House of Commons Hansard #219 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentencing.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Reform

Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Quebec Bar Association. They speak of their concern for opening the door to legal acceptance of such practices as pedophilia.

While it may not be explicitly included in the legislation it certainly gives an indication, a hint, a clue, a direction to the courts that are already pushing well beyond the legislators. This has been indicated in Ontario where the legislators voted it down and the courts brought it back in. It has opened the door to question in Alberta.

I believe we are setting precedents here that really take away the significance of Parliament being the high court of the land.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am listening with distress as I see this debate drift farther and farther away from what is really relevant. The members opposite are talking about creating divisions, conferring special rights, saying that government is singling people out for special status.

It is not the government or the minister that is singling people out for special status. As I said this afternoon in the House, it is the hoods, it is the thugs, it is the criminals that are out there on the streets singling out gays and lesbians for special status. They are providing them with special status by hunting them down and beating them up. This legislation is an attempt to get the Parliament of Canada to do something about it.

My hon. friends opposite tend to forget this is a bill which has to do with sentencing in the criminal law. The hon. member for Wild Rose would tell us that we are condoning immorality, we are breaking up the family unit. He does not approve of homosexuality. We are not inviting him to approve of homosexuality.

Religion is on the list too. We are not inviting him to approve all the religions held by Canadians from coast to coast. This has nothing to do with social engineering, it is about the criminal law. This is about punishing criminals which is what I thought the Reform liked to do.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am reminded by the table the time has expired but I will give the member a chance to very briefly reply.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Reform

Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply because the hon. minister raises a valid point that what we are debating here is the legislation. As was said before, a thug is a thug and should be treated the same in every instance.

I want to remind the minister of what the Canadian Police Association has said. It is an organization he lauded in the Bill C-68 debate:

Bill C-41 is confused, contradictory and in large part wholly unnecessary. It is a blatant example of what a former Liberal member of the justice committee described as smoke and mirrors legislation. It is put forward as meaningful sentencing reform but it is only that in the sense that it will generate endless litigation with huge attendant costs for little or no purpose.

That is the statement of the Canadian Police Association about the legislation without regard to the categories that have been defined in this legislation.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. There have been consultations among members of the House to the effect that a word in the French text of the bill could be improved.

This word has to do with the restitution provisions of the bill under clause 738. Therefore given that consultation, I would like to move:

That Clause 138 of Bill C-41 be amended, in the French version, by replacing lines 40 and 41, on page 33, with the following:

"garde d'enfants, qu'une telle personne a réellement engagé pour demeurer ailleurs-"

I ask the unanimous consent of the House to make this change in the French text, and I want to thank my colleagues from the Bloc, who mentioned the need to improve the text, for proposing this amendment. I welcome this opportunity to present it to the House.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The House has heard the request of the government whip. Is there unanimous consent?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the House on Bill C-41. I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister of Justice for bringing it to the House.

I should also congratulate all members of the justice committee who reviewed the bill with a great deal of public attention focused on them. I would also like to extend congratulations to my colleague from Brant who has made a significant contribution to the bill through an amendment providing restitution to the victims of domestic violence. This amendment will make a good bill a better bill.

My office has received many letters about this bill both for and against. Unfortunately the majority of letters are centred around two words found within one clause. Very few correspondents talk of the need for sentencing reform or the need to include a statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing.

We have heard very few voices acknowledging the broad acceptance the bill has received from the legal community. It is very easy to get caught up in the emotion of an argument. We have seen that several times tonight. To argue fact and common sense takes more skill than courage. I support this bill for many reasons but the best of all is that our justice system and Canada as a whole will be better for it.

Bill C-41 is very similar to Bill C-90 which was introduced during the last Parliament. Bill C-90 died on the Order Paper when then Prime Minister Campbell called the last federal election.

In fact, the entire issue of sentencing reform has been the topic of study for both Liberal and Conservative governments for many years. The bill before us can trace its beginnings to a white paper on sentencing that was published in 1984.

Perhaps what we should do is extend our apologies to our colleagues of the past, our proponents of sentencing reform for allowing it to wait this long.

The Liberal version of sentencing reform contains an important difference from the previous version. This difference which I will discuss in detail later was in the Liberal Party red book during the last federal election and Liberal candidates across the country, myself included, were prepared to defend this policy throughout the election.

I wonder why opposition members who are so vehemently opposed to this now did not lobby their party to make an issue of it during the election campaign.

