Debates of Dec. 10th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would classify that under my dossier of what a pitiful sideshow.

The Liberals say we are not taking the issue of sexual assault seriously. I do not know what the member was listening to, but let us talk about sexual assault. Let us talk about the case that the justice minister's lawyers had thrown out of a child who was raped by a priest. They said it was not credible because he could not remember the age he was raped at, six or seven. The justice department had that thrown out.

Let us talk about how the Liberals went to the Supreme Court to say that the case of a young child whose genitals were grabbed by an adult clergy should be thrown out because they could not prove sexual intent of the adult. That is the member's government.

Let us talk about H-15019, a victim of some of the most horrific sexual abuse imaginable. That member and his minister spent $2 million fighting against that survivor because they suppressed the person of interest report. That is what the member's government has done. That is what it is doing right now.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay cited a number of sections that are redundant and obsolete. I have been very frustrated that on something as simple as removing redundant or unconstitutional sections, it has taken the government almost three years to get around to finally doing it.

We have the case of Travis Vader, who was convicted on two counts of second-degree murder of Lyle and Marie McCann from St. Albert, which is a community that I represent. That conviction had to be vacated when the trial judge applied an inoperative section of the Criminal Code. It has been two years since the government introduced legislation on that front to remove section 230. It is such a priority of the government that the bill is stuck at first reading, something on which there is surely unanimity in the House to get those sections out of the Criminal Code.

Is this not really an illustration that on the big things and on the small things, on the hard things and the easy things, on all things, the government just cannot get it done?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague understood what I was trying to get at, that in the fourth year of the government's mandate, this is the Liberals' justice issue: redundant pieces of legislation that would be so easy to clean up. That is what is done when government is getting started. This is the fourth year. The Liberals are missing the boat on serious pieces of justice reform and justice action. The minister has been almost non-existent in the House. I cannot remember the last time she stood and answered a question.

Normally, a justice minister is in the top front line, the top three or four people in any government. The current justice minister is not.

When I look at the bill which finally after four years is dealing with comic books in the Criminal Code, I have to ask, is that it? Is that all the Liberals have to show after four years? That is not good enough.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the member started talking about the role of the justice minister in a particular case. I have heard the speeches from the hon. member. I have seen some of his tweets questioning the rule of law in Europe or the United States. Why does he rise in this place and suggest that elected officials have a role in determining where cases go? Is he intentionally misleading his constituents or does he not know what the rule of law does and that the justice minister does not have a role in individual cases?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would put that slightly above pitiful because when we are talking about the St. Anne's cases, all the cases are for the Attorney General of Canada. Whoa, it is the Attorney General of Canada; it is the justice department. They are the ones who are putting this in place. The suggestion is that it is the Attorney General of Canada but not really the Attorney General of Canada, and it is the justice department but not really the justice department that is undermining the rights of some survivors.

Look at how angry the members opposite are to be called out for the fact that they are using millions of dollars to go after survivors of sexual abuse as children. What a shameful, shameful government. What a shameful minister. Anyone who is not willing to do the right thing on this is going to be marked down in history as someone who went along with the ongoing attempt to destroy indigenous identity and is on the wrong side of history. The members across the aisle are as well.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Timmins has talked about the role of the justice minister. In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, we know about the Nuu-chah-nulth fishing rights case that the government has spent $19 million on for lawyers alone, never mind the over $10 million the Nuu-chah-nulth have had to spend defending their rights and the court costs in the tens of millions of dollars. The minister of intergovernmental affairs, when he was the minister of fisheries and oceans and coast guard, promised in the House that he would make a reasonable offer to the Nuu-chah-nulth. These are the same survivors of the residential school system who are constantly being re-traumatized.

Maybe the member can speak about the government constantly speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we have tried to show the triumvirate of power that exists between the Prime Minister's Office; the wonderful statements the Prime Minister has made on reconciliation and his public support for the Nuu-chah-nulth on this, his most important relationship; and the Minister of Indigenous Services and her department's handling of the file.

