House of Commons Hansard #198 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was internet.


Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members


Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:)

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

May 10th, 1995 / 4:50 p.m.


Beth Phinney Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the motion regarding hate speech on the Internet.

I agree wholeheartedly that the government should move with speed to adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda through computer networks.

The information highway is a wonderful resource, which provides education and information to people worldwide. The Internet is a powerful communication tool. It links people of various nations and backgrounds easily and rapidly, helping spread understanding and knowledge around the world.

Like many tools or new technologies, the information highway can be used for harmful purposes as easily as for positive purposes. Unfortunately, the many benefits provided by the new technology are as attractive to hatemongers and racists as they are to scientists and students.

As I am sure many members are aware, even a brief glance through various Internet discussion groups reveals material that is deeply offensive and contrary to Canadian values. The material ranges from recruiting messages from the Ku Klux Klan to pornography and Holocaust denial tracts.

In January a university student was arrested in Michigan for issuing threats after he posted a computer message describing how he wanted to torture, rape, and murder a fellow student. In a recent case in Calgary, police arrested a man for possession of child pornography that he had acquired from a computer bulletin board linked to the Internet.

It is true that in order to obtain much of the offensive material one has to go actively looking for the appropriate computer bulletin boards. However, some sources of pornography advertise their services in the computer discussion groups.

Although some work is required to find offensive material, pornography and hate propaganda often end up in the hands of impressionable children. As I am sure many members are aware, children and young adults are often far more proficient with computers than their parents are. We should not underestimate the persistence of some children.

We need to develop software that would allow parents to screen material that comes into their homes or schools, similar to what we can now do on TV. Children should not have access to pornography through computer bulletin boards, just as they are not able to purchase pornography from local stores. Parents must be able to control what their children view.

There have been cases of white supremacists using computer bulletin boards to attempt to recruit new members, especially among students and other young adults. We do not tolerate white supremacists recruiting in person in our schools, so I see no reason to tolerate them sending their hate propaganda to school children through computers.

Freedom of speech is one of our most important values. However, freedom of speech needs to be tempered by responsibility. It may be a cliché but it is nonetheless true that freedom of speech does not protect one's right to yell fire in a crowded theatre. In a similar fashion, freedom of speech does not protect hate speech. Canada already has laws dealing with the distribution of hate propaganda by conventional means such as books or on TV and radio broadcasts. However, our current laws are not having much impact on the electronic highway. So far there has not been a single case I am aware of brought against anyone spreading hate across computer networks.

Some users of the Internet have argued that they can regulate themselves. Certainly there are some examples of Internet users challenging and discrediting hatemongers. However, there is much offensive material out there. In a perfect world self-regulation would work; but as we all know, this is not a perfect world.

A combination of legislative action and self-regulation would perhaps be the best approach. We should encourage the development of a code of conduct among Internet users to discourage offensive E-mail and discussion groups. Some have likened the Internet to a town square or a worldwide debating forum. Just as there are accepted norms of conduct for discussions in public places, there should be norms of acceptable behaviour on the electronic highway.

Along with self-regulation, there should be some direction from Parliament. Canada's current laws are apparently having little effect on the electronic highway. The motion we are debating at the moment is needed to push for the expansion of current legislation to cover the Internet. This motion may not have any legislative authority, but it will demonstrate this House's desire and will to limit the spread of pornography and

hate propaganda. It will provide the courts with some guidance as to the option of the House of Commons regarding this issue.

I compliment the Minister of Justice for his statement last week at an international conference on crime prevention in Cairo, where he said that the government is considering new laws to limit the harmful use of computer networks and other forms of communication.

I believe this motion will encourage this government and others to continue their efforts to find a way to limit the spread of hate propaganda and pornography through the Internet. We need to encourage international cooperation to deal with the spread of hate propaganda.