There are three specific areas of this bill that I would like to address. The first area deals with adding a statement of purpose and principles within the sentencing portion of the Criminal Code. Our role in regard to sentencing has been largely based on setting maximum penalties for offences rather than in dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.

It would seem that we have been putting the cart before the horse. When we create the sentencing procedure, it is right and just for us to put forward principles that represent Parliament's rationale behind sentencing. The statement of purpose and principles put forward in this bill describes the objectives of sentencing as: helping in the rehabilitation of offenders as law-abiding persons; separating offenders from society where necessary; providing restitution to individual victims or the community; promoting a sense of responsibility by offenders, including encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to victims or to the

community; denouncing unlawful conduct; and deterring the offender and other people from committing offences.

In the future when the government or a private member for that matter proposes a bill that involves a criminal sentence we will be able to compare it to the guiding principles that have been set out in Bill C-41. As well, criminal courts across Canada will have the same principles to follow rather than a patchwork of sentencing practices and principles that differ from province to province as is prevalent now.

The second section of the bill I want to discuss deals with changes to early parole or section 745 hearings. Currently the Criminal Code allows victim impact statements to be read only at sentencing hearings. The bill would allow the victim's impact statement to be read at section 745 hearings, ensuring that a victim has the opportunity to outline the harm done by the offender.

I should preface my remarks by saying that I was proud to support Bill C-226 proposed by the member for York South-Weston when it came to the House at second reading. It will be interesting to see the recommendations made by the justice committee when the bill comes back to the House in the near future.

I would prefer to see section 745 repealed. If this cannot be accomplished, the amendments within the bill are the next best alternative. Victims should have a say in how the crime has affected and changed their lives. Early parole, if it remains within our criminal justice system, should be a rarity given only to prisoners who show little likelihood of offending again and who have served adequate retribution for their crimes.

I do not want to see a Clifford Olsen walking the streets because of a 745 hearing. I think he would be even more unlikely to be released if the families of those killed were able to give evidence at the hearing. We often speak eloquently about the need to recognize victim's rights. This bill addresses that concern. All members should applaud the government for taking this necessary step.

The third issue I want to address relates to sentencing in crimes motivated by hate. I worry when hatred causes people to commit a crime. Far too often people commit crimes motivated by prejudice and hate. In our country we have seen hatemongers spreading their untruths at our schools, on our streets and in our workplaces. Less than two years ago, white supremacists marched on Parliament Hill to tell the world about the hate they felt for those who were different from them based on race, religion, physical handicap or sexual orientation.

After passage of this bill, a sentencing judge can use the aggravating circumstance of hate to decide what sentence should be handed down. This will only apply after a conviction has already been delivered. It will allow the sentencing judge to provide for a punishment that will make it very clear to groups that propagate hatred and to people who follow a philosophy of hate that their actions will not be tolerated in Canadian society. I applaud the government for including this section. If we can keep those who commit crimes motivated by hate in prison longer then we are all better for it.

Unfortunately discrimination has been a constant throughout Canadian history. We only need to reflect on the inhuman way our native people have been treated or the citizens of Japanese ancestry or origin during the second world war. Only 80 years ago, women in Canada did not have the democratic right to vote because they were not considered persons.

I took the time to look at the suffrage debate that took place in 1918. Members argued that it was against natural law for women to have the right to vote. In this very institution members of Parliament declared that women did not want the vote. Now we know that view was wrong. We all realize the important role women play in our society and the invaluable role they play within this House. For someone to say it was against natural law to allow them to vote seems ludicrous to us today.

There are people who believe it is against natural law to give a segment of our society protection in this bill. It is quite possible that there are members within the House who feel this group should be denied protection. Respectfully, I have to disagree. When it can be proven that a group in our society is facing discrimination the law should move to protect that group. Can any of us say there are no incidents of gay bashing in Canada?

I have heard the argument that one cannot identify someone's sexual orientation just by looking at them. I agree. Are we then to ask people to deny who they are? We could also say you cannot identify a person's religion just by looking at them. We have consistently seen religious groups persecuted throughout history. It would be humiliating and wrong to advise citizens to deny their differences in order to escape persecution. Instead the government should move to assure that all such groups-

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I believe he is sharing his time with the hon. member for Burlington. If that is correct, it is questions and comments at this point.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. This legislation will result in longer, more complex and more costly trials.

Friends of mine in the RCMP are frustrated because they work very hard yet the courts do not mete out justice, often for some procedural technicality. Why not bring forth legislation that would close some of those loopholes rather than open up more of them, as this legislation does?