That said, we never talk about the role of the justice minister and the justice department, which is key. It is the justice department that was given direction by the justice minister at the time to carry on the cases against indigenous rights. The Nuu-chah-nulth won in court. For anyone else who wins in court, they move on. However, in response to an indigenous case where the plaintiffs won, the justice minister will sic her lawyers on them.

Was it $19 million the government spent? It will use as much taxpayers' money as possible to fight against the implementation of any agreement. It does not matter what the Prime Minister says. He will never have the legal blood on his hands. It is always the role of the justice minister. With an indigenous justice minister who is carrying on with this, whether it is $2.3 million against St. Anne survivors or $19 million against Nuu-chah-nulth or going after any case, again and again, it is the justice minister who needs to be called out.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting up because I am concerned about the personal attacks by the Liberal members against the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. I do not often agree with that member, but I would never question his desire for positive outcomes for indigenous Canadians and I share his concern. In fact, while he did not mention Stephen Harper by name, I do know that he referenced the apology for residential schools, and while I was not in the House, I think of that when we walk under the stained glass window when we enter the chamber.

I would like him to comment on this. The Liberals promised two central things that I am sure he is as frustrated about as I am. First, they promised never to take veterans or court or force them to go to court, which they have done and are doing currently. Second, in the case of reconciliation, the Prime Minister made a personal promise on that, yet there are indigenous people being forced into the courts. That is the point the hon. member is making tonight.

Can the hon. member elaborate on the fact that the Liberal Prime Minister is breaking these two central promises he made, which is having the worst impact on the families impacted?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up the issue of veterans. When we look at the delivery of services under the purview of the federal government, the two groups that are continually denied rights or that are continually over-promised and under-delivered to are veterans and indigenous peoples.

The Prime Minister will get up and make incredible promises that whatever is needed will be delivered, and then that money will not show up. It is the same with the department of Indian affairs. I remember the member saying, when he was in opposition, that the Liberals would never fight veterans in court, and yet what did they do? They forced the veterans to go to court.

This is not a level playing field. This is the Government of Canada that will spend every dollar it can to fight veterans, just as in the case of the St. Anne survivors, who are among the most marginalized poor people one could meet, some of the most decent, good, caring people who met with the minister of indigenous affairs and asked her to stop their legal battle. She promised that they would all get along together.

The government has endless dollars to fight veterans and indigenous people. If someone is an indigenous person or a veteran, they have to take that cost on themself. The government will go after someone for costs and punishment, whatever it is to intimidate the person not to take the government on. I just say that the justice minister needs to stand for something better than this kind of vindictive legal battle.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin with my prepared text, I would like to read a Facebook post by Mr. Rodney Stafford, who is from my riding. It starts with “Rodney Stafford is feeling angry”. His post reads:

