House of Commons Hansard #195 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was consent.
Kamal Khera LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and my friend for all the excellent work she does on the status of women committee.
As my colleague just mentioned, in recent news reports we have heard that many women do not come forward in sexual assault cases. Could the member please elaborate on how this extremely important piece of legislation will encourage victims and survivors of sexual assault to come forward and seek help?
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I addressed a lot of my colleague's comments in my speech, but there is certainly a perception that things like consent, or no means no, will allow women to have confidence to come forward knowing that their concerns will be taken seriously by the justice system.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, on June 5 the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.
Bill C-51 seeks to make changes to a number of matters within the context of this one bill. This justice omnibus bill seeks to amend or remove or repeal passages and provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional or that raise risks with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as passages and provisions that are obsolete or redundant or no longer have a place in the Criminal Code. I would suggest that this seems fairly subjective to the government's agenda when we are saying “no longer have a place in the Criminal Code” at this point in time.
It would also modify certain provisions of the Criminal Code relating to sexual assault in order to clarify their application and provide a procedure applicable to the admissibility and use of the complainant's or a witness's record when in the possession of the accused.
It would also require, for any bill tabled in either the House of Commons or the Senate, a charter statement outlining each bill's potential effects on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government House leader has called for major reforms on the introduction of omnibus bills by government, yet here we have the justice minister introducing just that.
The portion that clarifies and strengthens the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code, helping to support victims of horrific sexual assault crimes, is certainly the right thing to do. I am very pleased with that portion of this bill. Unfortunately, it puts many of us in an angst situation, because although we support that portion of the bill, other sections make it very difficult to support the rest.
This provision is victim-centric. That portion of the bill is good. It is sensible and reasonable, and it is certainly appropriate.
It is unfortunate that Bill C-51 is attempting to require a charter statement for all future government justice legislation. This would be a redundant process that is not necessary.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been in force for 35 years now. Many governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have introduced justice legislation without a charter statement. To require charter statements on all new bills would not, nor should it, pre-empt controversial legislation from being challenged in our courts by groups and everyday citizens. After all, it is the responsibility of legislators to create law, the courts to interpret law, and the right of Canadians to challenge that law.
The Liberals were very supportive of Motion No. 103, which protects Muslims from an undefined term, “Islamophobia”, yet Bill C-51 proposes to remove the only provision in the Criminal Code that protects all religious communities and all religious officials. I am very concerned that the government has decided to remove section 176, which specifically states:
(1) Every one who
(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 this 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
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This section protects the rights of religious clergy and their members to practise their faith at an event or ceremony in safety without interference or disruption.
Last evening, I attended the sixth annual Iftar dinner at Ottawa City Hall, hosted by the Progressive Muslims of Canada. President Mobeen, whom I met at an Embassy Connections Canada event earlier on, kindly invited me, and I was really pleased to attend.
I am a Christian, not a Muslim. My faith does not celebrate Ramadan or Iftar dinners. However, we do fast and pray, gather together for mutual encouragement, teaching, worshipping, prayer, and meeting the needs of those who are marginalized or hurting in our midst, our communities, and the world.
My question is this. Why would the government want to remove a piece of legislation that speaks to all faiths' right to the freedom to worship and to gather without fear of reprisal? Why would the Minister of Justice want to take away legislation that affirms the safety of all clergy and protects from the disturbance those who gather in mosques, gurdwaras, synagogues, sweat lodges, churches, schools, homes, camps, cemeteries, prayer rooms, and chapels in hospitals, and in public spaces, like Ottawa City Hall, and want to replace it with a singularly focused no trespassing at night law?
I cannot fathom the rationale behind this decision. It makes no sense to me. Have the Liberals consulted their constituents, the faith communities in their ridings, to hear what their feelings are on removing section 176 from the Canadian Criminal Code?
I am very confident that this is not what Canadians or landed immigrants in our country expect from the government. This should not be part of Bill C-51. It should be removed. That being said, to make sure that I am not just expressing my own views, I will be sharing this with faith leaders in my communities and through social media, and I will make them aware of what this section says and what the government is expecting to do. I will ensure that they have every opportunity to express their concerns over what I see as a dangerous and dismissive decision to remove section 176 through Bill C-51. I will be encouraging them to contact directly the Minister of Justice.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is going to mention to clergy in her community the repeal of this section. Is she also going to mention that there are already offences related to all of these things, such as causing a disturbance, hate crimes, assault, uttering threats, and intimidation? Section 175 covers impeding or molesting other persons and causing a disturbance; section 264, uttering threats; section 423, intimidation; and section 319, public incitement of hatred.
