Debates of June 14th, 1995

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I would ask colleagues for the co-operation of the House on this subject matter, which has certain sensitivities. I certainly want to be able to hear the interventions of all members.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, targeting members of a single group and attacking them simply because they belong to that particular group is loathsome, deplorable, and must be taken into consideration at sentencing.

With regard to the notion of special rights, perhaps someone can explain to me how protecting Canadians who are victimized by hatred and harassment constitutes special rights. Perhaps someone can explain to me how seriously punishing a neo-Nazi for splitting a person's head open with a baseball bat just because they are gay constitutes special rights.

Maybe someone can tell me how a humane government can simply ignore the plight of the innocent law-abiding Canadians who are sadly victimized by violent attacks just because of their skin colour, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or mental or physical ability.

I wonder if someone can show me how reneging on our commitment to the overwhelming majority of Canadian voters, who elected me and my colleagues on this side of the House on a solid platform advocating equality for all Canadians and cracking down on crimes motivated by hatred, would advance the principles of Canadian democracy.

When we told Canadians that the sentencing practices in Canada must be responsive to their concerns and social values, we meant it. When we said heinous crimes motivated by pure hatred would not be condoned by a Liberal government, we meant it. When we said that we would protect the rights of all Canadians and strengthen justice in our nation by coming down hard on those who chose to victimize Canadian communities, we meant it.

As a member who was elected on a platform that emphasized the need for criminal justice reform, I am proud to stand on this side of the House with the right hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and all my colleagues in support of this legislation and the Liberal notion of a humane and anti-violent society.

In closing, I move:

That Motion No. 17 be amended by striking out all of the words after "mitting the offence," and substituting the following therefor:

abused the offender's spouse or child, or

(i.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I sat here until 11.30 last night. I just sat and listened to all of the debate. I laid my speech aside.

We often refer to this place as the highest court in the land. We should all be setting aside our ideology and our politics. We should be examining every bill to see whether it is good legislation. We are making the laws of the land in this place. As I sat and listened to the debate last night, I attempted to do it with an unbiased mind which is difficult to do but that is what should be happening in this place.

I am not an expert on all of the things that are going on here, it is impossible. I have been working a lot on Bill C-68. However, I listened to the various experts, people who analysed Bill C-41. Many of them come from the other side of the House and I listened to what they had to say. There is a variety of people in this place and there are some very serious concerns with this bill which have not been addressed.

Having listened to the debate and the arguments, I have come to some conclusions which I am going to share with the House. We really need to have democratic reform in this place. I have come to that conclusion in the last few weeks as I see the processes which are taking place. That is something which is desperately needed.

We stand and debate these laws. We look at them. Recently there has been the attitude to just get through with the debate; summer is coming so let us get this stuff through the House. Millions of Canadians out there will have to live with these laws forever more. We should not have the attitude of simply getting this done, having an arrogant, almost cavalier attitude about what is taking place here and just getting it out.

The negative impacts about this legislation were related yesterday. Canadians have expressed many concerns to us. Even people in the legal profession who have analysed this bill, lawyers at the top of the justice system, have seen the flaws and we continue to push this bill through. That causes me grave concern.

As I listened to the debate last night I saw some of the members opposite trying to portray themselves as being more compassionate than some of the other people in this House. They were trying to show that they were more tolerant.

In the end we have to look at the nitty-gritty, the facts, the very reasonable things people are saying about this legislation. We must not let ideology or politics blind us. Common sense must not be thrown out the window. We cannot play on people's emotions.

When the dust settles we are going to have to live with the facts. We are going to have to live with the content of Bill C-41. We are trying to explain our intentions in this bill, but good intentions do not necessarily make good legislation. That is why we are here discussing this and debating it and doing all the things we are doing. We have to listen to each other.