The same Liberals that brought us the Young Offenders Act are now bringing us justice in another form. I wonder if we will have rallies about Bill C-41 in a few years.

Does dividing people into groups enhance prejudice or decrease it? If I do not belong to an identifiable group, what if somebody hates my guts for some reason other than the physical, mental or behavioural characteristic that makes me part of a group? Why does hate have to fall into a certain category as defined by a Liberal in order for it to be more serious than some other kind of hate?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think people divide themselves into groups in a very natural way. They have been doing it for several thousand years. I do not think we will stop it.

The society I want to live in and the society I want my grandchildren to live in is one based on love and understanding and acceptance of people for who and what they are. I want people who extend their hate to crime to be punished severely.

I think all members of the House need to vote in favour of the bill. It is long overdue.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

Mr. Speaker, in the House it has been said Liberals want this law so there is an obligation on the courts or the judges to sentence in a certain way. We on this side of the House have said judges now have flexibility to apply and sentence. This tells me there is a lack of trust and confidence in judges. Why?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, in light of everything I have heard in the House today, the member's question is obviously backward. We do trust the judges but we have heard nothing but how they do not do this or that, or they let people out too soon or do not give sufficient sentences for this, that and the other thing.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-41. This bill is important. It takes the necessary leadership role to set standards of fairness and equality for all Canadians in our criminal justice system.

Perhaps because of the campaign or the crusade by the member for Central Nova we have missed some of the other principles of the bill. We have forgotten that it codifies the principles of sentencing, that it formalizes victim impact statements and that it brings about changes which help to restore the balance in domestic disputes.

Last summer I met with lawyers from my community and over the past year I have met with many people in Burlington about the bill. Their conclusion is that with the increased attention to the law by lay people we need to spell out clearly the goals in sentencing. The bill clearly codifies those principles.

Sentencing should denounce unlawful conduct. It should deter offenders from committing crimes. It should work for rehabilitation. It should promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and it should make reparation to individual victims and families and acknowledge the harm done.

This bill will work to make sure fewer Canadians will be imprisoned for non-payment of fines, fines which in many cases were assessed at a level prohibited to the individual.

Section 718 formalizes the victim impact statement process. Victims groups such as CAVEAT have long supported this section.

An exciting initiative out of the backbench of the government and from a member of the Liberal women's caucus is the change to section 738, the restitution section. I am pleased the amendment moved by the member of Parliament for Brant, which was accepted by the government, will allow for much broader consideration of the impact of domestic disputes when making restitution orders. In tabling her amendment my colleague stated that victims of domestic violence should not have to deal with economic hardship in addition to the obvious physical and emotional trauma that is the result of a violent situation.

The amended section 738 of Bill C-41 will empower judges to order compensation to battered spouses forced to move out of their homes. This would cover costs such as temporary housing, food, child care and transportation as a result of the crime.

On section 718.2, the hatred section, the debate on this has exposed some of the depths of hatred in Canada and I find that unfortunate. I think the support the bill has received from many church organizations and from many individual Canadians says something about the real value of Canadians. Although we like to believe we are a tolerant and moderate society, it is harrowing to find out that in Canada we have active groups whose philosophies are based on hatred of others.

Names of groups which are recognizable to all of us, Aryan Nation, the Heritage Front, Church of the Creator and the Aryan Resistance Movement are actively recruiting today in Canada and they are particularly targeting young Canadians. There are over 40 organized hate groups in Canada. They are using techniques they perfected in the United States and they are accessing Internet in the most evil way.

In 1993 youths were charged in Montreal for beating up a man. They admitted they were engaging in an activity called the game, seeking out homosexuals with the intent of beating them up.

Police across the country are setting up crime units to deal specifically with hate crimes, responding to a concrete reality and need to end this violence. They adopt these units not because they approve of the gay lifestyle or they want to promote homosexuality but because in the exercise of their police functions they recognize there is violence and it is their job to protect and provide security for all in our community, particularly those who are members of groups most vulnerable to hatred.

From B'nai Brith we learned that in 1993, 256 reported incidents of anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism occurred. That represents a 31 per cent increase since 1992, the most incidents ever reported by the league in the 12 years since it has kept statistics.

In Ottawa-Carleton in the last two years there were 387 cases of hate based crime. There were 105 charges laid; 215 of the cases were based on race, 110 on religion and 45 on sexual orientation. We must use education, community action, intercultural coalitions. We must use all of these techniques, where hate crimes need to be addressed and where we can make a difference as well is in our legislation.