Would she not agree that it is not necessary to create a specific offence for a clergyman when other offences of general application apply to not only clergymen but everyone in our community?
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the member has asked that question because what I am hearing from the member is doublespeak. We cannot have it both ways. That very argument was specifically used for why we did not need Motion No. 103, because so many of these things are already covered in our laws.
However, I want to express that this particular section was actually used recently, on June 9, in a criminal case here in Ottawa. It has been applied.
“Sins” are the term we use in my faith to represent that one has missed the mark in some way. There are sins of commission and there are sins of omission: things that one should not do that one has, and things that one should have done but did not.
This would be a sin of omission in my books because we are removing something that speaks very strongly to Canada's values and democracy, of which we are celebrating 150 years, and it is a statement within our Criminal Code. We value those who lead religious communities, their facilities, and their right to share their faith in the public square, just as we did with the Muslim community in Ottawa City Hall last night.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Madam Speaker, one of the things that we know is true in the House is that there are significant court delays that have had very tremendous ramifications in this country.
We also know that for decades now the justice system has not received the amount of resources that it needs. That is under both Liberal and Conservative governments. I am just wondering if the member could talk to us a little about what the ramifications would be and what the ramifications are of simply not having enough resources in our justice system?
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure how the question applies to the topic here.
We know that the government is behind in appointing judges. I think that is a big concern for all of us, because there are criminals being freed when they should not be. However, my focus here tonight is on the fact that we have a section of the Criminal Code that is significant in stating a value in Canada. It is the only part of the Criminal Code that specifically protects religious leaders and religious communities, all religious faiths in our country. To remove it would be inappropriate, and I believe would cause a great disservice to protecting those in our country who have faith values.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Madam Speaker, earlier this session, and I think it was just a month ago, this Parliament passed Bill C-305, which actually increased penalties for vandalism motivated by hate of sacred property and property used by religious institutions. We already had provisions that covered it, but we felt that even more protection, a special protection, was needed from that particular crime.
I think that is the same point my colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville was trying to make, that section 176 offers an extra protection for members of the clergy and spiritual leaders. I would just like the member to expand on that. Could the member give us a further explanation on the comparison of Bill C-305 and the provision of Bill C-51 on—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
We have to give the member a chance to answer. She only has 10 seconds.
Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, that is actually a very good example of why this needs to stay in our Criminal Code.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who is doing such a good job for his constituents.
However, I would first like a go at it.
This is a bill that everyone knows the Conservative Party of Canada is supporting. However, it is one of those bills that we are told is a question of modernization and to consider it to be somewhat technical. I was given this good advice long ago when I was a minister that whenever bureaucrats or officials tell us this is about modernization to start looking quickly because it is a Trojan horse; it is not all technical. Modernization is designed to wear down resistance, because anybody standing in its way clearly is somehow backward. This is a bill offered in that fashion. While there are indeed meritorious aspects of it and elements that represent a modernization, there are parts that give one cause to wonder why they are necessary or included.
There is certainly a difference between a Conservative and Liberal approach. The first of these is the very first provision in clause 1 of the bill, which proposes to repeal section 49 of the Criminal Code. This section of the Criminal Code states:
Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,
(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or
(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty,
is guilty of an indictable offence....
Why would we want to say that is no longer an offence? I am sure the answer is that it is no longer an offence because there are already offences about intimidating people, harming people, or assaulting them, and Her Majesty can benefit from their protections. That is an interesting argument, except that in this very same Criminal Code they are maintaining, for example, the provisions on the intimidation of Parliament. Therefore, one wonders what the motivation is. It seems clear to many of us that the motivation is a hidden agenda of diminishing the very important role of Her Majesty in this place, and in this country. That is something that does cause us trouble.