I have a question for the last speaker. I was listening to the debate his colleagues presented yesterday. The hon. member said that we are protecting the rights of all Canadians. If we are protecting the rights of all Canadians, why do we need a list of categories? Why do we need to even include this? It does not make sense to me. Do not all victims deserve equal protection? Why do we have to have categories of victims? If someone is assaulted by someone who is doing it just for fun, that is no different from doing it for some other motive.

I am going to speak on behalf of my constituents this afternoon on some of the things they have told me. I have received hundreds and hundreds of letters over the last year and a half on the issue of including the term sexual orientation and many other concerns. That is not the only concern they have with this bill but it is one that keeps coming up again and again. We need to listen. I have the honour and the privilege to speak on their behalf as I believe all members in this House should have.

To limit this debate to six hours is a travesty of justice and of democracy. I hope it is not an example of an arrogant dictatorial Liberal government, but I am afraid that is the way it is coming across.

I said I have the privilege of representing my constituents in this debate on Bill C-41. Many members of Parliament will be denied that so I consider it to be a privilege.

Voters have sent me to Ottawa to be their voice in Parliament. What we do is very important. We must not take anti-democratic measures as has been done. We would all be willing to go well into the summer to listen and analyse all of the aspects of this Bill C-41 debate. It makes me very sad. It should make every Liberal member who did not oppose this abuse of power sad as well.

The Liberals have the majority. They can use that majority to do almost anything they want to and voters can do nothing to stop them, until the next election. By forcing time allocation the Liberal government has declared its highest priorities to be gun control, MPs pensions and including the term sexual orientation in the sentencing legislation.

Personally I do not believe these controversial issues are priorities with the people of Canada. I am sure that if people knew how democracy was getting a kick in the teeth here in Ottawa today, a lot more concern would be expressed. Most people are not following all the debate here. I wonder if Liberals are hoping that voters will forget this by the time the next election rolls around.

There are some provisions of this bill for which I give my conditional support. I heard the reasons behind them and they are good. I support them particularly with respect to the restitution orders and victim impact statements. There are some excellent aspects to the bill.

Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before the victims of crime are treated with as much respect as the criminals. To this end I will continue to work on my victims bill of rights which I spoke about previously.

I support the Reform amendments to delete section 717 regarding alternative measures and to delete section 745.6 regarding the application for judicial review for premeditated murders.

The most controversial idea we are talking about is section 718.2(a)(i) and the reason the Liberal government has waited so long to get the bill before the House and why it had to invoke closure in order to get the bill through the House of Commons. This provision will call for greater penalties to be imposed if there is evidence the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate.

We complained a lot about the term hate, but what about bias and prejudice? These things can be construed in many different ways. We do not know five or ten years down the road what will happen with bias, prejudice or hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation of the victim.

My first choice would be to support the Reform amendment to delete the section entirely. Reformers believe that the courts already take aggravating or mitigating circumstances into consideration when determining the length of the sentence to be imposed on a convicted offender. I agree with my colleagues that this is an attempt by the Minister of Justice to get the unnecessary and undefined term sexual orientation into a piece of legislation so it can be used as justification for amending the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Reformers believe in true equality and that all Canadians are equal before the law. Every time the government divides us into different categories it creates the politics of envy, which divide us rather than unite us. We should not have all of these groups mentioned in our legislation.

Back on March 24 the Globe and Mail editorial writers made the statement: ``The real problem with section 718.2 is not that it refers to homosexuals but that it is proposed at all''. They go on to give many other valid points.

Because of the time allocation I will not have a chance to finish my remarks.

We need to take a serious second look at this matter. The Liberals are opening a door with this legislation which should remain shut. We should take more time to look at this because the concerns which Canadians have expressed to me are real and legitimate ones which need to be addressed. I wish I had more time to do that.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 covers a wide range of sentencing initiatives, including provisions aimed at assisting victims of crime, improving the administration of justice in Canada and

tougher sentences for those offenders who abuse a position of trust or authority. The bill also includes harsher sentences for crimes based on hate for a particular race, nationality, colour, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation.