Given the worldwide nature of the Internet, regulation will require worldwide effort. It will be difficult to limit pornography and hate propaganda if what is banned in one country is easily available through a computer bulletin board in another country. Just as hate groups are cooperating in order to spread their hatred of others, all countries must unite to combat hate groups.

I am well aware that it will not be easy to find ways to attack the spread of offensive items on the information highway. However, just because something is difficult it does not mean that we should not try. At the very least, by passing this motion we will send a message to the hatemongers and pornographers in the Internet that their messages are not welcome in Canada.

I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North for having the foresight and initiative to bring forward this motion encouraging us to give serious thought to this matter. I hope all members of this House will support this motion.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

5:35 p.m.


Osvaldo Nunez Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 384 tabled by the hon. member for Winnipeg North requiring the government to move with speed to adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda via the electronic information highway while simultaneously preserving the legitimate use of the freedom of speech.

I would like to express my support for this motion immediately and I congratulate my colleague for Winnipeg North on this excellent private member's initiative.

As a member of a minority and a fighter for human rights since my youth, I am very much attuned to the fight against hate propaganda. I worked for many years with the union movement, which was behind the fight against racism and discrimination. I was also on the board of directors of the Quebec Civil Liberties Union. Many messages of hate and intolerance are directed at minorities, particularly visible minorities.

We must fight hateful, racist and discriminatory remarks expressed in all sorts of ways, including those appearing on the Internet.

Information technology is advancing by leaps and bounds. Thanks to the computer network, of which Internet is the latest and most impressive example, we can be in instant contact with people on other continents and in distant countries.

Internet currently comprises over 30,000 networks, 2.5 million computers and 35 million users in over 100 countries. These figures are rapidly increasing. A computer, a modem and a telephone are all it takes to access this information highway.

The Internet network can transmit documents, images, voice, music, films and so on.

Many Canadian firms are involved in setting up electronic highways, including Bell Canada, Northern Telecom, Unitel, Videotron, Rogers Communications, Stentor and the Sprint group.

These new technologies, however, cause considerable concern in some sectors of society as the media point out increasingly. What we have here, in some respects, is a public debate on certain basic moral values of the highest importance. All democratic societies must combat racism, discrimination and hatred. On the other hand, they must also protect freedom of speech and expression, and every person's right to respect, dignity and equality.

But, the state is not always well equipped to rise to the challenges brought on by the rapid and overwhelming development of new information technologies. I think that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is of great merit, for it opens up discussion in this House on this very important issue.

Under our justice system, it is section 163 of the Criminal Code which governs obscenity and section 319 which governs the distribution of hate propaganda. The first provision, more particularly subsection 163(1), states that "Every one commits an offence who makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever". This subsection deals with mechanical or electronic means.

On the other hand, section 319 states that "Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty-". The provision describes two situations giving rise to a criminal offence: " (a) inciting hatred by communicating, in any public place, statements that may lead to a breach of the peace'', and `` (b) promoting hatred against any identifiable group by communicating statements other than in private conversation''.

Are these provisions adequate to deal with the problems identified? For some people they are, but not for me. I should mention that our Criminal Code applies only in Canada, but the situation we are describing goes beyond our borders.

The problem is an international one, and it is therefore necessary to promote international co-operation on this issue. Incidentally, Canada has signed international conventions that could apply to this area. The two most important ones are the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ratified in 1947, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified in 1976.

Hate messages may be sent from any country. It is therefore desirable to draft and adopt international guidelines for the use of the Information Highway.

The matter should even be taken up at the UN. The U.S. Congress is now examining a bill that deals with the proliferation of this kind of information on the Internet. One of the provisions of this bill provides for fines of up to $100,000 if a person uses a computer to annoy, insult, threaten or harass. I think this is an interesting proposal, and I also think a certain amount of co-operation between Canada and the United States would be desirable in this respect.

I support the suggestion made by the mover of this motion that we should adopt a code of conduct for suppliers of services on Internet and provide for a complaints mechanism.