I'm really trying to find the words to say right now. There are so many questions that have been unanswered regarding Terri-Lynne, and I'm NEVER going to rest until justice is upheld. NOW, knowing what all we have [all] been fighting for over the last three months, and the questions asked without real answers and run around, it has come to my knowledge as of today that MICHAEL RAFFERTY--THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTIONS THE DAY OF APRIL 8TH, 2009. THE ABDUCTION, BRUTAL RAPE, MURDER, AND CONCEALING OF EVIDENCE, WAS TRANSFERRED FROM HIS MAXIMUM SECURITY FACILITY TO A MEDIUM SECURITY FACILITY IN MARCH!!!!!! This means that ALL THIS TIME over the last three months, CORRECTIONS SERVICE CANADA AND OUR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT have been hiding the fact that NOT ONE, BUT BOTH people responsible for stealing the life of Victoria have been working their way to luxury. Where in the world does it make sense that the worst of the worst of criminals, not petty thieves, THE WORST OF THE WORST, CHILD KILLERS!!!, even get the opportunity at a better life. So now there are two child killers living in Medium Security penitentiaries, with frequent day passes, medical, dental, schooling, and access to air!!! I NEED CANADIANS EVERYWHERE TO HELP WITH THIS FIGHT!!! Our children and lost loved ones deserve justice and security within our country. I am so ashamed to be Canadian right now. During our meeting with Anne Kelly, Commissioner of Corrections, she was blatantly asked by Petrina if there was information about Rafferty that we didn't know about. Another dodged question. Corrections Service Canada NEEDS AN IMMEDIATE OVERHAUL if this is what they consider justice. Three, NOT ONE, but three appeal judges on October 24th, 2016 looked Michael Rafferty's lawyer in the face as they ALL stated he was right where he belongs. SAME AS THE TRIAL JUDGE!! So Corrections Service Canada, a year and a half later, says ha, no you're not. And lowers his security and transfers him. YET AGAIN WITHOUT MAKING CONTACT WITH ME regarding his transfer. Think about it??? That means, during the rallies and all this time that Canada has been fighting for real justice for Victoria and all our loved ones regarding the lowering of Security and transfer of Terri-Lynne, CSC has withheld this information about Michael Rafferty. I only received the information because I had requested it even though I was asked "There really hasn't been much activity on Michael Rafferty's file, would you still like me to send the information to you".??? "Oh ya", I said. Glad I did.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and please share the snot out of this. If Commissioner Anne Kelly is willing to sit and slap me in the face over and over again with the tragedy having lost Victoria to two brutal killers the way we all did, who is she willing to screw over??? THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE ON EVERY LEVEL!!!! CHILD KILLERS!!!!!!

That was written by Rodney Stafford, the father of Tori Stafford. It shows there is a justice issue at stake here that all Canadians feel is very important, and in this case, a father has made his feelings very clear.

Now, I would like to share my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51. The purpose of this bill is to streamline the Criminal Code of Canada by removing certain provisions that are no longer relevant to contemporary society. Bill C-51 is a justice omnibus bill. It is one bill containing many changes on a variety of different matters.

The Prime Minister and his Liberals call omnibus bills “undemocratic”, and the Prime Minister pledged that the Liberal government would undo the practice of introducing omnibus bills. Regardless, my Conservative colleagues and I are aligned with the need to strengthen the provisions of the sexual assault legislation.

Former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose led the way for supporting victims of sexual assault by introducing a private members' bill, Bill C-337. This bill would make it mandatory for judges to participate in sexual assault training and education to ensure that the judiciary is aware of the challenges that sexual assault victims face. Her bill is designed to hold the Canadian judiciary responsible for the ongoing training of judges and the application of law in sexual assault trials. As we all remember, this bill was passed by the House of Commons and we were hopeful that it would pass the Senate. It has not passed yet.

We are pleased that the Liberals are planning to strengthen the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code surrounding consent and legal representation, and expanding the rape shield provisions. The Conservative Party stood up for the rights of victims of crime when the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights passed in 2015, and will continue to do so in the future.

Bill C-51 would amend, among other things, section 273.1 to clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting. This is a reflection of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. J.A. It proposes to amend section 273.2 to clarify the defence of mistaken belief if consent is not available and if the mistake is based on a mistake of law—for example, if the accused believed that the complainant's failure to resist or protest meant the complainant consented.

This bill would expand the rape shield provisions to include communications of a sexual nature or communications for a sexual purpose. These provisions prevent evidence of a complainant's prior sexual history being used to support the inference that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity at issue, or that a complainant is less worthy of belief.

In addition, this bill would provide that a complainant would have a right to legal representation in rape shield cases. It would create a regime to determine whether an accused could introduce a complainant's private records at trial, which would be in his or her possession. This would complement the existing regime governing an accused's ability to obtain a complainant's private records when those records would be in the hands of a third party.

Another aspect of Bill C-51 that I strongly support is the removal of unconstitutional sections of the Criminal Code. Canadians should be able to expect that the Criminal Code accurately reflects the state of law, and, yes, Canadians who made that common-sense assumption could be wrong.

