect. This is what Bill S-236 is all about, recognition of Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

My colleagues and I humbly ask for this House's support in this year of Canada's 150 celebration. It seems quite appropriate to do it at this time. Simply put, I ask the House to get it done and pass Bill S-236.

[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]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Suspension of Sitting

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Accordingly, the House is now suspended until 12 noon.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:26 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no motions at report stage of the bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

When shall the bill be read a third time? Be leave now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

moved that the bill be read the time the third time and passed.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, our government was proud to introduce Bill C-51 on June 6, 2017. That day marked an important milestone in our ongoing efforts to make the criminal law fairer, clearer, more relevant, accessible, and compassionate.

Since that time, Bill C-51 has been the subject of extensive and compelling debate both at the second reading stage and during its study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I want to offer my thanks to the many members who have participated in these debates and to members of the standing committee in particular, whose deliberations strengthened Bill C-51 through amendments that seek to further the objectives we identified when we introduced this important legislation.

I would also like to extend my great appreciation to the many witnesses who took the time to examine the bill and appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Although I may not agree with all the points that were made by the witnesses who spoke to this bill, I fully recognize the importance of their contributions because they have allowed Parliament to have a rich and thorough discussion on the bill.

I now want to walk through the changes included in Bill C-51. These have received broad support in this House, at committee, and among key stakeholders.

Bill C-51 seeks to address sexual assault, an issue that could scarcely be more relevant, given the present Canadian and international discourse on this important subject. Survivors of sexual assault and other forms of sexual misconduct are standing up and speaking out as never before. I am proud to say that our government stands behind survivors and that we are adding our voice to theirs by bringing change on numerous fronts, including the reforms set out in Bill C-51.

The bill proposes amendments that build upon an already robust legal framework that has been consistently regarded as one of the best sexual assault regimes in the world. However, despite its explicit acknowledgement that outdated myths about a victim's sexual history should have no bearing on whether she should be believed, and despite the clear rules about when consent is or is not valid in law, challenges remain.

What are those challenges? We know that sexual assaults continue to occur far too often in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, there were approximately 21,000 police-reported sexual assaults in Canada in 2016. That is an average of 57 sexual assaults every day in Canada. That number is staggering, but when, according to the general survey on victimization, only five per cent of sexual assaults experienced by Canadians over 15 are reported to the police, the likely number of actual sexual assaults that occur every day in Canada becomes unfathomable and could well be over 1,000 incidents every day. When thinking about those numbers and the fact that so many cases of sexual assault go unreported, we must think about what we can do to not only reduce the incidence of sexual assault in Canada but ensure that more victims, and let us be clear that this is a gender-based crime that disproportionately targets women and girls, feel encouraged to come forward to report their experiences to the police and to law enforcement.

One way we can, at the federal level, help encourage women to come forward is through law reform that increases the likelihood that our laws will be applied as they were intended, and in so doing, reduce the potential for unnecessary distress experienced by victims who participate in the criminal justice process. That is what Bill C-51 proposes to do. As introduced, it would make important changes to clarify the law, including by making clear that consent must be affirmatively expressed by words or actively expressed through conduct. This principle would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 Ewanchuk decision and make clear that there is no consent unless the complainant said yes through words or through conduct. Passivity is not consent.

We have also codified the principle set down by the court in its 2011 decision in R. v. J.A., where the court held that a person cannot consent in advance to sexual activity that occurs while they are unconscious.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard a number of witnesses on this particular amendment. Some witnesses expressed their support for this codification, but others argued that it did not entirely or accurately codify the court's findings in R. v. J.A. Those witnesses argued that J.A. stands for a broader proposition. They noted that the court held that our consent law requires ongoing conscious consent and that partners have to be capable of asking their partners to stop at any point. Our government was listening carefully to witnesses and members, and we are pleased to support the committee's amendment to Bill C-51 that would codify this broader principle from J.A. Doing so is in keeping with the objectives of the bill, including to ensure that the Criminal Code is clear and reflects the law as applied by the courts.

Bill C-51's proposed sexual assault reforms do more, however, than simply codify key Supreme Court decisions. They will also create a new regime governing the admissibility of evidence in the hands of an accused person, where that evidence is a complainant’s private record. At its core, this regime is anchored in the following key principles.

First, it respects the fair trial rights of the accused in that it does not prevent relevant evidence from being used in court. The Supreme Court has already recognized that an accused's right to full answer and defence does not include a right to defence by ambush.

Second, it acknowledges the privacy interests of a complainant. While privacy interests do not trump all else, the regime seeks to acknowledge that victims of sexual assault and other related crime, even when participating in a trial, have a right to have their privacy considered and respected to the greatest extent possibly.