The authorities should also start a campaign to educate the public and Internet users and suppliers on the right way to use the Information Highway and their responsibilities in this respect.

Users and service suppliers should also exercise a certain amount of self-discipline and restraint. So far, there have been no instances of legal action in Canada. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada must be vigilant when dealing with statements inciting hatred, violence and prejudice that are transmitted on the Internet. These hate messages constitute statements in the meaning of section 319 of the Criminal Code. The government should table legislation in Parliament to deal specifically with such cases.

The government must act immediately. We must fight racism, discrimination and intolerance. We must fight neo-Nazi groups, extreme rightist groups that promote white supremacy, anti-semitic groups, the Klu Klux Klan and all other groups that promote this kind of prejudice, and finally, all those who use the Information Highway to spread hate propaganda.

I therefore support this motion.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

5:45 p.m.


Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the very timely topic of Motion No. 384 today, that the House move with speed to adopt legislative measures aimed at stopping the spread of hate propaganda via the electronic information highway while preserving the legitimate use of freedom of speech and expression. If legislation is passed on this issue the government will inherit a truly enormous task.

I stand in support of this motion because we must always be fighting against wrong wherever we find it. Due to the increasing accessibility of illegal material directed especially at our young people we must struggle even harder to protect impressionable minds from feeding and growing on a diet of hatred, ignorance and fear.

I have a person in my constituency who has received quite a bit of publicity lately. This man is a young, white supremacist connected with militant American groups and, as the media loves to do, he was featured on television a few weeks ago. He said that he hates the government with a perfect hatred.

While I may have my own problems with the government, it certainly does not deserve hatred. The very fact that this fellow was allowed to say what he said on national television without being thrown in jail shows that he is obviously wrong in his beliefs.

In a great many other countries he would be more justified in making such venomous diatribes. In Canada it is easy to grab the spotlight and heap abuse on our system even while standing within the shadow of a benevolent government. I would be interested to know if he not only derives his freedom, but also gets his living from the very government that he says he despises.

I was reminded of this outrageous philosophy at our local V-E Day remembrance day services I attended last weekend. Together we remembered the millions of young soldiers who dashed all their hopes and dreams against Hitler's mightiest armies, the man who attempted to put the whole world under his jackboot.

Hitler did not care about the Canadians, the Europeans, the Americans, the countless Asians who died. He did not even care about his own people. He cared about power. He used young, impressionable, dissatisfied men, like the man from my constituency, to get it for him. Many of them died along with their leader in the second world war.

It is an incredible irony that the very system that tens of millions of people fought to the death to preserve is now being used to shelter someone like this, who promotes Hitler's philosophy. It stands as yet another proof of the incredible strength and essential goodness of our political system. While we must

preserve this freedom, we must also preserve the stability of the system. Otherwise all those soldiers would have died in vain.

As the human body tolerates all sorts of germs, it also struggles against infections. Our society is like an organism that plays host to all sorts of philosophies but it, too, has the right to guard against those which are most destructive.

Hate literature and hate propaganda on the Internet are like pollution washing up on a seashore. Although we may never get rid of all the pollution, we must always keep cleaning the sand on our portion of the beach or else eventually we will be buried in the pollution. More and more hate literature is washing up on our personal shores, in our homes and businesses each and every day. We must actively battle it or risk having impressionable people won over by it.

Those who would claim an untrammelled right of freedom to use the Internet for any purpose stand on shifting ground. They would never claim that right in other areas. For instance, no one acknowledges the right of bank robbers to use our system of roads with complete freedom. Every time bank robbers use our highways to get away, the police do their utmost to stop this abuse of freedom. It should be the same when one travels the information highway.

To use another analogy, no one would claim that the government has no right to regulate the use of poisons in the marketplace, to pass laws to make sure that the poisons do not sit on a shelf alongside the food that we must purchase. Likewise, there are poisonous thoughts that should never sit on the shelf beside harmless chat groups and information libraries on the Internet.