I agree with a few other revisions, for example, clause 41's removal of section 365 of the Criminal Code, which states, “Every one who fraudulently (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration”, and clause 4's removal of section 71 pertaining to duelling in the streets, which states:

Every one who

(a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel,

(b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or

(c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel

There are a number of provisions to be removed. Obviously, it is long overdue that the sections dealing with duelling are removed.

One other positive aspect of Bill C-51 is the fact the government has finally backed down from removing section 176 from the Criminal Code.

One of the parts of the bill removes unconstitutional sections, as well as sections of the Criminal Code that, in the opinion of the government, are redundant or obsolete.

There has been much discussion on section 176. What is most interesting is that minister brought this bill before Parliament on June 5, 2017. Ironically, on June 9, 2017, a criminal court case in Ottawa dealt with the bill. It would seem that there was not a great deal of research done by the government on what that particular section of the code really meant. It is fair to say that section 176 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to obstruct or threaten a religious official, or to disrupt a religious service or ceremony. Section 176 is not unconstitutional, it has never been challenged in court, and it is not obsolete. Actually a number of individuals have been successfully prosecuted under it. Also, it is not redundant, as it is the only section of the Criminal Code that expressly protects the rights and freedoms of Canadians to practise their religion without fear or intimidation. Religious prejudice knows no borders and has no respect of persons. That is why I am glad that the government listened to the thousands of Canadians who signed petitions, wrote letters and emails, and made phone calls to MPs and the government to keep section 176 in the Criminal Code.

There was one other section of the code I did not agree with the government removing. That section has specific protection if someone attempts to attack the Queen. We all know this section is not used often. In fact, it has probably never been used. However, as state visits are rare, it should still remain in the code because it protects the person who represents the monarchy in Canada. It is still a very serious crime. Attempting to attack royalty, as Canada's head of state, is not the same as getting into a bar fight. The section is important and it has significant aspects.

I am pleased the government is no longer scrapping section 176. I am pleased with the clarification with respect to sexual assault. I am also pleased that a number of sections that are taking up space in the Criminal Code and no longer have any particular relevance are being removed.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about changing the classification of an inmate. In my last intervention, I talked about the rule of law. One of the elements of the rule of law is that elected officials do not take part in those types of decisions. The justice system and the penitentiary system are independent of government.

During the previous government, McClintic was transferred from a maximum to medium-security prison. Could the member show me either in Hansard or in speeches he gave back home where he was just as angry about this type of thing? Why is it outrageous now, but was fully acceptable for the law and order government, which the Harper government purported to be? Why was it acceptable for that government to do it back then? Was it the rule of law then and the Conservatives did not interfere, but now for some reason a Liberal government can?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that member had heard my previous intervention on this whole issue, he would have heard me make it clear that it was not the government's fault she was moved. The fault comes in after the Liberals knew she had been moved.

The government has the ability to change the rules with respect to Correctional Service Canada. I give him full points that Correctional Service Canada makes those changes. I dare say the previous government did not know McClintic had been moved and I dare say that the current government did not know Rafferty had been moved.

Between McClintic and Rafferty, we heard from the government that changes had been made and these issues would not occur in the future. Ironically, Rafferty had already been moved. Perhaps Correctional Service Canada did not make the minister aware of that either, but that is where the problem comes in. The government has the right to make the rules, but it does not have the right to interpret them within the system.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Oxford, who I have the privilege of serving with on justice committee, noted that in Bill C-51 the government initially sought to remove section 176 of the Criminal Code. This is the only section of the Criminal Code that protects religious officiants.

We have seen recently a significant spike in anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim vandalism and hate at churches, synagogues, mosques and community centres. In the face of this climate of hate in which persons of religious faith are targeted because of the fact they are practising their faith really speaks to how ill-timed and ill-thought out it was for the government to consider removing section 176.