Another example I find cute when we look at the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives say if something works well it is good. If the Liberals say something works well, clearly, it is irrelevant. A perfect example of this is the proposal to eliminate the provisions on duelling. Duelling is not a pressing social ill these days. I think we would all acknowledge that. The last fatal duel in Canada took place on June 13, 1833, not too far from here, in Perth, Ontario.
Therefore, I would say that tells us that those Criminal Code provisions are pretty good at doing what we want laws to do, which is to tell people what is right and what is wrong so they stay away from it. The Liberals say that since everybody is following the law we do not need it anymore. I am not sure that I agree with that. If we went through a great spurt where suddenly nobody was murdered, would they be eliminating the murder provisions from the Criminal Code? I would certainly hope not. It is a different approach. Although, it is not a great pressing social ill this day, I think it speaks to the odd approach of legislating that we have here by the Liberals.
There is another provision, which is the one that my friend from Yorkton—Melville was just speaking to, which is a Criminal Code provision the Liberals are proposing to repeal that deals with threats or force that, “unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function”.
Why would they want to get rid of that? They say there are other provisions that exist. There has been a debate about these things. We can think of two high-profile examples in recent years. One is the group in Russia with the interesting name Pussy Riot that launched a protest on stage during a Russian Orthodox service in Russia against the way that Vladimir Putin has essentially taken control of the Russian Orthodox church and made it an agent of government will and policy. That was generally celebrated in the west as an act of free speech and expression.
On the other hand, we have examples here in North America that we condemn. One thinks of the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that has made a habit of, I think very unfortunately, protesting at the funerals of dead American servicemen who have been returned. They have threatened to do the same thing in Canada. Their argument is that the death of these military servicemen abroad is evidence of God's anger at society's acceptance of homosexuality, so they traumatize families by disrupting these funerals and services.
I think we would all agree that is not necessarily a good thing and is a reason to have a good provision like that. My friend on the other side mentioned that there are other things that already protect this, and we will talk a bit later about the charter and the role of the charter.
If one is balancing the general question of disrupting an event, such as an assault causing discomfort, then something like the Westboro Baptist Church activity could be protected, as it is in the United States under its free speech provisions. It could be protected under our charter provisions. However, if we have a Criminal Code provision, as we have right now, that creates a specific offence for disrupting a religious service or ceremony, such as a funeral at a graveside, that might mean that the charter threshold is a little bit higher because of the specific nature of the offence. While free expression is a good thing under the charter, the right of people to worship is also important. Parliament has said that it is important.
What would a future court do? It would say that this Parliament expressed its intention by taking away that special protection. That would no doubt change how that charter argument plays in the future. Again, it is a reason I would encourage the government to consider removing those provisions from the bill.
There is another one I find interesting and am very puzzled about. It is the proposal to remove section 370, which creates an offence for fraudulently publishing a government proclamation or notice of appointment. It seems to me a pretty reasonable thing to do. If someone is creating false government documents that order people to do things, as proclamations do, why would we want to suddenly take away that offence? It just puzzles me. Why would we want to make it legal for people to produce false government proclamations that would mislead people?
Then, of course, there is section 365, which is the offence of fraudulently practising witchcraft. We all chuckle and laugh, but I can understand why the party of Mackenzie King would want to make legal the practice of witchcraft, sorcery, and talking with people who have passed from this world, as Mackenzie King enjoyed doing. The concern is, and we have all heard stories like this, that people use these kinds of fraudulent witchcraft powers to persuade people that, for example, if they put $10,000 in an envelope, which they say will be burned but they slide it under the table instead, he or she will be saved from whatever curse they say the person is under. These things really happen in our society, even in this day and age. Does that provision, as it exists right now, cause any harm? No. Does it give the police an avenue or resource in the case of those particular unusual offences? Yes, it does.
This is why I ask why we need to look around for things to change, in the name of modernization, for the sake of changing. Some people would say it is very simple: the government does not have much of a legislative agenda. I can appreciate that this might be the case. However, the Conservative approach is that if something works, and it is not causing any harm, why change it? If it might, in the past, have provided some demonstrable good and protection, perhaps it does not need to be changed. Absent evidence of some demonstrable harm, why would we need to go there?
