Mr. Speaker, once again I find myself debating a bill restricted by time allocation brought in by the government and its cohorts in the Bloc Quebecois.
When time allocation was introduced for Bill C-41, Bill C-68 and Bill C-85, the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs said the government was forced to do so because the Reform Party had introduced hundreds of amendments aimed solely at stalling the passage of the bill.
When we look at the amendments introduced at report stage on Bill C-41, we see there are a total of 25. Of those 25 amendments only five were Reform Party amendments. How can the secretary of state possibly claim that by submitting five of the 25 amendments the Reform Party was trying to stall Bill C-41?
How can the government possibly claim time allocation was necessary to get the bill passed when it was tabled at report stage on March 22? The government has had almost three months to get the legislation passed.
It is not the Reform Party causing problems for the government on the bill, it is a few Liberal backbenchers causing the government so much anxiety it had to invoke time allocation to get the bill passed with as little debate as possible.
On the quality of debate, I raise some comments made by the member for Vancouver Centre. I am glad to see she has rejoined us so she can hear me. I am bothered that the member for Vancouver Centre had the audacity to question the member for Crowfoot whether he had read the entire bill. I do not recall seeing the member for Vancouver Centre sitting in the justice committee for months and months listening to witnesses or going through the bill clause by clause, trying to make it into something better.
The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said this bill is a law of hate motivated crime and that was the sole intent and purpose of it. Maybe these individuals should take a few minutes off and actually read the bill and find out it is about a lot more than hate motivated crime. The member from the Bloc who spoke should do so as well. This bill is about sentencing. It is about alternative measures. It is about breach of trust by public officials and section 745, so much more than hate motivated crime. Having sat through months of testimony on Bill C-41 in the justice committee, it is a shame that many of the aspects of the bill about which I have spoken have been overlooked because of the words sexual orientation being brought into section 718.2 of the Criminal Code and of having an enumerated list of qualifiers.
The hon. member for Rosedale and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre raised the fact that the police were fully behind the bill. As other members have said, the police association is not behind the bill. When the justice minister was promoting his infamous Bill C-68, the gun control legislation, he held up the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association as institutions that supported the gun legislation and asked how Canadians could not support it. I will tell government members that the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association do not support Bill C-41. I quote the Canadian Police Association which stated:
Our criminal justice system is based on both a defining statute (the Criminal Code) and the case law which has been built up over years in its interpretation and application. Both aspects are cornerstones of our system.
This bill attempts to codify some, and I emphasize only some, of the basic principles of sentencing which evolved in our courts over the last hundred years or so-This bill's approach of attempting to redefine principles will result in endless litigation which will add millions of wasted dollars of expense to a system that is now struggling to make more efficient use of existing resources.
The Canadian Police Association represents police across the country, not just in Ottawa. It went on to say that it was compelled to articulate just how ill advised the bill was and to say:
The sentencing is far too important to be saddled with as poor an effort as this and it should be sent back to the drafting table with instructions to start again. At this late date we urge you to do the same thing and do whatever is necessary to not proceed any further on this bill.
Those are pretty strong statements from the police community that was so important to the government's support of Bill C-68 but is being totally ignored on Bill C-41. Why is its support so important on one bill and totally ignored on the other?
When Parliament passes amendments to current legislation it is usually done because it wishes to change the direction of the legislation or to make up for some deficiency in law. As was pointed out by the Canadian Police Association, the bill falls far short of that.
The amendment about which everyone has been talking this evening with respect to section 718.2 does not do it either. The amendment calls for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate to be deemed aggravating circumstances. Therefore a greater sentence would be applied. We have heard impassioned speeches from the government benches about the personal injustices and experiences they have had with respect to discrimination. I do not doubt that. I do not doubt there are many Canadians who have been faced with that.
The justice committee heard extensive evidence about what the courts have been doing for years. Before passing sentence the courts take into consideration all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The courts are already giving stronger sentences when they are based on hate or prejudice.
