Debates of Dec. 11th, 2017

Criminal Code

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes I go back to three pieces of information if I ever want a giggle or two. First is the real change policy announced by the Prime Minister prior to the previous election; the second piece I get the giggle from is the Speech from the Throne; and the third one oftentimes is the ministerial mandate letters.

The hon. member brought up the issue of omnibus bills. By my count, this is at least the fourth omnibus bill we have seen. If we go back to the Liberal platform in 2015, the Liberals said they would change the House of Commons' Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic process, and yet here we are with another omnibus bill proposed by the Liberal government. It shows complete hypocrisy. Does the hon. member agree with that assessment?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very wise and thoughtful question by our deputy whip. I am always happy to pay compliments to my colleagues, but especially the deputy whip. It certainly is in my interest to do so.

Anyways, he is exactly right that the government is continually putting forward omnibus bills that are in direct violation of its election commitments. It should not be difficult to recognize that in some cases, it makes sense to have different elements in bills. Indeed, there are some cases where one can make an argument for that. However, the government is stretching any kind of reasonableness test. In any event, it is certainly going far beyond the commitments it made during the election.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Niagara Centre.

Bill C-51 deals with certain revisions to our Criminal Code that would impact our charter. These are two extraordinarily important laws in our country that have a direct impact on the lives of Canadians. Like anything worth keeping, they require maintenance over time, so to speak. Bill C-51 would perform some of that much-needed maintenance.

The bill attempts to do three main categories of things. First and most important, in my opinion, it would provide much-needed clarity on the concept of consent when it comes to the criminal law with respect to sexual assault. It would also address certain zombie laws, as I have heard them referred to previously, that have been deemed unconstitutional by our nation's highest court or have become obsolete because of the social context in which we find our country today. Finally, it would require the justice minister to introduce a charter statement to declare compliance with our charter of any government bills introduced through that portfolio.

I will first go to the crux of the matter, in my opinion. Bill C-51 would provide desperately needed clarity on the criminal law on sexual assault. Before I deal with the specifics, I would like to share with the House that this is a social problem that is endemic in Canadian society. It impacts every community. I have had the good fortune of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and have heard directly from witnesses who have been impacted by and survived sexual assault what it has done to them personally. To the extent we in the House can help stamp it out, that is the very least we owe Canadians.

There are a number of measures the government has taken outside of the bill to help fight gender-based violence once and for all, including over $100 million introduced for a gender-based violence strategy. What the committee heard during its study on ending gender-based violence against young women and girls is that it is not simply about supporting victims. It is also about legislative reform, particularly in the criminal context.

We have a criminal law system that discriminates against complainants at every turn. We are so ill-equipped to deal with these kinds of cases that a vast majority of complainants choose not to report incidents of sexual assault at all, and those who do muster the courage do so knowing that the rate of conviction, the rate at which justice is granted, is small. It is hard to imagine why they would put themselves in the position of being questioned and re-victimized in the first place.

We have an opportunity to better our system, encourage more people to come forward, and ensure that justice is indeed granted in circumstances where that is possible. One way this may be achieved is through proposed section 273.1. It confirms the Regina v. J.A. decision, which explains quite simply that consent is required on an ongoing basis. Essentially, someone who is unconscious is not able to provide consent. The simplest message to anyone who might be listening at home is that if someone is having sexual relations with a person who is too drunk to consent or who is unconscious, that is not sex. That is rape, and we need to acknowledge it for what it is.

Proposed section 273.2 of this legislation would provide additional protections, reflecting the Supreme Court decision in Regina v. Ewanchuk in 1999, by making it absolutely clear in our criminal law that mistaken belief of the law cannot constitute consent. It is not okay to assume that a person has consented because someone else gave consent for the person. There needs to be a positive affirmation. One cannot assume that because a person consented in advance, the consent is ongoing. One cannot assume that a failure to resist a sexual advance constitutes consent. If those are the only lines of defence in a sexual assault case, a person should be found guilty under our law.