The last thing I want to talk about is the question of the charter statement. This, as a lawyer, is something I find very puzzling. Proposed subsection 4.2(1) states:
The Minister shall, for every Bill introduced in or presented to either House of Parliament by a minister or other representative of the Crown, cause to be tabled, in the House in which the Bill originates, a statement that sets out potential effects of the Bill on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I thought that was the job of the courts. The courts are there to pass judgment on it. If the government is saying to the courts that it has already looked at it and it complies, and one should hope that it is only introducing bills it believes comply, does that create undue pressure on the court to treat it as being charter valid? We often hear people say that they are not going to comment on something because it is before the courts. A minister will say that, because we are not supposed to, as a government, be interfering in that fashion. Would this do that?
Even worse, what happens when a court starts striking it down? What is served by a notice like that if it is then proven repeatedly to be wrong? Does it prove that the Minister of Justice was not very clever or that the staff of the Justice Department really are not very good lawyers after all? Is that going to constrain the Supreme Court or any other court in the exercise of their judgment? I am puzzled as to what is achieved by something like that.
I know people want to say good things about the charter and that we are doing things in accordance with the charter. One presumes that the first duty of a government introducing legislation is to look at that. To put the statement on top of it is unusual and out of place in a place where it is not the minister's job but the court's job to pass judgment.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member across the way is a true Conservative. There is no doubt about that. He seems to be fixated on duelling. We pass a law, and lo and behold, there is no more duelling, because we passed a law 150 years ago. If it is retracted, he has an expectation that we are going to see chaos in our streets. We are going to have duelling taking place all over again.
Let me make a suggestion to the member. There is a time in the life of sessions and Parliaments when we need to modernize and update our laws. The member comes across as being a little paranoid possibly. Maybe he does not quite trust our public service, or something of that nature.
I wonder if the member would comment on two quick things. First, does he really believe that by retracting that aspect of the duel we are going to start to see more duels taking place in Canada? Second, an important aspect of the legislation says that it is not okay to accept consent from someone who has passed out. Does he believe that is something the Conservative Party would support?
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Madam Speaker, as I said, we support much of what is in the bill. My concern is some of these other odd provisions, such as the ones I mentioned.
In terms of duelling, I cannot assure the member that there will be more duels if this section is permitted that legalizes them. What I can assure him is that there will not be fewer. If they are looking for a social evil to solve, I do not know that they are solving one.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for pointing out that on this side of the House, we have people who really believe in what they stand for, and they are willing to stand up and talk about it. I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
I would like him to expand on section 176. At a time in our world when we see increasing violence, and especially violence directed against religious communities, it seems very unusual that we would remove a section like this from our Criminal Code. What does he think might be the motivation behind removing this section from the code?
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, an optimist would say that the objective is to not place favour on any particular faith. A cynic might say it is simply to diminish the role of faith and the role of religious services. That is just speculating on motive. I would hope that the motive is the view that this does not place favour on any faith.
There is nothing in the section that favours one faith over another. I suppose it favours those who are practising over those who are not and do not need that kind of protection, but that is not a difference that troubles me. The fact that I do not regularly go to church means I do not need any particular protection. I am not looking for it.
The concern is for those who do wish to attend a particular service. I do not know if the member has noticed, but there are certain religious cleavages at a global level taking place that are exported. It is easy to whip up that intolerance. When we say we want to be tolerant, we want to protect people in that context. If disagreeing with or taking exception to someone's faith is allowed to be manifested by walking into and disrupting a service or threatening people wishing to attend a service, saying it is being done in the name of freedom of speech, using the Pussy Riot example, I am not sure it is a desirable thing. There are so many places in which to exercise freedom of speech without having to then infringe upon someone else's rights.
Right now there is a section that protects that special place where people are worshipping, whatever faith they are. It is now protected, and we are going to have an act of the legislature that takes away that protection. In judicial interpretation, legislative interpretation by a judge, one would ask why they were doing this. Clearly, there was an intention that it should not enjoy special protection. I do not think that is wise in this day and age.
When it comes time to weigh those competing rights under the charter, what we are doing is diminishing the special protection of freedom of religion right, thanks to this section.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague for the eloquence of his speech, his knowledge of Canada’s history and, more specifically, the spirited way in which he made his case. Honestly, he managed to persuade me a little more. I completely agree with him on several points, particularly on the questions he raised about eliminating duels. He managed to show that there is no real reason to act on this subject.