There is a difference between freedom and licence. Freedom is simply the right to do whatever is good but licence is the abuse of that right in order to harm others. In the case of the Internet, the definition of harm becomes all important.

One of the hardest things is to define an intellectual crime where victims do not suffer physical or monetary loss. Should all white supremacist material be thought of at hate literature? Is pornography hate literature? Are religious messages that decry the actions of a person or a group based on a legitimate sense of moral offence hate literature? How can one determine the degree of hatred? Is just a little bit of hatred okay? It is very difficult to define a hate crime.

The next problem we encounter is very nearly insurmountable. That is the matter of enforcement. The member for Winnipeg North is perhaps suggesting the most difficult of all possible tasks, an act of global regulation.

Internet messages are nearly anonymous. There are trillions of possible hiding places in the Internet. The sources of hate literature are limitless and the criminals can be located anywhere in the world. If one is found and prosecuted within Canadian borders, 1,000 can take his place from any other country.

Obviously any regulation of the Internet would require international co-operation and it could only hope to drive the worst offenders underground. I note with satisfaction the Liberal House leader was reported on March 28 to have spoken favourably about an international agreement to stop the flow of this material into Canada. That would be necessary.

We want to avoid a vast bureaucracy of Internet police hired to listen to private conversations. If a police force was able to listen to all private telephone conversations, we would think it was a terrible abuse of human rights. I would certainly think so as well. All kinds of offensive things are communicated every day in person or over the telephone lines. People have a right to their privacy even when they say bad or ridiculous things.

However, the difference between personal communication and the Internet is that personal communications are inaccessible to all but the communicating parties. Through news groups the Internet makes essentially private conversations and communications available to anyone. That makes the Internet a thing of beauty and a beast at the same time.

A partial answer is in international agreements but perhaps the most effective answer lies in the actions of the people of goodwill who might act as volunteer watchdogs on the Internet. Millions of people read each other's thoughts each day and comment on them. Thousands of users can get together and electronically sanction someone who abuses the information highway.

This volunteer policing effort holds real promise for cleaning up the Internet, but once again that careful balance between free speech and responsible speech must be preserved, providing room for legitimate disagreements. That is why I think the most effective action the government could take is not legislative.

Government could get the best bang for its buck by supporting the development of a set of Internet conventions or broadly based rules. Call them operating rules, call them a public code of conduct or electronic ethics. These guiding principles would suggest to users when they should report to police, when they should simply reproach the sender or when they should band together to sanction another user.

Most Internet users around the world are responsible people, despite the horror stories we read in the newspapers. If there are vastly more responsible people than irresponsible ones, then it should be simple to obtain their co-operation in stopping the spread of material that is illegal.

The government could sponsor a small advisory group to take leadership in this area, to draft these voluntary Internet conventions using the legal assistance that government can provide and have the group go global on the Internet with its proposals, not working necessarily from government to government but from user to user. Let users decide among themselves what should be allowed and what should not.

Winston Churchill said in a speech at Harvard University in 1943 that the empires of the future are empires of the mind. This has never been more true than in the case of the Internet. At the moment it is purely an intellectual kingdom, but thoughts are powerful. Ideas in cyberspace translate into real world action and an Internet kingdom without laws will one day generate lawless deeds.

If the government passes laws to prosecute the worst offenders and helps to develop conventions for voluntary action on the Internet, this intellectual kingdom will become one of peace and safety. We can hope for nothing better for us and for our children than to experience that peace.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

5:55 p.m.



Jon Gerrard Secretary of State (Science

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I applaud his efforts on behalf of Canadians in bringing this to the attention of the House and moving to take an important step by recommending we take action and move forward in abolishing hate and hateful messages on the information highway.

It is clearly not an easy aspect to consider as the Internet is travelled and is accessible from anywhere in the world. It is important subject matter and an important area for us to be concerned about as our children increasingly participate in and use the Internet and computers generally.