Importantly, Bill C-51 also deals with our well-established rape shield provisions. The twin myths I have heard discussed by different members in the House today explain that we cannot rely on the sexual history of a complainant to make findings as to his or her credibility or whether he or she has given consent in a given instance. Bill C-51 would expand this protection to ensure that communications sent with sexual content or for a sexual purpose were not used to perpetuate those same myths.

This is an added layer of protection that reflects the world we live in. In the 21st century, if consenting adults wish to send each other communications of a sexual nature or for a sexual purpose, that is their decision. However, the fact that someone has demonstrated that he or she was interested in sexual activity before cannot be used by a court to make a finding that he or she has given consent.

If I transposed this logic to any other social circumstance, I feel that just about everyone would get it. Without being flippant about an extraordinarily serious issue, after work I may join a colleague for a beer or have a glass of wine or two over dinner. However, if I am asked to go out for a drink on a given night and I say no, my friends understand that. I do not know why the same logic cannot be applied to sexual assault. Particularly for young men, again, if they are listening, just because a person has demonstrated a willingness to engage in sexual relations in the past, they should not assume that it is consent forever thereafter.

Some of the other themes touched on that I would like to address while I have the floor include these zombie laws. These laws create uncertainty and unnecessary expense in litigation and should be removed from the books. They largely reflect decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Cases of defamatory libel and cases involving evidentiary burdens and the reverse onus that have been dealt with by the Supreme Court will be reflected in law. I think, although I do not want to speak for everyone, that those provisions are unanimously supported by members of this House.

There are other matters that are completely obsolete in this day and age. I notice the provisions on challenging a person to a duel, which has a very interesting backstory in Nova Scotia involving our third premier, Joseph Howe, if anyone wants to take the time to read it. There is the crime of publishing crime comics. There is fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft. I think we will leave the discussion on people who are actually practising witchcraft for another day. I think members get the point. There are many laws that exist in our Criminal Code that really should be removed from the books.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that its laws comply with the charter. That brings me to the last theme addressed by Bill C-51. That is the obligation of the Minister of Justice to introduce a compliance statement, a charter statement, with new pieces of government legislation that impact that portfolio. This is a very positive exercise, in my opinion, and it is one that will enhance openness and transparency. It will allow Canadians to see that the government is stating, for the record, why it believes its laws are in compliance with the charter.

We sometimes fall into the trap, in different governments, in different parts of our nation's history, of putting forward laws that may seem popular to a voter base but may be contrary to the rights that are included, constitutionally, in Canadian law. This practice of introducing a statement on compliance with the charter is going to ensure that our government is subject to Canadian laws and that people are protected by it, not the other way around.

This proposed legislation has my full support, whether it is for making clear the provisions on consent in cases of sexual assault, whether it is removing from our charter specific provisions that should not be there, either because they are unconstitutional or obsolete, or whether it is the introduction of a charter statement. These are positive developments that are going to help make our criminal system more efficient and will help protect the charter rights of Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle thrust of my colleague's speech, which was to discuss the sexual assault provisions.

I want to ask him about omnibus issues. In particular, does he see this bill as an omnibus bill?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to much of the debate around omnibus bills. One of the things I would like to clarify is that “omnibus”, in and of itself, should not be a swear word in this House. There are many times that a certain piece of legislation will seek to amend different laws that are somewhat related. In this case, the vast majority of the legislation before us seeks to update our laws to reflect either a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada or provisions that are obsolete in the social context in which we live.

Although a certain piece of legislation might change different laws, when there is a common theme that renders them not completely unique, I do not think it is inappropriate.

There is improper use of omnibus bills, and the weight of the irony is crushing me as I stand here taking the question from a member of the opposition on this subject.

I have heard speeches in this House within the last hour that have discussed how the committee process worked the way it should. Members were able to identify problems and propose useful amendments. However, I cannot let this question go by without pointing to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 in the Parliament of 2012, where I saw a budget erode the Fisheries Act protections and the navigable waters protection act that were so important to my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will recall us talking about the original piece of legislation that had the repeal of section 176 and how that was ultimately amended out of the legislation and in fact improved upon to modernize that aspect of the Criminal Code. I wonder if the member would like to share some of his thoughts on the process related to that aspect of the legislation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are many great things about democracy in Canada, but one of our flaws I find is partisanship.