In discussions with constituents, by correspondence and through the electronic media I have heard from many opponents of Bill C-41. Most of the opposition regards the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the bill. Opposition to the bill seems to be based upon fundamental misunderstandings about the intent and also the consequences of passing Bill C-41 into federal law.

Bill C-41 asks the court to take into consideration not only that a crime was committed, but that the offender was motivated by hatred against the victim based on the listed grounds which, as I have stated, include race, nationality, religion, age, gender or sexual orientation.

I have emphasized to concerned Canadians this provision of the bill comes into effect only once a crime has been committed. Bill C-41 does not create any new crimes. It does not make moral opposition to homosexuality a crime and it does not affect freedom of expression.

I have worked hard to correct the spread of misinformation by explaining to religious communities Bill C-41 will not prevent churches and religious instructors from talking about their beliefs regarding the morality of homosexuality. The bill is not creating any new hate crimes or expanding hate provisions in law.

The other major concern with Bill C-41 is that by including the term sexual orientation in federal legislation we are setting a major legal precedent. As the Minister of Justice has told the House, sexual orientation is not a new term and has been in use in Canadian legislation since 1977. It appears in provincial human rights legislation in eight jurisdictions within Canada.

Another misconception I have encountered is that by not defining the term sexual orientation, Bill C-41 will open legal loopholes that will legitimize the actions of paedophiles. Once again, the Minister of Justice has listened to this concern and has assured Canadians the term sexual orientation is included in provincial human rights legislation and that Canadian courts and tribunals have never had trouble understanding or interpreting the term which is unambiguous and does not include acts set out in the Criminal Code.

The bill makes an important statement that society will not tolerate crimes committed against individuals simply because of their race, religion, colour, gender, age or sexual orientation. Bill C-41 protects all Canadians. All Canadians have a nationality, a race, a gender, an age, a religion and a sexual orientation. Bill C-41 is an important part of the government's efforts to improve public safety, enhance the rights of victims and protect the rights of all Canadians to participate fully in the social and economic life of their country.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of the statement of purpose and principles in Bill C-41.

I fear the government is misguided on this issue. The bill instructs judges to consider as aggravating circumstances in sentencing any evidence the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on the race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim.

Judges have latitude already in sentencing. They have been known to use it to hand out harsher sentences for crimes they consider particularly harmful to society. Why pass a law that asks them to be tougher in a few select categories? All crime and violence should be condemned and the punishment should be in proportion to the crime.

I agree with my colleague from Central Nova that respect for our justice system stems from the notion we are all equal before the law. I do not see that principle reflected in the statement of purpose and principles of Bill C-41.

I hope none of us disagrees that it is completely unacceptable and abhorrent that anyone should be the object of violent attack for any reason. Why should one form of assault be judged or condemned as more unacceptable than another?

In my mind any assault is completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated regardless of motivating factors. It is the crime that needs to be judged, not whether the accused held a personal bias toward the victim.

Any type of act based on hatred for a group for whatever reason should be recognized as something intolerable in society. Section 15(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection.

I believe Bill C-41 will to change this. It will say certain crimes against certain victims are worse than the same crime against any other victim. That is against the fundamental principles of the charter of rights, that every Canadian has the same equal right to protection under the law of Canada.

I also fear the inclusion of the words sexual orientation in the statement of principle is a back door attempt at eventually legalizing same sex benefits and same sex marriages. It has been reported that on March 30, 1995 in New York City at a UN meeting the top Canadian officials at the United Nations were pushing for homosexual rights internationally so they can

compel domestic compliance in Canada and justify the route they are taking with Bill C-41.

The government should be up front about its agenda and should also listen to Canadians. The hon. member for Scarborough West recently shared some telling information with other members about the statement of principles on Bill C-41 and the government's intention to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. According to the member for Scarborough West 631 petitions have been presented in the House on the issue of sexual orientation. Of these petitions 87 per cent were against the sexual orientation amendment to the CHRA and/or against including the phrase sexual orientation in the statement of purpose and principles of bill C-41.