Could the member speak a little more on that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that this legislation was poorly thought out.

When we heard members on the other side talk about all the research and all the things that went into the legislation, we would have to question why they would want to remove that section. We are hearing from every religious denomination about all the attacks on their properties and their persons. To remove that section just did not make sense. All of us heard loud and clear from our constituents how opposed they were to it.

As I pointed out, when the minister brought the bill in on June 5, 2017, there was already a court case going on in Ottawa at the same time. It had to be something the Liberals either completely missed or did not care about and they moved forward. However, this is a critical issue for many Canadians. As we see the increase in hate crimes with respect to religion, this is one where the push back obviously made the Liberals change their ways. It is appropriate the section is still there.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak tonight to Bill C-51. For those who are not aware, this bill is intended to clean up clauses in the law that are no longer useful or applicable and to strengthen some of the language.

First, Bill C-51 is another omnibus bill. The Prime Minister said that the Liberals would not have omnibus bills, but we continue to see them in the House day after day. I may have gotten used to the fact that the Prime Minister always breaks his promise. However, I want people to be aware of this so they understand, as we approach next year's election, that the Prime Minister does not keep his promises and if he makes new promises, Canadians can expect that behaviour to continue. The promises really are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, I object to this being an omnibus bill.

Usually when we think of justice bills, we think about what the government is trying to achieve in the country with respect to justice. Normally, we try to define what behaviour would be considered criminal, sentences that would be appropriate and commensurate with the crimes and that they are enforced in a timely way. However, I have to question what the justice minister is thinking with these pieces of legislation and actions that have been taken.

The government is in the fourth year of its mandate and what priority has the justice minister been giving time to? First, she has not put enough judges in place to keep murderers and rapists from going free because time has passed and the Jordan principle applies. That should have been a priority for the government, but clearly was not.

We heard earlier in the debate about how the government was pursuing veterans and indigenous people in court. That is obviously a priority for it, but one would think that other things would make the list. The Liberals prioritized the legalization of marijuana and the legalization of assisted suicide. Then it introduced Bill C-75, which took a number of serious crimes and reduced them to summary convictions of two years or a fine, things like forcible confinement of a minor, forced child marriage, belonging to a criminal organization, bribing an official and a lot of things like that. Those were the priorities of the government.

Then there is Bill C-83 regarding solitary confinement and impacts on 340 Canadians.

I am not sure what the priority of the government is when we consider the crime that has hit the streets. There is the increase in unlawful guns and gangs and huge issues with drug trafficking. I was just in Winnipeg and saw the meth addiction problem occupying the police and law enforcement there. I would have thought there would be other priorities.

If I think specifically about some of the measures in Bill C-51, the most egregious one to me is that the government tried to remove section 176, which protects religious officials and puts punishments in place for disrupting religious ceremonies.

Eighty-three churches in Sarnia—Lambton wrote letters and submitted petitions. There was an immediate outcry. It was nice that the government was eventually shamed into changing its mind and kept that section the way it was. However, why is there no moral compass with the government? We have had to shame it into doing the right thing many times, and this was one of them.

Terri-Lynne McClintic was moved to a healing lodge. I remember hearing the Minister of Public Safety talk day after day about how there was nothing he could do. I looked at section 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It says that the minister has full authority over his department. Eventually, of course, we shamed the government into the right thing. We heard today there may be a similar opportunity with Michael Rafferty, the other killer of Tori Stafford.

There is the Chris Garnier situation. He brutally murdered a police officer. He has PTSD and is getting veterans benefits when he was never a veteran. Again, we had to shame the government into taking action.

Then there was Statistics Canada. The government had a plan to allow it to take the personal financial transactional information of people's bank accounts and credit cards without their consent. Again, there was a total out-of-touch-with-Canadians response from the government, asking why it was a problem. Eventually, ruling by the polls, Canadians again shamed the government into changing its mind on that one.