Good ideas and good people come from different parties all the time. Our process sometimes helps those good ideas come to the fore, no matter which party they come from. I note that on this issue, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton and the member for Niagara Falls made great contributions to the specific debate on section 176, which, in my opinion, would enhance the protection of religious freedom in Canada. I also note that I was having conversations about this very provision as one of my colleagues, a member of the Standing Committee on Justice, the member for West Nova, raised some of the concerns he had about this. There was some feedback I heard in my own office as well.

In my mind, this is a perfect example of how a non-partisan committee is supposed to challenge the initial draft of legislation put forward by the government. It listens to the evidence it hears and make amendments to improve laws for all Canadians. At the end of the day, a piece of legislation that makes it through this chamber and the other chamber is Canadian law, not the law of one government or another.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has pointed out that some of the omnibus bills in the last government were about as long as the current government's omnibus budget bills. However, the interesting thing about his response to my question is that he said that most of the provisions of this bill deal with sections of the Criminal Code that are obsolete vis-à-vis the charter or the social context. Might I point out that to declare something obsolete in light of the social context is about as general as one can get? There is all kinds of legislation that for subjective reasons some members might view as obsolete in light of a particular social context. In fact, that was, in some sense, their initial argument for the removal of section 176.

I understand the argument that it is okay to do an omnibus bill if there is a common thread. That is their argument now. It was not their argument during the election. We are holding them to the standard they set for themselves. Can they not claim a common thread on almost anything? Are there any limits to the common thread the member would tie across a range of obviously unrelated provisions?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, taken to its logical extreme, the hon. member would have us address legislation one section at a time, which is not reasonable. If I actually look at the things I am staring at that are included in this bill, there is challenging a person to a duel, fraudulently pretending to practise witchcraft, and pretending to be someone else during a university exam, when in fact that is captured by other provisions. I see a common thread. I do not see a problem with the use of an omnibus bill with a thread like this.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today 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 legislation proposes to make various changes to the Criminal Code that seek to make the criminal law modern, relevant, and consistent with the applicable charter case law. It would also make important clarifications to the law of sexual assault.

The justice and human rights committee has now concluded its study of the bill. The committee heard from a number of important witnesses and stakeholders representing diverse viewpoints. In particular, witnesses were most interested in sharing their perspectives and recommendations with committee members on issues relating to the proposed sexual assault reforms.

The committee considered a number of amendments to those proposed reforms and adopted two that responded to what they heard from the many witnesses and that seek to bring even greater clarity to the law.

The committee also heard from witnesses in relation to the proposed repeal of an offence that targets disrupting religious officiants and ceremonies. The bill proposes to repeal this offence because, to the degree that it prohibits conduct that merits a criminal sanction, it is in fact a duplication of other more general offences.

During the study of Bill C-51 at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, committee members also heard from witnesses and constituents who were concerned about the proposed repeal of section 176, as mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues.

Our government listened to these concerns. The Liberal MP and committee member from West Nova put forward an amendment to retain and modernize the section to ensure it is in fact gender-neutral and make clear that the section applies to all religions and spiritual faiths. The government supports this amendment. We believe that all Canadians, regardless of which religious or spiritual faith they adhere to, must be able to practise that faith without fear of violence or disturbance.

There are other proposed amendments contained in Bill C-51 that may not garner as much attention but that are nonetheless very important for the proper functioning of our criminal law and to the overall coherence of the Criminal Code.

For instance, Bill C-51 proposes to amend a large number of offences by removing what is called a reverse onus. A reverse onus is a rule of law that places the burden on the accused to prove that something is more likely than not to be true. This is contrary to a long-standing and fundamental principle of criminal law, namely, that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also contrary to the presumption of innocence as enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under these normal rules of criminal law, the fact that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt means that the accused, to be acquitted, needs only to raise a reasonable doubt about his or her guilt.