I am here to speak to Bill C-51, an omnibus bill with four key parts. It amends, adds, or repeals many things. It includes provisions that we support and others that we oppose. Once again, as has been the case since the beginning of this Parliament, when the government wants to change things, it always arranges it so that the opposition cannot support what it does. It purposely includes provisions in its omnibus bills that will not be supported by an opposition party.
There are some good things in this bill and others that are less so. I will have the opportunity to talk a little bit about them. My justice critic colleague moved a motion that would have reached reasonable agreements with the government by splitting the bill. This would have allowed us to discuss certain components separately. We would have been able to show our support for the government’s proposed modernization of legislation, with respect to the parts that we have reasons to support.
As for the provisions concerning sexual assault, the bill clarifies certain aspects of the law pertaining to sexual assault involving consent, the admissibility of evidence and the representation of complainants by counsel. It is a good measure and we will support it. Sincerely, there is no problem in this regard.
The second part of the bill deals with provisions that have been deemed unconstitutional or that are similar to other provisions that were. In this respect, the bill repeals or amends certain Criminal Code provisions. These are administrative measures to ensure that the wording of the Criminal Code reflects current law. Here too there are good and bad aspects.
The third part is about obsolete or needless provisions and repeals several offences that are no longer relevant or required. My colleague did a good job of illustrating the kind of provisions that will be repealed.
The fourth part is about charter statements. I find this part a bit odd. It requires the Minister of Justice to table a charter statement identifying potential effects that each new government bill may have on rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.
As I understand it, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies, and the courts apply it, so I do not see why this measure is in here, unless it is a way of promoting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is in force and is already doing the job that Parliament drafted and passed it to do.
The Conservative Party will always stand up for victims of crime. We will always support reducing undue delays in our justice system. Bill C-51 contains some very reasonable measures that we can support, such as repealing provisions that courts have found unconstitutional. However, we need to be careful when it comes to repealing provisions similar to those found unconstitutional because the courts have not yet ruled on them, and this could by a sneaky way for the government to advance its own political agenda. That is why we cannot blindly agree to all of the measures in Bill C-51.
We can also support most of the measures in the bill about repealing obsolete and redundant offences. This does make us question the Liberals' priorities, though. What is more important to them: repealing a provision that prohibits sorcery or filling empty seats on benches in superior courts and advisory committees across Canada?
We can amend all the sections of the Criminal Code and make all the improvements we want, but if there are no judges to hear cases, all these amendments will go for naught.
I had the opportunity to read part of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ final report, “An Urgent Need to Address Lengthy Court Delays in Canada”. This report was tabled by the Senate, and my colleague, the hon. Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, provided me with a copy. There are certain aspects I would like to speak to tonight, particularly the delays in judicial appointments.
In its recommendation no. 17, the committee believes that the failure to appoint superior court judges in Canada in a timely manner is contributing to unreasonable delays. It does not see anything to prevent implementing a systematic recruitment process instead of waiting for judges to retire before starting to consider candidates to replace them.
This needs to be considered so that there are no delays, no vacancies in superior courts and no more cases like that of Dannick Lessard. The individual charged with attempted murder for riddling him with bullets saw the charges against him dropped because of the Jordan decision and long court delays. Dannick Lessard felt betrayed and abandoned by the justice system. This is what the government should give priority to. It needs to proceed quickly with appointing the missing judges.
The report includes a quote from the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association, which describes a sexual assault trial:
It was a sexual assault trial, and the delay was actually the victim's fault. She had a significant heart condition that required her to have open heart surgery twice post-arrest....Ultimately, it was well over four years by the time we got to a trial where she was well enough to testify. She was a very sympathetic person. She didn't have an axe to grind. She wasn't doing anything nefarious or wrong, but we lost it on the 11(b), and it was a strange one because it actually happened to be her “fault” that we lost it....
That is the sort of unacceptable situation that the Minister of Justice should rectify as soon as possible to ensure that it does not happen again.
In this report, there are plenty of other recommendations that I would like to talk about, but, instead, I would invite my colleagues to take a few minutes to read it, because it contains a lot of good recommendations. I hope that we will be able to use its best parts in order to improve access to the justice system, and, above all, to make the system fairer for all victims.