This bill has two goals: first, to send a strong message to persecuted communities that violence against any person or group is unacceptable and that our laws will take action in that regard; second, it encourages victims to come forward, allowing the police to get a true handle on the extent of the problem, work on educating people and work against this hatred.

Committee members who were listening learned from B'nai Brith that at its base a hate crime is not like a robbery for the purpose of obtaining goods. Hate crimes target not only the physical victim but the entire group of persons who share the same skin colour, the same language or the same religion. These acts are intended to violate, intimidate or isolate. They are intended not against just the victims but against the entire group.

When a rock comes crashing through someone's house in the middle of the night with a bomb threat simply because that person is a Muslim, other Muslims in the neighbourhood are terrorized. That is the goal of the hate monger, to terrorize whole communities. When survivors of the Holocaust see a swastika painted on a synagogue, and they thought they were safe in their Canadian community, suddenly those community members are fearful.

Reform members need to remember that when hate groups target what they perceive to be minorities their intention is to divide those minorities and separate them from the rest of the community. They isolate them in order to make them easier targets for attack. Once they have targeted one group they never stop with that group. They keep adding to them, to their targets. They never stop with Jews. They never stop with gays. They enlarge their sphere of activity.

To allow hate motivated violence and hate propaganda to go unpunished or uncontrolled through personal or collective indifference on the part of community leaders or public officials is simply to allow hate discrimination and violence to become acceptable norms of behaviour and standards of contact. On page 86 of the red book the Liberals campaigned on equality for all Canadians, including freedom from hatred and harassment.

The list of characteristics in section 718.2 identifies those groups, those people most frequently targeted for hatred as per the information from the justice department. It does not confer special rights to any one group because every person in Canada is covered in this list.

We all have a sex, we all have a race, we all have a nationality, we all have a religion and yes, we all have a sexual orientation. To say including sexual orientation in Bill C-41, particularly in this section, is encouraging a lifestyle is like saying that because we have included religion we are encouraging people to become Catholic or that including gender is to encourage members in the House to become women instead of men.

Remember, Bill C-41 takes effect when a crime has been committed. The proposed section comes into full force only after a criminal conviction has been registered. The bill does not create new crimes. It only requires judges to consider it as an aggravating factor if the crime was motivated by hatred.

I quote from Martin Niemöller, the German theologian: "When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew and therefore I was not concerned. When Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic and therefore I was not concerned. When Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church, and there was nobody left to be concerned".

For the sake of all Canadians, for the sake of all children in Canada, based on the values of fairness, equity and justice taught to me and my family and in my church I encourage colleagues to enact Bill C-41 as soon as possible.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Reform

Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC

Mr. Speaker, I find this a very disturbing discussion. It is implied by the hon. members who were speaking-I heard the last three speakers-that somehow by opposing this bill one is in favour of crime, hate crimes, crimes of passion, whatever. We are not. Reform is not.

The problem we face is that so much of what is being asked of us involves a curtailment of one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. Some countries have established in their constitutions limits on government to pass legislation that restricts the freedom of speech. It is about the freedom of speech for people to say whatever they want to say. It is not possible to suppress this without going down a very slippery slope in the destruction of democracy.

The problem is that when anyone takes words and transfers them into violent action, that is when we should come down on them with a ton of bricks, not when they are saying what they believe. Where does one draw the line?

There have been Parliaments, there have been legislatures around the world, people with even greater indignity and self-righteousness than the speakers we have heard tonight, who say they have the solution to all the problems of mankind: all we have to do is shut down the ability of that person to speak.

The founding fathers of the United States have said that this is one of the greatest dangers to democracy. Nobody is in favour of those crimes. But what we are talking about and what I have heard being said here is that we must go to thought control, to speech control, and that means the end of our freedom. That is why I will vote against this bill.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling when we have sat in the House and debated a bill for many hours to find out that my colleagues do not even know what bill we are debating.

Bill C-41 is a sentencing bill. The actions that are in here only come into effect when someone has committed a crime. First you have to assault somebody, and then the judge has to consider a sentence. This is what this bill uses.

This bill specifically targets anti-hate. It is one of many tools we as leaders in our community can use. I call on the member not to be indifferent on hate crimes, to use every tool in his power and to vote for this bill. It is important to all Canadians, who do want freedom of speech. It is not about freedom of speech. It is about when people take action based on their hatred. When they assault somebody, then we look at this.