A reverse onus, by contrast, says that the accused must do more than raise a reasonable doubt. He or she must convince the judge or jury that it is more likely than not that he or she is innocent.

There are special circumstances in which the burden can be reversed, such as when an accused raises the special defence of mental disorder. This burden is reversed because mental disorder is really a question of what was happening inside the mind of the accused, information to which he or she has the best access, and it is also a defence that can be easily feigned.

Absent compelling reasons, the burden must always be with the prosecution. Yet it seems that in the 1953-54 consolidation of the Criminal Code, a reverse onus was introduced into numerous offences, defences, and evidentiary presumptions.

These have remained in law until the present time, with the exception of a number that have been challenged under the charter as violating the presumption of innocence. Most such challenges have resulted in the courts finding the reverse onuses to be unconstitutional.

Bill C-51 would remove the reverse onuses that have been struck down and it would remove all the others that, while they have not yet been subject to challenge, do not appear to have any meaningful justification.

These changes would not have a negative effect on public safety, would better reflect long-standing principles of criminal law, would eliminate the potential for new charter challenges, and would thereby avoid the need for accused persons, prosecution services, and courts to waste precious time and resources examining these provisions. The consensus view among legal professionals and associations is that these amendments form part of the kinds of reforms that our criminal justice system needs to work more effectively and efficiently.

Other types of amendments that may not generate a lot of attention, but are still important include the proposed repeal of a number of offences in the Criminal Code that were enacted long ago, in many cases more than 100 years ago. Many of these offences reflect forms of conduct or values that are no longer relevant to our society. For example, Bill C-51 would repeal offences such as alarming Her Majesty, in section 49; challenging someone to a duel, in section 71; and blasphemous libel, in section 296. Another example of an offence to be repealed is one related to making or publishing what are called “crime comics”, which are exactly what they sound like, namely graphic depictions of criminal activity and violence. While there once was a time of great public concern for the potential for these materials to corrupt children, those days are long past. While not everyone will support this type of material or entertainment, we no longer believe as a society that people should be labelled as criminals for making it.

There are also offences in our Criminal Code that are overly specific, and duplicate other offences that are more general in nature. A number of these would be repealed as well. A good example is the proposed repeal of section 365, pretending to practise witchcraft, as was mentioned earlier by my colleague across the floor. Section 365 makes it an offence to fraudulently pretend to exercise or use any sort of conjurations, tell fortunes, or pretend to use one's skill or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to find lost or stolen goods. This conduct is really just a small subset of fraud. Fraud involves some kind of deception or dishonesty, combined with a risk of economic loss to another person. Fraud can occur in an infinite variety of circumstances. There is mortgage fraud, home renovation fraud, health insurance fraud, and securities fraud. Basically, any other situation in which a person voluntarily gives over money in response to something deceptive or dishonest also amounts to fraud. There is no good reason to have offences in the Criminal Code that spell out what fraud looks like in each of these circumstances. One offence of fraud gets the job done and is in fact defined within Bill C-51.

Archaic offences, such as those with overly specific duplicative offences, take up many pages in the Criminal Code. I know some commentators might consider these reforms, the parts of Bill C-51 that do not get headlines or generate passionate presentations before committee, of little importance. In fact, I take a different view. We should not underestimate the importance of this kind of reform. The Criminal Code is a reflection of Canadian values and what we as a society deem to be blameworthy conduct deserving of punishment and denunciation. It is, to be clear, the moral code of our society. It is our job, as legislators in the House, to ensure this code reflects our current values and priorities, that it does not overreach, and that it be rational and orderly.

I support the minister and our government in undertaking this routine but vitally important maintenance and updating of our Criminal Code to make it clearer and more accessible to Canadians, more relevant and modern, and more consistent with our human rights and freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member left out of his speech the fact that this is an omnibus bill. I was wondering, since the Liberals had promised not to introduce any omnibus legislation, how he justifies this bill.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservatives are putting a lot of emphasis on the omnibus bills of this government when in fact they did the same when they were in government.

