Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell you today that I rejoice in participating in this debate. I must confess that I do not. Like many members I suppose I hesitated before doing so.
I speak in the House as a practising Roman Catholic, a pro-life supporter against euthanasia. I believe strongly in what hon. members would consider to be family values. I also speak in favour of the bill before us today. I suppose it would be far easier to keep quiet.
However the debate I have heard over the last couple of days has put me in a position where I feel I have to speak. Lest any member think that I am wearing my MP hat as opposed to my whip hat and so on, I say to the House and to all hon. members that there is no difference. I cannot take off the jacket and tie and put on the team jersey when I feel like it. I have to reconcile the fact that I operate in both roles at the same time and all the time.
Some of the things I have heard make it such that I feel compelled to express my views on the issue. I want to address two topics: first youth offenders and second the hate crime provision.
On the topic of young offenders, I must say that I was disappointed with some of the speeches I heard yesterday. I am the father of two teenagers and the remarks made by the hon. member for Wild Rose yesterday aroused in me a feeling of helplessness to see what I would call a generalized inclination to tar young people in this country with the same brush by ascribing criminal tendencies to all, most or at least a large number of 16- and 17-year olds.
Paragraph after paragraph of the speech of the member for Wild Rose-and I have a copy of Hansard before me-describe 16 and 17-year-old hooligans. They indicate that sentences are inappropriate for young criminals, that youths raised in poverty have no excuse for adhering to a life of crime; that alleged dysfunctionality was not a reason to be a criminal; and that 16 and 17-year-old butchers have to be treated like their victims and so on.
All of us want sentences that are appropriate and that fit the crime.
Each one of us has a moral responsibility in the Chamber when we speak to ensure what we say does not create more misery than the good we are pretending to espouse in our views.
Which brings me to my second topic: hate crimes. Never, since first arriving in this House a long time ago, have I read letters from constituents and others expressing such disturbing grievances.
Let us remember the bill is about sentencing with regard to crimes already committed.
I received letters and preprinted cards from people in other ridings, like this one, which talk about the government wanting to legitimize the lifestyle of a group that undermines basic family values.
I have here another letter I have received.
Another letter says Bill C-41 would harm the rights of parents to protect their children, the rights of institutions to have a preference over adoption policy, historical rights of freedom of religion, the right of religious institutions to have hiring practices consistent with their religious belief and so on.
I am not mocking anyone, I say to the hon. member across, and if he had listened carefully the letter I am reading does not come from a constituent. The hon. member may make fun of what I have to say but I do not believe anything we do which in any way shows that kind of intolerance is beneficial to any of us. If the hon. member will be patient, once I finish my speech he can give us his wisdom.
The B'nai Brith of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the chief of police of the Ottawa-Carleton regional police force, the Canadian Jewish Congress and others have all asked us to support this legislation. I have in hand a letter from the United Church of Canada talking about the bill and the need to have it, talking about hate crimes, crimes are motivated by the vulnerability of certain individuals and groups within society. It urges these groups to be explicitly included.
I must say with regret that my church did not send a letter of support of this kind. I do not wish to elaborate on that but I have to state it because it is a fact. That does not change what I believe to be intolerance on the part of some, lack of knowledge on the part of others and selfish motives on the part of yet others making it such that the debate today has taken on the ugly tangent I see attached to it.
It is unfortunate that, as we sit here asking questions on a bill partly aimed at protecting hate crime victims, there is so much controversy surrounding this bill.
One amendment says that for greater certainty, referring to sexual orientation, it does not include preference toward any sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under this act. That is to clarify that presumably a sexual activity that would be criminal would not be legal by virtue of passing the bill.
The minister indicated there was no need for such an amendment. Notwithstanding that, for greater certainty he put one in. If they are clear in their conscience members opposite will look at group No. 7, Motion No. 24:
For greater certainty, conduct that constituted an offence under the Criminal Code before the date on which this section comes into force constitutes the same offence after that date.
In other words, for greater certainty anything that was criminal before is reaffirmed this way in the same way as we reaffirm through a greater certainty clause in the gun bill with respect to a certain group. We have done it again here just to ensure there was no doubt.
Will that make the members who are heckling right now vote for the bill? I regret to say that probably will not happen.
What we must do in this House, if we see ourselves as living in a mature democracy that has embraced certain basic rights, is not only to believe in these rights but also to ensure that some groups in our society do not become the victims of intolerance. The least we can do is not to make speeches in this House which promote intolerance against others.
Today we are not having a debate or a speech about family values, about the promotion of gay rights or anything like that. They have nothing to do with the bill. They could have something to do with other bills and we will deal with those when the time comes if and when it does. Those are not the issues before us today. The issue before us today is the protection of victims when crimes have been committed. That is what we have to remember. To twist that in order to achieve some other objective is not correct. It is not the kind of tolerance I was brought up to live with and to live by. I ask my colleagues to share with me in that kind of tolerance toward other people, as I was taught to do in the church of which I am a member.