Finally, the regime seeks to facilitate the truth-seeking function of the courts by ensuring that evidence that is clearly irrelevant to an issue at trial is not put before the courts, with its potential to obfuscate and distract the trier of fact.

These are important changes and ones that have been called for by Parliament. In their 2012 report on the third-party-records regime in sexual assault proceedings, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended the enactment of a regime governing the admissibility of a complainant's private records in the hands of an accused. I am pleased that we are doing so as part of Bill C-51.

The second major aspect of Bill C-51 is its proposal to clean up the Criminal Code by removing offences that are no longer relevant because they address conduct that is not inherently blameworthy, because the criminal law should not be used to target such conduct, or because the conduct is addressed by other offences of general application.

To be clear, a foundational principle upon which our criminal law is based is that of restraint. This means that we, as parliamentarians, should ensure that criminal offences, with all the attendant stigma and consequences associated with being called a criminal, are only used to address conduct that cannot or should not be addressed through other mechanisms. Bill C-51 would reflect this principle by removing offences such as the prohibition on advertising the return of stolen property “no questions asked”, a provision under section 143; making crime comics; challenging someone to a duel; and impersonating someone during a university exam.

I am confident that removing these offences will have no adverse consequences and will help make our criminal law more reflective of the values Canadians hold dear in 2017.

Bill C-51 would make other important changes to remove offences that are no longer pertinent in today's society. One such example is the removal of the offence of blasphemous libel under, currently, section 296. This old offence, with its English origins in the 1600s, has as its purpose the suppression of criticism directed at God, the king, and government. Such an offence is a historical holdover and has no place in a liberal democracy, where freedom of expression is enshrined as a constitutionally protected right. In so removing this offence, we would follow the example of the United Kingdom, which repealed its analogous offence almost a decade ago, in 2008.

During the committee proceedings on Bill C-51, we heard testimony from the Centre for Free Expression that we should go further and that in addition to repealing blasphemous libel, our government should be repealing the offences targeting seditious and defamatory libel as well. Although such amendments would have been outside the scope of the bill, these are interesting suggestions, and they do indeed warrant further discussion.

I know, for example, that England abolished its seditious libel offences in 2009. I also know that there are divergent opinions on whether defamatory libel should be criminal. We have all benefited from the discussion on these proposals, and our government will take them under advisement as we continue to examine ways to make our criminal law and criminal justice system more reflective and responsive to the realities of Canada today

Before moving on, let me talk briefly about the amendment made by the standing committee to Bill C-51, which is supported by our government, that seeks to retain section 176, the offence of interfering with religious services. As the minister said when she appeared before the committee to discuss the bill, the repeal of section 176 would, in fact, not leave a gap in the criminal law's ability to meaningfully respond to the conduct captured by this offence. She also said that its removal would not in any way undermine the ability of Canadians to practice their faith freely and free from violence. Both statements remain true today.

At the same time, we appreciate and acknowledge that for many stakeholders, the removal of the offence would send the wrong message and that in an era when xenophobia and religious intolerance are all too frequent, Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that its actions do not, directly or indirectly, provide opportunities for the promotion of such intolerance.

Our government was listening carefully to members of the religious community, and I am pleased to say that we will support not only the retention of section 176 but an expansion of that section to ensure maximum inclusivity.

By way of conclusion on this point, I would note that intolerance of any kind is simply unacceptable, and I know that the vast majority of Canadians, even when they may not share the same religious convictions as their neighbours, will conduct themselves in a manner that is respectful and welcoming. Intolerance that leads to threats or violence must be swiftly addressed by the police, and I know that the criminal law provides them with a broad range of tools to effectively respond to such conduct.

Bill C-51 also reflects our government's unwavering commitment to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does so in a number of ways. First, Bill C-51 proposes to amend provisions that have been found unconstitutional by our courts.

In this vein, Bill C-51 builds on the work we started with Bill C-39, which we introduced on March 8, 2017. Bill C-39 repeals provisions found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the prohibition against anal intercourse that has been found unconstitutional by numerous courts of appeal.

Bill C-51 seeks to repeal provisions found unconstitutional by appeal courts, and in some cases trial courts, in circumstances where there can be little doubt as to their unconstitutionality. For example, Bill C-51 seeks to repeal the rule that prevents judges from giving enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody for offenders who were detained due to a bail breach. This rule has been found unconstitutional by the Manitoba Court of Appeal and creates a situation where similarly situated offenders can receive substantially different credit for pre-sentence custody, which can undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-51 also proposes to amend a number of provisions that could result in an accused's being convicted for an offence, even though they raised a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Such an outcome is at odds with the most basic rules and fundamental principles upon which our criminal law is based, not to mention our charter rights.