I have to say that our government is committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system protects all Canadians, holds offenders to account, upholds the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and shows compassion for victims. This includes an unwavering commitment to ensuring that victims of sexual assault, as contained within Bill C-51, are treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

Bill C-51, although defined as “omnibus” by the members across the way, deals with the issues that I have highlighted were to be dealt with in the bill. Sexual assault and ensuring that victims are treated with the utmost dignity and respect is a priority for this government. What the Conservatives are calling “omnibus”, we call a responsibility that deals with our values as Canadians.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, as I said earlier, we support the changes in the bill concerning the victims of sexual assault.

However, the government needs to put its money where its mouth is and also provide funding and legal assistance to the people who need it. This is something that happens to women from all walks of life, and at the end of the day it costs a great deal of money. The government keeps saying that it cares about the middle class.

Does my colleague think that this bill should include legal and financial assistance?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, repealing provisions that are very similar to those found unconstitutional by the courts will help to avoid expensive and time-consuming litigation. Therefore, we are going to bring those costs down, and with that there are mechanisms and levers within the system that people can take advantage of for financial assistance.

However, I want to make two more points based on the question.

With respect to the beginning part of the question, the member also has to recognize that requiring charter statements for every government bill introduced in Parliament represents a major step in support of our government's commitment to openness and transparency, and will help all Canadians understand the potential effects of new laws and their charter rights.

Going to the latter part of the question, I also want to mention that we want to avoid unnecessary litigation through this bill, which will also help prevent court delays and backlogs, lending to greater efficiencies and fewer costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects of the legislation is the sexual assault component. I believe that in 2016 there were over 20,000 sexual assaults reported but far more went unreported because many victims failed to report for a wide variety of reasons. This legislation will hopefully encourage more victims of crimes of this nature to come forward. Could the member provide a quick comment on that issue?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this bill is going to add a mechanism or lever for those victims to come forward, with the expectation they will be dealt with with the utmost dignity and respect.

When we look through this bill, it goes to our government's commitment since day one to ensure that we reflect, as a government, on behalf of all Canadians, the values that we live by in today's society. I believe this bill reflects that. Once again, it reflects the dignity and respect that we will give to those who fall under the laws that are contained within this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-51. The very words of Bill C-51 hearkens back to the last election. As I recall, the opposition at the time, which is now the government party, had made a lot of noise about a particular Bill C-51 in the last Parliament. I know the Liberals also made a lot of noise about omnibus bills. I heard a lot about that one thing.

It is ironic today that two things, which are forever burned in my memory, are now coming up again today, as we discuss the current Bill C-51 and this omnibus bill.

Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Provencher.

Getting back to the omnibus bill, as far as I am aware, the Conservative party used omnibus bills when in power. They were a tool that was available to the governing party at the time. We made no apologies for it. I was not here at the time, but I know that was a practice and it was loudly protested by the Liberals in particular. I heard about that in the faraway place of the promised land, up in northern Alberta where I am from. I heard about it repeatedly on the campaign trail, that the Conservatives used omnibus legislation.

I had to do some research as to what omnibus legislation was. It turns out that it is legislation that affects more than one bill or one act of the Parliament of Canada. It seemed logical to me, but for some reason the Liberals seem to make this out to be evil and wrong. To their credit, “omnibus” sounds kind of ominous. That is what the Liberals were going after with that whole line of attack.

It is kind of ironic that we are here today discussing an omnibus bill with much ado about some of the bill, while we are in vast agreement on many parts of it.

Over and over members have stood and have said that it is ridiculous, that the party over here is asking about omnibus bills, that it had no problem using them. However, that is precisely the point. The Conservatives did not promise not use omnibus legislation. The Liberals were accusing us of doing all kinds of things with omnibus legislation, saying that there was something inherently wrong with it.