I am sickened to hear that we have had this much debate and he has just figured out that it is a sentencing bill. Perhaps all of us need to go back to the books and do some reading.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud my hon. colleague who just spoke on her commitment to fairness, equity, and justice.

In a recent issue of the student newspaper in Ottawa's Carleton University there was a cartoon depicting a smiling female carrying a large hunting knife and asking women whether their lives would be helped by the total elimination of penises. Another cartoon showed her holding a dripping axe over the heading "No guilt".

I would like to ask my colleague why she can support a bill that would consider hatred against some groups more serious than hatred against others. The group that was the object of these cartoons is not listed in Bill C-41.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is the most important reason why there are not definitions on gender, on sexual orientation, on race and on religion, because men have a gender. They are male.

If one of those women attacked a man on the basis that he was a man, they could use this bill in considering that an aggravating factor.

If a group of homosexuals attacked somebody on the basis they were heterosexual, that person could use this section of the bill to get a tougher sentence against those people.

If you are attacked on the basis you are a Jehovah's Witness-and unfortunately that has happened in Canada on many occasions-if it is perceived you are a Jehovah's Witness because you happen to be wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, as many of us were during the campaign, the person could use that and the prosecutor could seek a tougher sentence and ask the judge for a tougher sentence because all people with those characteristics are at risk when people commit hate crimes in Canada.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

Reform

Margaret Bridgman Reform Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate as well.

Most of the debate has focused on the sexual orientation aspect of section 718.2. I too have received a strong response from my riding and from various Canadians across the country on this. Their main concern seems to be that the term is not defined and that the consequences of it being in the bill remain unknown.

Arguments against including the phrase have been presented at great length. I would like to focus more on the effect of having greater sentences for some crimes versus others. In this bill it is based on hate, which is an emotional or human response.

Another concern I have is the categorizing of conditions. I do not really think I have to be anything as far as religion or whatever is concerned. If someone assaults me I should have the right under law to extract a sentence on that.

I would also like to look at the reason we are having such difficulty with crime in this country. We all agree that we have a crime problem and that we have various groups that are making life very difficult for us. I would like to try to figure out what has happened. What happened to our justice system that has turned things around?

This brings me to a philosophical concept. Over the past 30-odd years we have seen a gradual erosion of the concept of law. In moral philosophy there are two opposing ways of looking at a situation. One school of thought is represented by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals . Kant argued that actions should be based on the intent of a person doing the action and not the consequences of the action. Kant himself said: ``An action done from duty has as its moral worth of that action not in the purpose that is to be attained by it but in the maxim according to which the action is determined''. Again that is an implication of intent. He is basically saying that it does not really matter what the result is of what you do; what matters is why you wanted to do it in the first place.

The opposing view is presented by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill in his work Utilitarianism , where he argued that actions of individuals should be based on the consequences of the action. He was more concerned with the consequences of an individual's action than he was with the intent behind the action.

An easy way to get a better understanding of that concept would be the example of one person striking another one. Kant would want to know why that person struck another, what motivated him to take that action, whereas Mill would come up with the fact that the person was indeed struck and that in itself is the offence.

One might ask what all this has to do with the bill today. I firmly believe that the intent of the Canadian justice system has changed from addressing the action involved and the result of the action to now trying to address intent and be psychologists and psychiatrists in the court system.

We also have come into other problems that could very well relate to this switch in the philosophical approach to how we view our justice system. We talk about criminals getting more rights than victims, for example. Well that follows my argument that if we are looking at why somebody does something we are not looking at the person who is dead, the victim.

There are a number of things that have happened in our system that bring me to think there has been a definite switch in philosophical views or actions in our society and we have switched from the Mill concept to the Kant concept and are stressing more and more the intent aspect.

This first started to erode when we looked at the state of mind component from the point of view of mental illness and people who were involved in some sort of crime who were mentally ill. We tended to forgive their crime to a certain degree because they knew not what they did. From there it gradually evolved to where we even got into debates involving drug abuse, for example: I take drugs or I drink and because I am in that state from the inducement of drugs I am not responsible for what I do.

I see this intent business getting totally out of hand. The point is that it does not really matter what your emotional state of mind is, when you kill somebody they are dead and that is the end of it.

We have to try to create situations where people who need help and who can be harmful to others or themselves can be treated before they end up in our courts so we do not have those kinds of situations.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:25 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.