Finally, there was the Canada summer jobs situation, which was very egregious to me. In my riding, numerous organizations were not able to access funding because of this values test that the government had put in place. The hospice, which delivers palliative care, was not even able to apply. It is under the Catholic diocese of Canada, which objected to the attestation. It has taken a very long time, but again, the government has been shamed into saying that the people are right and that maybe it will change it up for next year. Why does the government always have to be shamed into these things instead of having a moral compass to know what is right and what is not?

Bill C-51 would clean up a lot of things that were obviously a big priority for the government, like comic books causing crime. We know there have been huge issues about that in Canada. It would remove offences such as challenging someone to a dual. It would clean up the section on people fraudulently using witchcraft and sorcery. It would clean up a number of things. I do not object to it; I just do not see it as a priority when people are dying because of serious crimes.

Then there is the issue of sexual assault. The government spends a lot of word count talking about the fact that it cares about this. However, does it really care about sexual assault and strengthening the language on consent when it does not appoint enough judges to keep rapists from going free?

I was the chair of the status of women and we studied violence against women and girls. We know that one out of every thousand sexual assault cases actually goes to court and gets a conviction. If we want to talk about the sentences applied, they are measured in months and not years, when the victims struggle on forever.

Although there has been an attempt to make it clear what consent really means, there has been discussion in the debate today that it is still not clear. If people are interested to see what consent really means, there is a little video clip that can be googled. It is called Tea Consent. It is a very good way of demonstrating what consent is. I encourage everyone to take a look at that.

When it comes to the justice system and the priorities of the government, I cannot believe it has not addressed the more serious things facing our nation. We can think about what the justice minister ought to do, such as putting enough judges in place so we can have timely processing of events, and prioritize. If we do not have enough judges for the number of cases occurring, it is an indication of too much crime. However, it is also an opportunity to put the priority on processing murderers and rapists ahead of people being charged with petty crimes of less importance.

When it comes to looking at some of the actions the government should be taking going forward, it should be focusing on the issue of illegal gun activity happening right now. Ninety-five per cent of homicides is happening with unlawful guns or guns that are used unlawfully. There is a huge opportunity to do something about that. This should be a priority for the justice minister.

Our leader has put together a very cohesive plan that would reduce gun and gang violence. It is a great, well-thought out plan. I wish the Liberal government had some plan to try to do something to reduce crime in the country and to ensure that the people who commit crimes are actually held to account. I do not see that in Bill C-51. I have to wonder why it took so long to bring the bill forward.

As I said, the government is in the fourth year of its mandate and Bill C-39 would have made a lot of these fixes. It was introduced in March of 2017. Here we are at the end of 2018 and still none of this has gone through.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that she thought this was an omnibus bill. Everyone else in the House obviously disagrees with her because with an omnibus bill, the vote can be split, and no one requested to have the vote split. It only affects two acts: the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act.

Maybe the member could explain why she thinks this is an omnibus bill, as she is the only member in the House who thinks this.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am not the only one in the House who thinks it is an omnibus bill. Perhaps we are just so numb with the number of these that have come by. The most recent one was the 854-page budget bill, which was definitely an omnibus bill. We are so used to seeing them, and all of these things lumped together.

In this one, there are so many different issues that members have to look at many different parts of the Criminal Code in order to see them. This takes a lot of time, and of course we do not always get a lot of time because the government is continually doing time allocation to cut off the time for debate and study.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the issue with respect to section 176 was just an oversight. It was a mistake that was quickly rectified by the committee. I think we are all glad that it was. This underlines how important committee work is in fixing bills.

I want to move to the Senate amendments. Part of the issue that the Senate had with this bill was not so much with the definition of “consent”, but more with the definition of when no consent is obtained. I am thinking of a victim who is intoxicated voluntarily. We are unsure as to whether consent can be obtained. I am thinking of the Rehtaeh Parsons case. Rehtaeh Parsons was sexually assaulted while intoxicated, and the court acquitted the people who were charged.