Now the Liberals are the ones using omnibus legislation to roll out their agenda, which is perfectly within their right. However, the fact that they ran on the platform of not using omnibus legislation proves to me how the Liberals were willing to say whatever it took to get elected. It never had to be anything of substance. It was just omnibus legislation sounded terrible so it must be terrible, and they ran on the fact they would not use omnibus legislation. It was absolutely ridiculous.

It just goes to show that the Liberals can make a promise about something during an election and then they say that we did it too. This is what elections are won and fought over. If people say they will do something, then they have to live up to that. The consequences will be borne out over what was said.

The Conservatives understand that sometimes omnibus legislation is needed to change several different acts when trying to implement a particular idea. While that seems to make sense, the Liberals ran on the promise in the last election not to introduce omnibus legislation.

That brings me to the substance of the bill. I am pleased to say that section 176 was removed from the bill at committee. I am quite perturbed that this section was in the bill in the first place. It indicates to me that the Liberals are completely out of touch with Canadian culture and Canadian society when every day the media shows that crimes against religious institutions or people are on the uptick around the world. Section 176 was put in the bill as a cleanup measure, that it was obsolete legislation that we no longer needed in Canadian society.

This calls into question a number of the Liberal priorities. Why are Liberals saying this is not needed? Why is the protection of clergy or religious institutions not needed in modern-day society? They said that it was only one particular religion. We checked if imams claimed some of the tax credits available to the clergy, and they did. We asked if rabbis were classified as clergy under Canadian law, and they were. This seemed to be completely unrelated to reality.

We also checked as to whether there had been changes in crimes being perpetrated across the country. We discovered that religion accounted for 35% of targeted hate crimes in 2015. Introducing section 176 in this so-called cleanup bill is completely out of touch, when the reality is quite the opposite.

I received a significant amount of mail and emails from 176 constituents across my riding concerned about this section being removed. Even committee members mentioned that this section of the bill seemed to spark a significant amount of feedback. I am happy the Conservative members at committee were able to convince other members that this was not necessary, that it should remain in the Criminal Code, and it will remain in the code.

Once again, we need to ensure that religious communities across the country are not prevented from worshipping. One of the pieces to be removed from the Criminal Code was preventing clergy from getting to their places of worship to hold services. It is very important that clergy can fulfill their duties and do their jobs without harassment or worry of being detained along the roadway. I am not sure how often this section of the law has been used in the past or if the clergy were even aware they had this protection in criminal law. After this bill was introduced, there was a dramatic uptick in education on this and the realization that these protections existed in law.

I have a graph of all the hate crimes in the country. Religion is one of the highest motivations for hate crimes across the country. It ranks between race and ethnicity. It is a significant part of motivation and we need to ensure religious communities feel safe and are protected by the Criminal Code.

I had more to say about sexual assault, but I have concerns with the way the bill is going. The duty for evidence needs to come from the accused. We need to ensure that all evidence, regardless of when or where it is acquired, can been seen and heard at trial. I have some concerns with that, but at this point I am supportive of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member describe this as an omnibus bill. I am curious as to how he comes to the definition. Every measure in the bill relates to one specific ministry. It is not like Bill C-43, that sort of scattershot legislation across every ministry, things as unrelated as land rights issues connected to ports, the cost of certain taxes going up, as well as a whole series of measures that had nothing to do with it. In fact, they were not even announced in the budget. They were slipped in the back door through what everybody called an omnibus bill.

When we look up the legal definition and the parliamentary tradition of what gets constituted as an omnibus bill, and the member is free to challenge it to Chair to get it split, the reality is that this bill is completely unified insofar as it reforms the Criminal Code around evidence, sentencing, and obsolete laws that do not need to be on the book. I am sure the member opposite does not worry about crime comics causing a problem in his riding.

Under what definition does this constitute an omnibus bill when every measure is introduced by a single minister, has to do with the Criminal Code, and is related to the reform and updating of the Criminal Code system, in particular for the protection of individuals who are sexually assaulted? This is good progressive legislation. Further, the committee that passed it did not worry about it being an omnibus bill. In fact, the committee passed it unanimously, and the member's party is supporting it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or

(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)

(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or

(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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

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