My feelings on this matter are the same as those of the members for Scarborough West and Central Nova. In the face of this overwhelming opposition why is the government not listening to Canadians, for this is a slippery slope for Canada, a slippery slope the government is taking for the traditional family unit, and it is a dangerous route that will eventually become an avalanche if it is adopted in the House.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, while there is much that is laudable in Bill C-41, public concern has focused on one issue, the inclusion of the words sexual orientation as one of the categories for which crimes motivated by hatred would merit stricter sentencing in section 718.2 of the bill.

I have listened to those concerns from my constituents who have spoken to me personally and hundreds who have written letters to me, and I share their views. I do not feel the words sexual orientation should appear in the bill and I support the amendment proposed by the member for Ontario to remove the list of categories altogether.

It is important to explain the basis of my objections as there is a misconception that opposition to including sexual orientation as a category in this bill is in itself motivated by hatred of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My riding contains a significant gay community. I have met with some of its organizations and have been very active in trying to address its concerns. I am also strongly opposed to so-called gay bashing or any crimes motivated by hatred against a minority group in society. That is why I support the bill in requiring stricter sentencing for assault and other crimes motivated by hatred.

Yet I cannot bring myself to support the inclusion of sexual orientation as a legal category in the bill, as it seems to me there may be unintended consequences of this inclusion that may affect our definition of the family, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being drafted the then justice minister, the current Prime Minister, said the term sexual orientation had not been included in section 15 because of the problem of the definition of those words. Speaking of sexual orientation he then stated: "Do not ask me to tell you what it is because those concepts are difficult to interpret, to define, and that is why we do not want them in the Constitution".

Why should a term too vague for the Constitution of Canada in 1981 suddenly be clear as day in 1995? Some hon. members have proposed amendments to define this term for greater clarity but I think the wiser approach is to avoid the problem altogether by striking the list of terms from the bill.

I fear that by including the words sexual orientation in federal law for the first time without clarification or definition, we are extending an invitation to the courts to read sexual orientation into other statutes as they have done with the Canadian and Alberta bill of rights in previous provincial court decisions. The legitimacy of this reading in has not yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada. By including these words in a section 15 like list in a federal statute we are saying as federal legislators that what we did not want to include in 1981 we want to include today.

The courts may well turn to this wording for guidance on other matters. What we have already seen is not encouraging. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled the Alberta human rights code had to be read as if sexual orientation was included in the Vriend case, which meant a private Christian Reformed college had to hire a teacher who was a practising homosexual despite its religious objections to his behaviour.

In recent years we have seen attempts to deny the Salvation Army the right to use municipal property in the city of Toronto as it will not hire openly homosexual employees or clergy.

We have seen Catholic school boards in Montreal forced to rent property to homosexual organizations all on the basis of including sexual orientation in human rights legislation and despite freedom of religion and freedom of association.

Two weeks ago in Ontario a provincial court judge ruled homosexual couples were eligible to adopt children despite the fact that the legislators had defeated a similar measure only a few months before.

If we as federal parliamentarians choose to include the words sexual orientation in federal law for the first time we will only encourage the courts in this practice at a time when many Canadians are questioning whether the courts are being too swift in striking down the decisions of elected legislators.

While this bill may be a simple sentencing bill, not the charter or a human rights bill, our use of this language sends a message to the courts they may choose to interpret in ways we had not intended.

We may not want to prevent a Salvation Army band from playing a Christmas concert for the poor on public property. We may not want private religious schools to be forced to hire openly homosexual teachers despite their religious teachings. We may not want paedophilia to be accepted as a legitimate sexual orientation. That is what may happen not because of this bill but because of what the courts may choose to do in applying this statutory language in other unrelated contexts.