The Senate is attempting to really add in more specific language to the Criminal Code so that we do not have judicial discretion. It is so that “no consent” is clearly laid out such that people have to be able to understand the nature, circumstances and risks and that they have a choice. They have to be able to “affirmatively express agreement to the sexual activity”.

Could my colleague comment on those specific amendments the Senate is trying to make on this bill, and whether she agrees with the spirit and intent of the amendments?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we're definitely moving in the right direction with respect to defining “consent”, but when I still hear arguments back and forth that say it's still not clear, it sounds like we have not arrived at the exact answer.

If we can determine what makes a person mentally competent to give consent in the case of assisted dying, then we should be able to define consent for sexual activity. I do not think this definition is exactly where it needs to be, but I think it is moving in the right direction. We have to move away from the notion of people being unconscious. It has to be clear that if they are inebriated, they cannot give consent, and that people who have a mental challenge may not be able to give consent.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue on the omnibus bill discussion.

I gave a 10-minute speech explaining to the House the technicalities and how the orders have been changed so that they cannot be abused. With respect to the budget bill, the member mentioned that at 854 pages it was obviously an omnibus bill. It does not matter how long a budget implementation bill is. Obviously governments have to implement budgets, so they need legislation, which can be 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 pages long. As long as a bill implements what is in the budget, it can put in a number of things. Previously, there was a budget implementation bill that had a huge amount about the environment that was not in the budget, and that was abuse of the budget implementation bill.

This is to provide clarity so that members know what is abuse and what is not abuse with respect to budget bills and non-budget bills.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is asking the wrong question. The question really should be why the government does not keep its promises. Omnibus bills are one example. Liberals said they would not propose them and they have. He admitted that there are some out there.

Let us think about the other promises the government made but did not keep: the deficits that were going to be very small that are not, which are three times what they were supposed to be; the balancing of the budget within the mandate; and the restoration of home mail delivery. I could go on and on, but I can see that my time is up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will inform the member that there are only 12 minutes remaining in the time for debate on the motion before the House and I will interrupt him at 6:45 p.m.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for three plus years and this will be the last week for many of us in this beautiful building. I hope all 338 of us take the time to walk around each of the sections of this wonderful building and soak them in: the Railway Committee Room, the Reading Room, the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons. This is one of the great institutions of our country. We all felt it coming to the House of Commons tonight, with the Christmas lights. We are so privileged, over 300 of us, to call this our home.

A good number of us will not be here when it reopens, whether it is in 12 years, 15 years, 20 years, whatever the case may be. Hopefully, we all take pictures. This is a great facility and such an honour. I had a distinguished 40-year career in broadcasting. The iconic curtains in the House of Commons have been here for so long. Come Wednesday or Thursday, we should treat this place like a basketball court, cut them down and each get a piece of the curtains.

I am here tonight to speak on Bill C-51. The stated purpose of this bill is to streamline the Criminal Code of Canada by removing certain provisions that no longer have any relevance in contemporary society. The Conservative Party is very supportive of Bill C-51 strengthening the provisions of the sexual assault legislation and has led the way for supporting victims of sexual assault by, among other things, Bill C-337 by my former Conservative colleague Rona Ambrose, which is one such measure.

Bill C-337 would make it mandatory, as we have heard in the House throughout the day, for judges to participate in sexual assault training and be aware of the challenges sexual assault victims face. The bill was designed to hold the Canadian judiciary responsible for the ongoing training of judges and the application of law in sexual assault trials. It would require that lawyers also receive training in sexual assault as a criterion of eligibility for a federally appointed judicial position. As members will recall, Bill C-337 was passed in the House of Commons and appears to be well on its way to royal assent in the Senate, although Ms. Ambrose, like the rest of us, is waiting patiently for the results.

