Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sentencing and other acts in consequence thereof.
There are a number of positive aspects of this bill that I personally find encouraging. For example, it is good to see that victim impact statements will be allowed as testimony, though Reform members have voiced concerns over the decision that only written testimonies will be accepted.
One of the principle concerns I hold though lies in this bill's further entrenching of the divisions between Canadians as outlined in section 718.2. This entrenching does nothing to pull Canadians together and reinforce the principles of fundamental justice. If anything, it stigmatizes Canadians, classifies Canadians, divides Canadians and raises suspicions between Canadians.
In the last century, one of the most controversial thinkers ever proposed a radical view of history and society. Whether or not one agrees with these views and opinions, most people will agree that Karl Marx was one of the great philosophers of his age. The theories he put forward on society's changes and conflicts rested on one basic foundation, that our society is divided into identifiable groups. Changes came in Marx's model when groups polarized and fought against each other, landowners versus peasants, the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, or the capitalists versus the communists. These groups would clash and fight and in the end, society would undergo dramatic changes, he proposed.
Most Canadians today rightly refuse to have anything to do with Marx's principles of division and conflict. The people of this country want Canada to be a land of opportunity where anyone, rich or poor, man or woman, can reach for their dreams and strive for whatever goals their hearts desire. We strive for a country free of racism and discrimination so that when we look at each other we see nothing but fellow Canadians. Ironically, it is our governments, not the Canadian people, which are striving to retrench and reinforce these very divisions that Canadians are trying to erase.
It was in 1982 that the government of Pierre Trudeau brought forward its controversial charter of rights and freedoms. This charter did not simply declare all individuals as equal under and before the law, it outlined the specific grounds under which people could not be discriminated. In other words, it spelled out the specific grounds under which Canadians could be considered equal or unequal.
In section 15(2), much to the surprise of many Canadians, the charter gives our governments the power and the authority to discriminate. This charter by its language and intentions purposely divided Canadians into identifiable groups both before the courts and before their fellow Canadians.
Since the passage of the charter, Canadians from coast to coast have fought against the entrenchment of these divisions in the quest to simply become Canadians above all else, not hyphenated Canadians, not divided Canadians. For example, Statistics Canada became extremely frustrated during the last census because many Canadians refused to identify their ethnic origin. They saw themselves only as Canadians and told StatsCan this by writing "Canadian" on the form.
The message they were sending is: "We are Canadians, not members of some identifiable group". Despite this opposition StatsCan is continuing to compile these figures. Without a doubt even more questions on ethnic origins will be asked in future censuses.
It is odd that my colleague from Calgary Centre presented a petition just last Monday calling on Statistics Canada to consider adding Canadian to its list of backgrounds and ethnicities. There is a message here. Canadians are tired of the divisions, tired of the classifications. They are seeking parity. They want equality.
This brings me to Bill C-41 and the amendments to the Criminal Code under debate today. A great deal of debate has surrounded section 718.2 of the bill. No doubt each member of the House has received numerous letters asking that we, as members of Parliament, vote against this entire bill because of the section and particularly because of the inclusion of the words sexual orientation.
Last week my counterpart from Port Moody-Coquitlam tried to give the justice minister over 10,000 letters from Canadians who oppose this inclusion. As well, over 70,000 Canadians have signed their names to over 600 petitions against this aspect of the bill. Reports have placed the number of letters to the minister opposing section 718.2 at over 70,000.
The reasons for opposing this section are wide ranging. For some the reasons are based on their religious beliefs or ethical convictions. For others the opposition stems from legal concerns. For me the key concern is that this section once again enhances the notion that there are no real Canadians in this country, just identifiable groups that happen to share a plot of land on the northern part of the continent.
I agree with the basic principle of this section, that those committing a violent act based on hatred or bias should be more severely punished. In Canada, after all, we oppose all forms of violence. We look south of the border and we are shocked at the rampant crime and brutality in many United States cities. Is it not ironic that the capital of the United States of America, Washington, D.C., also has the highest homicide rate in North America? It is a tragedy none of us want to see repeated north of the 49th parallel.
More important though we are a people who from day one of our existence have opposed discrimination. Even before Confederation we willingly became the final stop along the underground railroad. We provided new homes and new opportunities to hundreds of American slaves who wanted nothing more than a taste of freedom. Since then we have welcomed people from every corner of the globe to taste and savour that same freedom enjoyed so many years ago. Many have come not only for our freedom but also to contribute to our society.
My constituents oppose and I oppose how the government is setting aside these principles and using the bill to further entrench these legislated divisions. The bill outlines to Canadians what discrimination is from the federal government's point of view. Included in the list are a person's race, national origin or ethnic origin, someone's language, an individual's colour, sex or age, a person's mental or physical disability, someone's sexual orientation or finally some other similar factor.
As I noted earlier a great deal of debate has surrounded the inclusion of the term sexual orientation. As the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Quebec Bar Association have noted, the lack of a definition of this term could open the door to the legal acceptance of such practices as pedophelia. These groups, I would like to add, are seeking a clear definition limiting the term sexual orientation to heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. It is a concern that has not been directly addressed by the government.
I find it ironic that the government refuses to define the term sexual orientation yet insists on defining and limiting the term discrimination. Some characteristics it would appear are more worthy of protection than others. Those singled out for attack based on some characteristic outside of these grounds have no assurance that they will be protected by the full force of the law.
For example, would this section apply to the Canadian counterpart to the so-called unibomber, an individual well known throughout the United States for attacking academics with letter bombs? Would it apply in the case of people singled out for attack because of their size or lack of strength, their accent or any number of characteristics in this legal and legislative grey area? The fact is we do not know.
I am encouraged that a number of members in this Chamber have seen this shortfall. Proposals have been brought forward to simplify this section and make additional measures apply to any instance where bias, prejudice or hate are involved. Sadly though, it appears that the justice minister is fully committed to appeasing the special interests and keeping his list of characteristics in place.
To conclude, Canadians for many years have been trying to move beyond government defined categories in the hope of becoming one people. This bill defies this vision and tries to further entrench these categories to appease special interests.
Canadians have clearly spoken out against these categories and want equal protection under the law. It is my intention therefore to oppose this bill when it comes up for final vote and I encourage other hon. members to do the same.