However, I really must mention the Liberals' doublespeak about the freedom to practise one's religion. The Liberals, who were very much in favour of motion No. 103, are, with this bill, going to eliminate the only provision in the Criminal Code that protects religious celebrations and the clergy or ministers who celebrate them.
In a world that is increasingly hostile to religion and where intolerance is becoming increasingly prevalent, I do not understand the signal that the Liberal government wants to send by wanting to abolish these provisions that criminalize the people who attack religious ceremonies of any faith.
As we saw in Quebec City, attacks can happen everywhere. It is absolutely essential to continue to preserve people's right to practise their faith where they want and how they want. We have to demonstrate that it is still fine in our society to practise one's religion and to have faith, and that everyone has the right to go to church without fear of being harassed or attacked.
As I mentioned before, this is an omnibus bill containing a number of provisions that should be amended.
I would have liked members to listen to my colleague the justice critic and to divide the bill into several parts. That would have allowed us to express our opinions clearly on each of the four parts I have just mentioned.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech.
As I did before, I would like to bring the discussion back to section 176 of the Criminal Code. I will quote subparagraph 176(1)(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)...
The document then goes on to describe the specifics and what the Criminal Code is seeking to protect.
I agree with the member on the fact that the bill contains many sections and many notions related to sexual assault. As my colleague said, these are good ideas and good amendments to the Criminal Code.
However, I want to focus specifically on section 176. I would like the member to tell me whether he agrees with me. I do in fact think that we should offer members of the clergy additional protection, on top of what already exists in other sections of the Criminal Code.
As I mentioned earlier, we introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-305, which provides additional protection for property against vandalism motivated by hate.
I wonder if the member could expand on that.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague, especially considering that members of the clergy are usually easy to pick out. They are easy targets for people with bad intentions.
By repealing this section, the government is removing from the Criminal Code the only provision that directly protects the right of individuals to practise their religion freely.
In the news we see that these types of attacks are on the rise around the world. It is not a figment of our imagination. The message we hear around the world is that there are more and more attacks, and that we must do more to protect members of the clergy. The message the Liberal government is sending is that it is no longer a criminal offence to attack the clergy.
I would like the government to give us one good, tangible reason for removing this provision.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the additional information the hon. member provided.
I would also like to focus on other aspects of the bill. As other Conservative and NDP members have said, several parts of the bill provide extra protection to victims of sexual assault. Many changes are being proposed to clarify the legislation. We appreciate that.
The Conservative justice critic tried to spilt off the parts that we agree on so that they could be studied by the committee as soon as possible.
I would like the hon. member's opinion on the fact that we did not get the unanimous consent of the House on that. Also, we cannot study the parts of Bill C-51 that we agree on, although they are good and ready to be put into law. What does the member think of that?
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, this not the first time we have heard doublespeak from the Liberal government.
The government claims to be open and transparent. It says that it wants to do things differently. We have been invited to join the conversation several times. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often invites us to have a conversation about the changes to the rules and procedures of the House.
However, we understand that, for the government, having a conversation really means dictating a new way of doing things. It will go ahead and do what it wants, regardless of whether the other members of the House agree with it.
Our justice critic presented a unique opportunity to do things differently in order to expedite the implementation of all the amendments intended to help victims of sexual assault.
I think it was an entirely appropriate and gentle way of changing and improving how the House operates. It could have had a positive impact on real people, the victims. Unfortunately, the Liberals' doublespeak does not hold up and things did not work out.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be joining the debate on Bill C-51, this late in the night.
Before I go too far, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Durham, whom I am very pleased to be hearing from again today.
I was so pleased today to hear you, Mr. Speaker, mention in the House Yiddish for Pirates by Gary Barwin, who is one of my favourite authors.
Everybody in the House knows I am a big lover of Yiddish proverbs, and I have one also for this legislation. It speaks to our pinch points. Everyone knows where his or her shoes pinch. I will explain the pinch points I have in this legislation.
Many members on the Conservative side, including New Democratic members as well, have mentioned that they agree with the majority of the provisions in the bill having to do with increasing protection for victims of sexual assault. Nobody disagrees with it. It is a great idea. Clarifying the law is way overdue, but we do have pinch points.