These changes are important, and we are not waiting for costly unnecessary charter litigation to tell us that these rules are unconstitutional. Making these changes would ensure that our criminal justice system is more efficient and continues to hold offenders to account while reinforcing the fundamental principle that it is the state that bears the responsibility of proving offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our respect for the charter is also evident in the changes we are proposing to the Department of Justice Act. Although these changes have not been the subject of significant debate or commentary, a number of witnesses who testified before the justice committee welcomed this innovation in our law.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-51 will require our government, and all future governments, to table in Parliament a statement outlining the potential charter effects of all government legislation. The Minister of Justice has been doing this already as a matter of practice, but with Bill C-51, it will become an obligation.

These charter statements provide information to Parliament, stakeholders, and the public writ large about the charter rights and freedoms that are potentially engaged by a bill and set out how they may be engaged.

In the charter statement for Bill C-51, for example, the sexual assault reforms are discussed and an explanation is provided on how they interact with an accused's section 7 right to life, liberty, and security of the person. The charter statement further notes how a failure to remove unconstitutional laws can undermine the rule of law, create confusion, and make our Criminal Code less accessible.

I am proud of these reforms and believe that charter statements will quickly become a critical resource for justice system participants, parliamentarians, and members of the public who are interested in learning more about how our laws may engage the charter.

Let me conclude by again thanking all members for their excellent deliberations on Bill C-51. The widespread support it has received is testament to its importance and the need to move forward with these changes. I look forward to continuing to follow Bill C-51's passage through Parliament, and will continue to work diligently to bring forward the kinds of changes needed to address the most pressing challenges facing our criminal justice system today.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which demonstrates the breadth and scope of the issues being addressed in Bill C-51. One of the issues he addressed had to do with the modification of language around consent to clarify exactly that means in an effort to codify some of the jurisprudence on the issue in the law.

I got to sit in briefly at some of the committee meetings dealing with Bill C-51, and stakeholders expressed a lot of concern, not about the language of unconsciousness itself and the inability to provide consent while unconscious, but the fact that it might be interpreted or argued by some that the emphasis on unconsciousness might rule out some of the other very real barriers to providing consent that are seen to be protected under the law. Our party and the Green Party both suggested amendments that might help allay some of those concerns. They were defeated.

The hon. member mentioned that some amendments were accepted. Did the governing party accept amendments on that particular issue, and if so, how did they address those concerns specifically?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very thoughtful and articulate question.

I agree with him that Bill C-51, in the section that deals with reforming sexual laws, is precisely about clarifying the law. It is about ensuring that we are sensitive to the long-held and inappropriately held myths when it comes to those victims and survivors who have the courage to step forward. By passing this law, we will be reducing the systemic barriers, which for far too long have afflicted the criminal justice system and prevented women and girls from stepping forward.

With respect to the rape shield laws, I want to assure my hon. colleague that all of the amendments were carefully debated at committee. We are grateful to the committee for all of its work and for bringing forward those amendments, which have been adopted by the government. The rape shield provisions are tested in the law. They are about clarifying when consent has been lawfully provided and when it has not. I am encouraged that this bill will ensure more certainty and more clarity on this important subject.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thorough and thought-out remarks.

Many people in my riding of Whitby, and I am sure in my colleague's riding of Edmonton, and across the country were very much seized with the #MeToo campaign and the notion that women have come forward, but that a number of their complaints have either not been followed through or the women have not received the adequate justice they need.

Could my hon. colleague explain to my constituents, as well as his, and to all Canadians how this piece of legislation and the amendments brought forward could strengthen our current legislation and allow women to feel they will have justice at the end of the day?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of working with my colleague very closely on this important file. In fact she joined me very recently in my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence where we talked about criminal justice reform.

To answer the member's question, this bill will enable and empower women and survivors to step forward in a number of important ways. Number one, it will clarify our sexual assaults laws. It is very important that women know that they have the support they need from law enforcement, from our laws, from all stakeholders in the criminal justice system. It will do that.

It will clarify the laws around consent. It will ensure that an accused who is charged with this crime will not be able to rely on evidence of propensity, which is far too prejudicial and which we know far too often depends on old, outdated myths and stigmas. Bill C-51 is all about reducing those systemic barriers.

I want to applaud my hon. colleague for all the work she does in supporting women and survivors on this important file.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on that very same question, because in Muskoka and Parry Sound, the number of so-called dropped cases has been amongst the highest in the nation. We have been working very closely with the OPP in Muskoka and Parry Sound, based on a Swedish model, where there is accountability, transparency, proper training, and a respect for the victims who have come forward.

Would the hon. member agree that it is that kind of holistic solution, not only in legislation but also with the police services working with the community generally and those who deal specifically with sexual assault cases, that can bring these issues to better justice?