The motivation of the offender has always been an issue. Courts today frequently hand out more severe penalties for crimes committed on the basis of hate, prejudice or bias. If that is already the case, why do we need this section in Bill C-41? Are we in effect telling the courts that we are passing new legislation because we want them to maintain the status quo? There is one difference, which is that section 718.2 lists nine issues to be considered.
The justice committee attempted to determine if the list was exclusionary, that is if the basis for hate crime is not listed in the section can the court consider it to be an aggravating factor?
The hon. member across the way brought forward the fact that an amendment was made to it. Yes, there was an amendment made to it that added the similar factor. As is usual, in cases where lawyers appeared as witnesses some said that the list would not be exclusionary and others said that the list would be considered exclusionary. If it was not meant to be exclusive why would the government include a list?
It is obvious that people charged under this section will be arguing as to whether or not the list is exclusive. It is equally likely that in leaving the section as it is we as parliamentarians are leaving it up to the courts to decide whether something belongs to the similar factor. That is why the section should be deleted in its entirety. I have not heard one individual state that the courts as a whole have not been effective in taking aggravating factors into consideration for crimes based on hate, prejudice or bias.
As I said earlier, section 718.2 received the most attention but other areas deserve further scrutiny. One such issue is alternative measures. The concept of alternative measures is valid. I do not think there is anyone in the Reform Party who does not support the concept of alternative measures.
However the bill has left far too many unanswered questions. What is an alternative measure? We cannot answer that question because there is no definition. There are not even guidelines on what the provinces can decide is an alternative measure. Who qualifies for alternative measures? That is another question that we cannot answer. The bill just states that the person who makes the decision must consider it appropriate. Who is this person who is to decide if the penalty is appropriate or not? Again we do not have an answer. The bill does not stipulate who should be making these decisions. In fact the bill does not even state what type of crimes are appropriate for alternative measures.
One would think that the alternative measures would not be available to people who have previously been dealt with by alternative measures. The bill does not say that. It may be extremely difficult to determine if an offender was previously dealt with by way of alternative measures because there is no need for mandatory reporting of alternative measures. Nor is there a central repository to determine if alternative measures have been previously used. The sections dealing with alternative measures are just too vague to support.
Another serious issue that Bill C-41 fails to address is that of individuals in public positions losing their positions if convicted and sentenced to a term of incarceration. Previously a member of Parliament who was convicted of a criminal offence could only lose his or her position if sentenced to a term in excess of five years.
The justice committee accepted a Liberal amendment to this clause that reduces the necessary term of incarceration from five years to two years. However the committee rejected a Reform amendment that elected officials should be removed from their positions if they are sentenced to any period of incarceration. Perhaps it was a little too severe for the Liberals' liking but the zero tolerance was based on reality. Members of the RCMP who are convicted of a criminal offence lose their jobs if they spend even one day in jail. How could Parliament permit such a double standard?
We expect members of the national police force to have such a high standard of conduct that any incarceration would automatically result in the loss of their jobs. Yet when it comes to the standard of conduct of our own, the lawmakers of the country, we say that only incarceration in a federal institution for two years or more will disqualify an elected official. How can the government justify this contradiction?
However the biggest problem with Bill C-41 is not necessarily what is there but rather what is not there. Bill C-41 is tinkering when what is really needed is a major overhaul.
I go back to the CPA letter which says that it should be sent back to the drafting table with instructions to start again. It is not just Reformers who feel that it needs to be scrapped; that is also supported by the CPA.
We need a sentencing bill that will lock up violent high risk offenders and keep them incarcerated until they are no longer a threat to the public. We need a sentencing bill that will provide offenders with a sentence that is a specific deterrent to them and a general deterrent to others. We need a sentencing bill that provides sentences that are commensurate with the severity of the crime, sentences that are applied consistently and with a high degree of certainty.
The justice system is suffering from a major lack of public support. If we are ever to regain the public's faith in the justice system, we must provide Canadians with laws that will really keep our streets and communities safe.
Bill C-41 is not the answer. I ask my colleagues on the opposition side and on the government side how they could possibly support such a poorly written document that will infringe on justice in Canada.