I hope I have made it clear why I, without any personal disrespect or malice toward homosexual persons, do not feel it would be prudent to include the words sexual orientation in this legislation. We are opening the door to the use of this language in other contexts that may lead to legitimizing other forms of sexual orientation we would not want to approve or to the use of the concept of sexual orientation to harm the rights of religious and other groups to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

The whole problem can be avoided by accepting the amendment by the member for Ontario and eliminating this contentious list of categories altogether.

If the purpose of the bill is to ensure crimes motivated by hatred are more severely assessed in sentencing, let us leave it at that. If the purpose is to create a precedent of recognition of the concept of sexual orientation, a concept the Prime Minister felt was too ambiguous to include in the Constitution of 1981, one that might be used in other contexts we would not approve of as legislators, then this section of Bill C-41 does not deserve the support of the House.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be addressing Parliament today on Bill C-41. To say the least, the legislation has caused quite a stir.

The government has introduced close to 100 bills since the election but next to Bill C-68, the gun bill, no other bill has raised the kind of attention this one has.

Although the bill is extensive the focus has been on just one small section. However the implications of this one section are great and could create a social shift in the Criminal Code. The general intent of the bill is reasonable. The Criminal Code needs to be overhauled in terms of its sentencing guidelines. The code is rather weak and soft as I know all Canadians will attest. Canadians want a code that will protect them and keep our streets safer.

On the first day the bill was brought before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, November 17, 1994, the minister was present as a witness. I was at that hearing and listened closely to what the minister had to say. In particular I listened to his reasoning behind section 718.2, the clause that would increase penalties for those who commit crimes while at the same time they might have thought about someone's sexual orientation or religion or whatever.

With regard to section 718.2 the minister stated:

It's there, provided that a court that imposes a sentence shall take into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In connection with aggravating circumstances, the court must consider evidence that the offence was motivated with bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or the sexual orientation of the victim.

As a court officer for over 20 years I have sat through enough court cases to know that judges already take into account all these factors in sentencing. I ask the justice minister, if something is already being done in the courts on a regular basis with innovation and flexibility, why it is necessary or appropriate to write them into the code and thereby stultify what is presently working. Where are the events in the community of such a pervasive nature that begs this kind of legislative response?

I refer to another piece of testimony given by the minister on that day. The minister stated:

I'm asked why not define the term "sexual orientation"-there's no need to add a definition. It's perfectly clear what the intention of the legislation is.

The minister in that committee finally stated what he thought was a definition of the term sexual orientation. He said:

That interpretation of that provision has been that sexual orientation encompasses homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.

Fine, I can understand that definition. Why is it then that when an amendment is proposed at the clause by clause stage to add such a definition to the term sexual orientation-and I may say the identical definition the minister stated at the committee-every Liberal member except three voted against it?

Witnesses had come before the justice committee and stated that sexual orientation could mean anything, including transsexuality and even pedophilia. Canadians need to know the direction the government is taking. I think they are observing that it is downhill. This type of leadership is unacceptable and must be highlighted so that the public can see. Then it can infer what kind of government we have.

I quote from the minutes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs a question I asked of John Conroy from the Canadian Bar Association on the definition of sexual orientation. I said to him:

-to my mind, the term "sexual orientation" is pretty broad. It could involve all kinds of repugnant possibilities, even those that are illegal. So could you address your mind to the definition of the term "sexual orientation" and support what you are saying when you say that it is carefully and narrowly drafted? I ask this because my assertion is that the term "sexual orientation" is not defined and is too broad.

Here is the response that was given to my question:

I would take the definition that you raised a minute ago. That has certainly been the definition I've always understood: homosexual, heterosexual, or some other sexual orientation. It could be any kind of sexual orientation, and it could be something that, as you say, is illegal.

The definition could be any kind of sexual orientation. One would assume from this that someone who practises bestiality, pedophilia or transsexuality would be considered under this section. The minister says no, but he is unwilling to define the term sexual orientation. His social agenda is clear and it has little to do with getting tough on crime.

The proposed sentencing guidelines are redundant and ill considered, injecting politics and social fashion into the administration of criminal law. Judges already have wide discretion in sentencing within limits provided by the courts of appeal. They often use this discretion to hand out particularly harsh sentences for crimes they consider harmful to society.