We must think not only of Canadians. Our messages travel around the world. We must think about people in other countries as well. Canada is a society that has grown and developed a very important ethic of tolerance, an ethic in which we disagree with those who tend to promote hate. We would like this concept of tolerance that we have developed in Canada to be spread around the world through media like the Internet through approaches like the worldwide web.

Let us keep in mind at the moment that the problem is relatively small. At this point only a tiny proportion of the 5,000 Usenet discussion groups have any problems that might come under this concept of hateful material.

Nevertheless, it is important because of the rapidity with which the Internet is expanding, which it is estimated now reaches some 40 million people around the world, that we start to move in this area. In doing so, I think it is important to first recognize that there are areas under the current telecommunications legislation and regulations where offensive and unsolicited content or messages can be dealt with.

For example, under section 8.2 of Bell Canada's terms of service which sets out the basic rights and obligations of telephone companies and their subscribers, customers are prohibited from using the public telephone network in a way that is contrary to law for the purpose of making annoying or offensive calls. Originators of such calls, hate or racist messages on a telephone answering machine can be prosecuted. The public can file complaints with the telephone company or the CRTC who will pursue these investigations.

Section 41 of the Telecommunications Act authorizes the CRTC to take regulatory steps to protect consumers against possible abuses from unsolicited telecommunications, computerized solicitations or junk faxes which may contain offensive content. Under this section, the commission introduced regulations restricting the use of automatic dialling and announcing devices for the purpose of broadcasting commercial messages, as well as various safeguards to protect consumers against unsolicited messages such as call blocking. While not intended specifically to control the dissemination of offensive content, these regulations can nonetheless be used to discourage abuses in this area.

Section 36 of the Telecommunications Act gives the commission some latitude in allowing telecommunications carriers to take into account the content or the message it carries over its facilities.

A case in point is the commission's approval of a number of safeguards to protect consumers, particularly children, against unwanted exposure over the 900 number telephone service which delivers audiotext services, including so-called adult entertainment.

The commission granted the telephone companies some discretion to refuse to provide billing and collection service to certain 900 service operations which in the opinion of the telephone company offer a program or service which does not comply with the program content guidelines approved by the commission. This forces the service provider to use an alternative billing method such as credit card billing, prepayment or some other approach which provides greater control by consumers over the use of the service. The CRTC has also provided a number of other protection measures, including the provision of call blocking of 900 service upon request.

Consequently, in situations where the material is not illegal under the Criminal Code there may still be levers to block, control or limit its dissemination.

There is of course no reason to believe that the Criminal Code itself cannot be used on the information highway, although to date it has not been so applied, but it remains there. It is an area

which as in other forms of communication, print media, et cetera, can certainly potentially be used.

Under the information highway advisory council there are some initiatives already under way. The advisory council, which we appointed last year, has been looking at this area along with a number of other areas in terms of how Canada should have solid initiatives and policies in the area of the information highway.

At its most recent meeting on April 21 the council brought forward for third reading a four-pronged approach to the limitation or attack on any hate messages which might be found on the information highway. The four-pronged approach includes attention to law enforcement in this area, to the development of a code of ethics as it applies to the information highway, and also education and public awareness. This area is growing very rapidly in use. It is important for school children and people in communities and for all Canadians to develop an awareness of what the media is, how it works, and the limitations and advantages of it.

Another approach is the technological approach. It is rather interesting that the technology to block, monitor or interfere with hate messages and hate propaganda is something which is coming. It may provide users of the information highway with approaches that will be very useful in the future.

With regard to the already existing legislative measures, I would like to talk about four points briefly.

Criminal Code sections 318 to 320 may apply. Also section 13 of the human rights act can apply. One problem is that computers on the Internet do not recognize international boundaries. It would therefore be rather difficult unless there are common international standards, regulations or laws to control it when it originates from other countries. There may be potential for bilateral and multilateral arrangements. This is something that could and should be pursued.