There are proposed Criminal Code provisions that will be eliminated, and we simply disagree with that. Either we disagree or we think it is not in the right method. Abolishing laws in general, getting rid of Criminal Code statutes, and less government regulation is typically something I am all for. The less of it we have, the better. Not adding new laws to the statute books is a sign of restraint on the part of parliamentarians, and we would show greater restraint if we tabled more laws calling for the abolition of sections of different laws and reductions to the Criminal Code. That type of behaviour is laudable and it should be congratulated when it is practised in the House. Let us admit another thing too. This is an omnibus justice bill, and I have concerns about certain parts of it.
Why would we remove certain sections of the Criminal Code, like section 49? Why remove that part in the sesquicentennial of our country? That is Confederation, specifically, because Canada existed much before that. Is that not an odd provision to be eliminating during the 150th year of Confederation? The Crown is just as much a part of the history of Canada as the red ensign, the maple leaf, the Bill of Rights, Vimy, and countless other images and symbols we have in Canada. Section 49 only affects an incredibly small group of people, people who are intent on committing a malicious act against the Crown, in Her Majesty's presence of course.
As I said before, I completely support the amendments proposed in Bill C-51 to strengthen and protect the victims of sexual assault. They are timely and needed. As members heard from the Conservatives' justice critic, we are more than willing to expedite those portions to committee so they can be considered fully.
On removing the Criminal Code section on duelling, I have mixed feelings, not because I think duelling is right but simply because there is a long history in Canada of it being used as a deterrence tool. The last fatal duel in Canada was June 13, 1833, in Perth, between John Wilson and Robert Lyon, both law students. One was the son of a Scottish officer in the British army, the gentleman who passed away in this duel. John Wilson, who was acquitted of the crime, later was elected to the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada, became a Queen's Counsel, a QC, and was elected three times to that assembly. He was, of course, a Conservative.
There are also other provisions that covered those types of crimes, such as bodily harm, but it was also that extra prohibition on duelling and it was a big problem at the time. Nowadays, it is not so much. One of the members from Simcoe mentioned his views on duelling.
I understand the removal of section 143 of the Criminal Code, and I am surprised it is illegal. I see these types of ads all the time in my community, such as “Stolen bike, no questions asked, could you just return it to me”, or an open question about a lost cat, lost dog, or an RV is stolen. I have never known that this was an illegal act, that there was a prohibition on advertising the fact that someone would give a reward. Therefore, ending the prohibition on the use of such words in public advertising and offering a reward is probably very wise. It is eminently reasonable and wise for the House to do so.
The one I want to focus on, which has been the source of many questions I have asked in the House, is clause 14 on Criminal Code section 176, the prohibition against disrupting a religious service or interfering with a minister of a cult, a person who is in the service of others during a religious assembly of any sort.
I have serious concerns with removing this section. I have heard other members say we have other Criminal Code provisions that cover this. The difference is, section 176 gives extra protection. I will make a comparison in a bit between that and Bill C-305 because they are very much comparable.
Section 176 of the Criminal Code protects the clergy, and all those responsible for leading members of their faith in a service. Removing this particular provision is my pinch point in Bill C-51. It adds extra protection for individuals, serves as a deterrent, and protects religious services from disruption, including funerals. I am concerned what it could mean without this for those who are in the business of providing funeral services to others and the incentives therein.
I do not think anyone feels incented to disrupt a funeral. This type of provision serves as an additional deterrent. Subsections 176(1) and 176(2) also protect religious assemblies from wilful disturbance and interruptions. It does not talk about something accidental, it talks about something purposeful and wilful, when one is aiming to do something for the sole reason of disrupting a religious service. Most importantly, surprise.
As I mentioned before in a previous question, we went through the trouble in the House of passing a mischief improvement provision in Bill C-305, where we actually gave greater protection to property and communal spaces against vandalism motivated by hate. It was a very reasonable proposal as a private member's bill that was passed in this House. In that situation, we already had provisions to disincentivize and deter people from vandalising property. This was an additional charge on top of that which would be separate from it because we said communal spaces and crimes motivated by hate are special and deserve extra attention paid to them, and further punishment should one be found guilty of them.
We already have all those provisions on protecting property. The same idea in principle applies to section 176 of the Criminal Code that clause 14 proposes to eliminate; my pinch point in this piece of legislation.