As far as I can determine, the government has presented no evidence that judges are being unduly lenient with criminals motivated by hate as compared to the leniency for other offences. Why pass a law that in effect asks judges to conform in accordance with a fashionable list?

The Criminal Code is not a toy or a political manifesto. Nor should it be a showcase for the government's style. It is the law of the land, the moral border of tolerance where the state will intervene. Before the government makes any changes to the Criminal Code it should show first that there is a problem and, further, a problem that can be effectively addressed by the criminal law. Demonstrate, then legislate.

The problem contemplated by section 718.2 of Bill C-41 relates to an important principle. I said from the very beginning, and I will continue to say it, that the legislation ignores the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law. It suggests that violence against one person is less or more significant than against others, and that it provides special recognitions and advantages to select groups of people. I do not believe it is a wise course for the administration of justice.

Several years ago a boy was murdered in Calgary by a young offender. His reasoning: the victim was overweight, shy and too brainy for his liking so he stabbed him to death. Not one of these characteristics is in the listed schedule in Bill C-41. Clearly the young boy was victimized based on discrimination of aforethought. Where does the list of discriminating characteristics end? The list is indefinite and that is why the Reform Party wants clause 718.2 of the bill removed to keep all persons equal before the law.

The courts already take into account the surrounding circumstances of the offence at the time of sentencing. If someone commits assault causing bodily harm that person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. The judge makes the decision concerning the length of the sentence not exceeding 10 years.

As it currently stands, if the judge feels that a person was assaulted because of religion, the accused could be given a term of up to 10 years in prison. What many do not understand is that even if the amendments to Bill C-41 come into force, the maximum penalty the judge can give in such a case is still 10 years. The legislation will not strengthen the limits of the Criminal Code.

It is evident that section 718.2 is not presented for any criminal justice purpose but rather to mollify some loud political voices. This section of the Criminal Code is for a social fashion purpose, what is currently politically and socially correct as defined by the Liberals.

By slipping section 718.2 into Bill C-41 the government manoeuvres one step closer to its overall agenda to include homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would then enable gay couples to claim spousal benefits and perhaps overturn by legal challenge any pro-traditional family social policy of the federal government. All in all section 718.2 should be deleted from Bill C-41. Deleting it would make it a better piece of legislation and more in line with the true will of the Canadian people.

I want to address another amendment that we as a party have proposed. It is simply to delete anything to do with section 745 of the Criminal Code. The clause has no right to be part of the code at all. Bill C-41 should not be referring to it. I know the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce feels differently as this had become his legacy when he was the solicitor general. Liberals see section 745 as the glimmer of hope. Reformers see a life sentence as just that, a life sentence. Life should mean life.

Today a court in Ontario is in the midst of the very disturbing trial of Paul Bernardo. He is charged with the murders of two young girls. If convicted he could receive a life sentence, but because of section 745 he could be walking our streets in 15 years. I cannot even bear to think of the possibility of this occurring. Yet the bleeding hearts condemn Reformers for even thinking of repealing this offensive section.

The member for York South-Weston has a private member's bill at committee stage that would get rid of section 745. If clear heads prevail, the bill will pass through the committee stage. The bill passed second reading and I believe that 74 members of the Liberal caucus supported it. We have hope then that our amendment will have similar results when it comes to a vote. When 74 Liberal members vote differently than the justice minister and the Prime Minister, one can only come to the

conclusion that these members are simply doing what is right for the justice system in our society.

Repeal of section 745 represents what the majority of Canadians want. It is a bellwether issue to measure the appropriateness of the social philosophy of the section 745 defenders. Who could ever even vote for and support in Parliament any MP who has the kind of mind that would continue to defend section 745? Canadians want it repealed. I hope the government is listening.

