Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be addressing Parliament today on Bill C-41. To say the least, the legislation has caused quite a stir.
The government has introduced close to 100 bills since the election but next to Bill C-68, the gun bill, no other bill has raised the kind of attention this one has.
Although the bill is extensive the focus has been on just one small section. However the implications of this one section are great and could create a social shift in the Criminal Code. The general intent of the bill is reasonable. The Criminal Code needs to be overhauled in terms of its sentencing guidelines. The code is rather weak and soft as I know all Canadians will attest. Canadians want a code that will protect them and keep our streets safer.
On the first day the bill was brought before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, November 17, 1994, the minister was present as a witness. I was at that hearing and listened closely to what the minister had to say. In particular I listened to his reasoning behind section 718.2, the clause that would increase penalties for those who commit crimes while at the same time they might have thought about someone's sexual orientation or religion or whatever.
With regard to section 718.2 the minister stated:
It's there, provided that a court that imposes a sentence shall take into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In connection with aggravating circumstances, the court must consider evidence that the offence was motivated with bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or the sexual orientation of the victim.
As a court officer for over 20 years I have sat through enough court cases to know that judges already take into account all these factors in sentencing. I ask the justice minister, if something is already being done in the courts on a regular basis with innovation and flexibility, why it is necessary or appropriate to write them into the code and thereby stultify what is presently working. Where are the events in the community of such a pervasive nature that begs this kind of legislative response?
I refer to another piece of testimony given by the minister on that day. The minister stated:
I'm asked why not define the term "sexual orientation"-there's no need to add a definition. It's perfectly clear what the intention of the legislation is.
The minister in that committee finally stated what he thought was a definition of the term sexual orientation. He said:
That interpretation of that provision has been that sexual orientation encompasses homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.
Fine, I can understand that definition. Why is it then that when an amendment is proposed at the clause by clause stage to add such a definition to the term sexual orientation-and I may say the identical definition the minister stated at the committee-every Liberal member except three voted against it?
Witnesses had come before the justice committee and stated that sexual orientation could mean anything, including transsexuality and even pedophilia. Canadians need to know the direction the government is taking. I think they are observing that it is downhill. This type of leadership is unacceptable and must be highlighted so that the public can see. Then it can infer what kind of government we have.
I quote from the minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs a question I asked of John Conroy from the Canadian Bar Association on the definition of sexual orientation. I said to him:
-to my mind, the term "sexual orientation" is pretty broad. It could involve all kinds of repugnant possibilities, even those that are illegal. So could you address your mind to the definition of the term "sexual orientation" and support what you are saying when you say that it is carefully and narrowly drafted? I ask this because my assertion is that the term "sexual orientation" is not defined and is too broad.
Here is the response that was given to my question:
I would take the definition that you raised a minute ago. That has certainly been the definition I've always understood: homosexual, heterosexual, or some other sexual orientation. It could be any kind of sexual orientation, and it could be something that, as you say, is illegal.
The definition could be any kind of sexual orientation. One would assume from this that someone who practises bestiality, pedophilia or transsexuality would be considered under this section. The minister says no, but he is unwilling to define the term sexual orientation. His social agenda is clear and it has little to do with getting tough on crime.
The proposed sentencing guidelines are redundant and ill considered, injecting politics and social fashion into the administration of criminal law. Judges already have wide discretion in sentencing within limits provided by the courts of appeal. They often use this discretion to hand out particularly harsh sentences for crimes they consider harmful to society.
As far as I can determine, the government has presented no evidence that judges are being unduly lenient with criminals motivated by hate as compared to the leniency for other offences. Why pass a law that in effect asks judges to conform in accordance with a fashionable list?
The Criminal Code is not a toy or a political manifesto. Nor should it be a showcase for the government's style. It is the law of the land, the moral border of tolerance where the state will intervene. Before the government makes any changes to the Criminal Code it should show first that there is a problem and, further, a problem that can be effectively addressed by the criminal law. Demonstrate, then legislate.
The problem contemplated by section 718.2 of Bill C-41 relates to an important principle. I said from the very beginning, and I will continue to say it, that the legislation ignores the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law. It suggests that violence against one person is less or more significant than against others, and that it provides special recognitions and advantages to select groups of people. I do not believe it is a wise course for the administration of justice.
Several years ago a boy was murdered in Calgary by a young offender. His reasoning: the victim was overweight, shy and too brainy for his liking so he stabbed him to death. Not one of these characteristics is in the listed schedule in Bill C-41. Clearly the young boy was victimized based on discrimination of aforethought. Where does the list of discriminating characteristics end? The list is indefinite and that is why the Reform Party wants clause 718.2 of the bill removed to keep all persons equal before the law.
The courts already take into account the surrounding circumstances of the offence at the time of sentencing. If someone commits assault causing bodily harm that person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. The judge makes the decision concerning the length of the sentence not exceeding 10 years.
As it currently stands, if the judge feels that a person was assaulted because of religion, the accused could be given a term of up to 10 years in prison. What many do not understand is that even if the amendments to Bill C-41 come into force, the maximum penalty the judge can give in such a case is still 10 years. The legislation will not strengthen the limits of the Criminal Code.
It is evident that section 718.2 is not presented for any criminal justice purpose but rather to mollify some loud political voices. This section of the Criminal Code is for a social fashion purpose, what is currently politically and socially correct as defined by the Liberals.
By slipping section 718.2 into Bill C-41 the government manoeuvres one step closer to its overall agenda to include homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would then enable gay couples to claim spousal benefits and perhaps overturn by legal challenge any pro-traditional family social policy of the federal government. All in all section 718.2 should be deleted from Bill C-41. Deleting it would make it a better piece of legislation and more in line with the true will of the Canadian people.
I want to address another amendment that we as a party have proposed. It is simply to delete anything to do with section 745 of the Criminal Code. The clause has no right to be part of the code at all. Bill C-41 should not be referring to it. I know the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce feels differently as this had become his legacy when he was the solicitor general. Liberals see section 745 as the glimmer of hope. Reformers see a life sentence as just that, a life sentence. Life should mean life.
Today a court in Ontario is in the midst of the very disturbing trial of Paul Bernardo. He is charged with the murders of two young girls. If convicted he could receive a life sentence, but because of section 745 he could be walking our streets in 15 years. I cannot even bear to think of the possibility of this occurring. Yet the bleeding hearts condemn Reformers for even thinking of repealing this offensive section.
The member for York South-Weston has a private member's bill at committee stage that would get rid of section 745. If clear heads prevail, the bill will pass through the committee stage. The bill passed second reading and I believe that 74 members of the Liberal caucus supported it. We have hope then that our amendment will have similar results when it comes to a vote. When 74 Liberal members vote differently than the justice minister and the Prime Minister, one can only come to the
conclusion that these members are simply doing what is right for the justice system in our society.
Repeal of section 745 represents what the majority of Canadians want. It is a bellwether issue to measure the appropriateness of the social philosophy of the section 745 defenders. Who could ever even vote for and support in Parliament any MP who has the kind of mind that would continue to defend section 745? Canadians want it repealed. I hope the government is listening.
In conclusion I am saying that the underlying social philosophy of Bill C-41 is a measure of the basic value structure of the Prime Minister. He alone is ultimately responsible and accountable for the devalued tone of the bill's inherent message. Everything in the bill has his stamp of approval.
The Prime Minister sometimes appears as a likeable guy. However his legislation and values represented in the bill are not very likeable. The bill does not represent mainstream Canadian values. Consequently it is revealed that neither does the Prime Minister. Improvement will only come with a new government.