We know there are other Criminal Code assault provisions to protect the person in the bill. There are provisions against interfering with persons and provisions preventing people from going into a sports match and disrupting it for the sole purpose of committing some type of mischief. I believe that clergy, Imams, leaders of any faith, deserve special protection. Why does the government not believe that as well?
Disrupting a sports match, an assembly for charity purposes, or a bingo game is mischief, most definitely. However, it is not the same as interfering with a religious service, not the same thing as interfering with persons who are leaders of a faith, and trying to look after members of their congregation, temple, mosque, or synagogue.
Just this week, Statistics Canada reported that there has been an uptick in certain hate crimes and crimes motivated against religions. Why would we then, two days later, consider Bill C-51, clause 14, which would eliminate that additional protection for leaders of a certain faith or religion who lead rituals, give services, and conduct funerals on behalf of community members?
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 just lays it out. Fundamental freedoms include: freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly.
Does section 176 not actually grant that extra protection for these freedoms to be practised in Canada? Why can we not have section 176 to assure ourselves that there will be an extra provision in the code to punish those who wilfully interfere with a leader of a faith conducting a service or a funeral?
I want to bring up one or two additional points. It was just this past May that an arsonist in Hamilton, who targeted a mosque, received 25 months in prison. Had the same person targeted the mosque during a service or had wilfully blocked assembly, section 176 could have been used in that particular case.
The last example is from my home province of Alberta. Father Gilbert Dasna was a Catholic priest who was murdered at his residence in St. Paul on May 11, 2014. Had Father Dasna survived and had there been an assembly at the local cathedral that had been disrupted by the gunman who murdered him, that person would have been eligible for an extra charge under section 176. Why is it so wrong to give individuals like Father Dansa extra protection from criminals?
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech.
It is clear that the protection of clergy members and ministers is very important to him. I would have liked to hear his views on what could have driven the government to amend this type of clause and do away with this sort of protection for religious leaders.
At first glance, I do not understand why the government would do that. I cannot explain why it decided to repeal section 176. Nothing has been reported in the media that would justify making any changes to that section. No one in our ridings asked us to do it. I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is one of our main questions. When the parliamentary secretary first spoke on Bill C-51, he said this section was obsolete, not necessary or useful anymore, that it was not being used. In fact, it is being used.
There was a case just this month, on June 9, where a charge was laid in a case right in Ottawa. My hope is that we do not have to use Criminal Code provisions, but that certain provisions remain in the code to serve as a deterrent against those types of activities.
In all the door knocking I have done in the past, whether for my nomination, during the election, and since then, I have never heard anyone say that section 176, that extra protection provided to clergymen, imams, members of all faiths, and funerals, should be removed, should not be there. Individuals have talked to me about the blasphemy laws in Canada, but not on this section.
It is interesting that the Liberals want to remove it, but they are removing it from a point that they simply have not done their homework.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, in my remarks earlier this evening, I shared my fears and concerns about the many superior court judicial vacancies and the many repercussions that those vacancies can have on victims of crime.
I gave the example of some clauses in Bill C-51 that repeal some truly outdated provisions. Right now, the focus is more on eliminating provisions that prohibit witchcraft, say, rather than working on setting up an appointment system that will eventually lead to the appointment of judges.
Why not work now on appointing judges who will be able to really protect victims of crime?
In terms of the sexual assault cases, I mentioned that we agree with the new measures put in place to support and help victims. In addition, they will make it even harder for aggressors to act, and the ones that get caught will actually be punished for what they did. If there are no judges to apply those new measures, however, it will all have been for nothing. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague for the question.
Obviously I agree with his opinion and the comments he made. There is clearly a problem when it comes to the judiciary.
The Minister of Justice is not replacing judges as quickly as we would like. Many positions are vacant. There are not enough judges to hear all the criminal cases.
I think that is a real problem. It is not just a political problem, it is a problem of justice, and it is being felt all across Canada.
As my colleague said, there is no system currently in place to ensure that in future, judges that retire or leave the bench will be replaced on time.
I get the impression that the government is improvising. It improvises every month and every time a new problem comes up. The government has no plan for filling these vacancies; instead of coming up with a plan, it introduced Bill C-51.