The second prong of the approach suggested by the Information Highway Advisory Council deals with development of a code of ethics. Other areas of communication, for example many of the established media industries such as broadcasting, cable television and sound recording have successfully adopted voluntary guidelines to deal with offensive content. We feel it is advisable to move in this area on the information highway.

The third prong of the council's strategy deals with public awareness, an important initiative which we need to undertake. It also deals with technological approaches which can be used to block transmission to allow schools and parents to filter content coming into homes and schools. I think we will see these sorts of filters more widely used. These can be very helpful in allowing individual Canadians to control access and content coming to them.

These sorts of initiatives are coming from the Information Highway Advisory Council. This is a grassroots move and is strongly supported by my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North. The motion is an important step forward. I support it and think we can move forward together and create an electronic world which is not only exciting, but is also one which is ethical.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

6:05 p.m.


Gurbax Malhi Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

The information highway has the potential to become one of the most glorious tools ever imagined, providing links between people all over the globe. Its potential for positive interaction for the sharing of information and ideas and education is unlimited.

How tragic to think of it instead as a tool for those who would use it to spread their own malicious, bigoted, racist ideas, particularly to our children. I have read some of the vile messages these people have posted. The thought that my children might also read them makes me sick at heart.

Canada has long had a reputation as a tolerant and compassionate nation, accepting with open arms immigrants and refugees from all over the world. Many of these people have fled their homelands to escape persecution. Many were being persecuted on the basis of their race alone. They have come to this great country believing that at long last they will be free to live their lives in peace. I can only imagine their horror when they discover their young children innocently tapping into a cesspool of hate propaganda.

What of our older citizens who have lived through the unspeakable horrors of the second world war, some as fighters in our armed forces, some as victims of the madness of the Nazis? This year and this week in particular we are remembering the end of the second world war in Europe 50 years ago. We are once again celebrating the victories of those men and women who fought so valiantly to make the world safe for democracy. We are remembering those who lost their lives so that we could live in freedom and dignity. Were these sacrifices for nothing? Do we not owe it to them to continue the fight?

Our veterans came back to Canada from the war with an understanding of what happens when one group of people determines that another is inferior to themselves. They saw firsthand the inhumanity man can inflict on his brother in the name of nationalism and racial superiority. They taught their children and their children taught their children the importance of tolerance for the beliefs of others. How sad that their great-grandchildren are being targeted for this misinformation. How sad that the very first information they might receive about

the Holocaust could be misinformation from a revisionist intent on reviling the Jewish people.

People have fought and died to preserve the rights and freedoms we enjoy in this country, but they did not fight and die to preserve the right of one group of people to defame the reputation of another. They did not fight and die so a skinhead using equipment at a publicly funded university could call into question the rights of Asian and black people to live in freedom and bear children.

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most important and basic rights of all Canadians, but it is not a right without limitation. We have laws in this country prohibiting the public incitement of hatred. These people are breaking our laws.

We have heard that the users of the Internet are a self-policing group and are flooding those who are spreading hatred with messages countering their arguments. I commend these people for caring enough to try to counteract the hate propaganda, but my concern is that these messages are still being received. Right now it seems impossible to stop the perpetrators of hate propaganda on the Internet. That is why it is so important to start looking for solutions immediately.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has suggested a number of areas in which the Canadian government can begin looking for solutions. I am in full agreement with all of these suggestions, particularly his suggestion that these measures must be taken immediately. Time is of the essence. We must stop this flow of hateful and hurtful information now. The information highway must be a conduit where all people feel welcome.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

6:10 p.m.


Rey D. Pagtakhan Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, certainly I am very delighted over the last two hours of debate on the motion to have observed a unanimity of hearts and minds on this very crucial issue. I feel a resolve on the part of Parliament not to allow hate in Canada. It is a commitment to a fundamental Canadian value.

On that note, I would appreciate it if you would seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the motion.

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Hate Propaganda Via Electronic Highway
Private Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members