Bill C-51 would expand the rape shield provisions to include communications of a sexual nature or communications for a sexual purpose. These provisions would provide that evidence of a complainant's prior sexual history cannot be used to support the inference that the complainant was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity in issue or that the complainant is less worthy of belief. The bill also provides that a complainant would have the right to legal representation in rape shield cases, which I believe is very important, but also creates a regime to determine whether an accused could introduce a complainant's private records at trial that would be in his or her possession. This would complement the existing regime governing the accused person's ability to obtain complainants' private records when those records would be in the hands of a third party.

There are some aspects of Bill C-51 that Conservatives were opposed to, such as the removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code, the section of the code that provides protection for religious services and those who perform religious services. It was absolutely ludicrous to remove this section of the Criminal Code when we have seen such a startling increase in attacks on mosques, synagogues and even churches as of late.

It should be noted that, according to Statistics Canada, over one-third of reported hate crimes in this country are motivated by hatred of religion, and removing section 176 would remove valuable protection for our faith leaders in this country.

I received many calls in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood over the removal of this section from the Criminal Code. This was brought up on June 5 here in the House, and a couple of weeks later when we recessed for the summer, I had many phone calls in my office in Saskatoon. I remember one phone call came from Pastor Eldon Boldt of Circle Drive Alliance Church. He was terribly concerned by this and was going to start a petition. He wanted the current government to know that this was wrong. He was concerned not only for his own well-being but for other religious leaders across the country.

In Quebec City, we had six people killed in a mosque attack. Our Conservative caucus at the time of that attack was just leaving Quebec City and returning to Ottawa. Also, 26 people were killed at the First Baptist Church in Texas. This is just a short list of what has gone on in this world.

Our religious freedoms are protected, and section 176 of the Criminal Code is certainly part of that protection. Religious freedoms are fundamental to all Canadians, and Conservatives are clearly proud to be among the first to stand and support religious freedoms of all faith.

I should add some words from the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, Canada's prime minister from 1958 to 1962, who hails from my province of Saskatchewan, in fact, Prince Albert. He said:

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

If members come to my city of Saskatoon, I will take them to the Diefenbaker Centre where these words are etched onto the wall. It is very important, and these are great words from former prime minister John G. Diefenbaker.

There was a large public outcry against this amendment, and, thankfully, the Liberal members of the justice committee listened to all Canadians and voted to keep section 176 of the Criminal Code.

To summarize, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-51, which covers a broad range of amendments to the Criminal Code. Our current Prime Minister, of course, talked about omnibus bills being undemocratic. We talked about this in the House. I remember door-knocking back in 2015 as our former Conservative government was blamed, and maybe rightfully so at times, for the omnibus bills created in the House from 2011 to 2015. However, we see now that the bill before us, introduced by the current government, could also be considered an omnibus bill, because it has so many sections to the Criminal Code that we are dealing with. It is a promise, actually a pattern of promises, not kept by the Liberal government.

However, there are some amendments to the Criminal Code addressed in Bill C-51 that are quite necessary and really common sense. For example, we fully support all changes in the bill that clarify and even strengthen the sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. These changes would help support all victims of sexual assault crimes.

Conservatives have always stood up for the rights of victims in this country. We have a proud record of introducing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the passing of Bill C-337, which would make it mandatory for all judges to participate in sexual assault training. Both of these actions are in support of victims. Sometimes we forget all too much about the victims in this country, and they certainly need to be supported.

I think the Conservative Party has supported victims very well in the past number of decades.

Additionally, we support repealing or amending sections of the code that have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. The removal of obsolete or even redundant provisions makes common sense. There is really no need for provisions about witchcraft or duelling in the streets. They are just not part of today's society.

However, an area of this bill which caused great concern for all Canadians was the government's removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code. We have talked about that. Thanks to the work of an effective opposition on this side, and the voices of all Canadians who spoke up in the summer of 2017 to challenge the government, the Liberals have decided to back down from these changes.

That just about wraps up my time. I just want to wish everyone who is in the House and who is watching the House of Commons on CPAC tonight all the best in the holiday season. As this could be the final time that I rise in 2018, I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-51 now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.