In conclusion I am saying that the underlying social philosophy of Bill C-41 is a measure of the basic value structure of the Prime Minister. He alone is ultimately responsible and accountable for the devalued tone of the bill's inherent message. Everything in the bill has his stamp of approval.

The Prime Minister sometimes appears as a likeable guy. However his legislation and values represented in the bill are not very likeable. The bill does not represent mainstream Canadian values. Consequently it is revealed that neither does the Prime Minister. Improvement will only come with a new government.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, the environment.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-41.

I begin by voicing my absolute disgust with the government in its move to invoke time allocation on the bill. Bill C-41 is an important bill with serious implications. My constituents of Comox-Alberni deserve to have their opinions heard through their representative in the House. The government's move to silence MPs by preventing reasonable debate of legislation is undemocratic and unprincipled.

Bill C-41 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to restructure sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Code and rules for evidence and procedure for use in the sentencing process. Bill C-41 ensures harsher penalties are imposed for crimes motivated by hatred based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.

I agree with the concept that legislation should provide for victim impact statements to be used in court proceedings. The Reform Party has also been a strong advocate of victims' rights and it is high time this be given priority by the government. However, the bill before us hardly addresses the issue. Bill C-41 does little to protect victims' rights.

The bill provides only for written statements to be filed with the court, which is simply not adequate. The bill fails to provide for oral or written statements to be made directly to the court by the victim or by the victim's representative. With this provision the legislative proposals are virtually meaningless.

If the government is serious about victims' rights, provision to allow for both oral and written statements to be made directly to the court by either the victim or the victim's representative should be provided for.

When the Reform Party suggested a number of amendments to the bill at committee stage which would provide for these provisions, the lack of commitment by the government was demonstrated when all amendments were voted down by the Liberal majority in committee.

As much as I support provisions for victim's rights, I am dismayed to note that passing this legislation will hardly change the status quo.

The implications of victims' rights within the bill may be insignificant. However, I have serious reservations about the implications of section 717, which requires serious revision before it is passed by the House.

Section 717 proposes to make provisions for allowance to bypass court proceedings for those accused of offences. If an accused person admits to committing or to having involvement in an offence this section would eliminate the use of the courts to determine guilt or sentencing.

Reform supports the use of alternative measures for specific offences, particularly non-violent offences, but this clause is too open ended. Offences punishable by alternate measures are not specified and this needs to be spelled out more.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommended section 717 be amended to restrict the availability of the program to persons who have committed less serious offences as well as first time offenders. I support such an amendment before the bill becomes law.

In addition, the bill fails to give any indication of what will constitute an alternative measure. This must be spelled out. It is not enough to delegate responsibility to the provinces because even though provinces are given authority to design their own system there will be vast differences in measures from province to province.

When Reform proposed an amendment to clarify the situation the Liberal majority voted it down in committee. Without clarification the bill leaves the system of fair trial and punishment wide open to abuse.

I cannot support section 717 without the necessary amendments, which the government is unwilling to make. As it stands, section 717 should be scrapped.

Another section which needs serious revision is the controversial hate section 718.2. It has raised the ire and concern of many Canadians. Section 718.2 stipulates that a court which imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration that sentences should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

Furthermore, the bill goes on to propose that sentences take into account that evidence the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation of the victim shall be deemed aggravating circumstances.

One problem with this section which has been raised by many Canadians is the loosely defined use of the term sexual orientation. Canadians have repeatedly attempted to get their concerns regarding this section heard by the government. Numerous petitions and calls in the House for a legal definition of the term sexual orientation in the bill have fallen on deaf ears. The government still insists proceeding with the section as it stands; so much for consulting the people.

Without a definition of sexual orientation the government is leaving itself wide open to a whole new era of legal challenges. The bill opens the door for the public and courts to define sexual orientation as they see fit. This could include legitimizing paedophiles' engaging in sexual activities with young children, suggesting that because it is their sexual orientation it is a legitimate activity. This is nonsense. It is a major concern. Canadians are aware there has been an active movement for paedophilia to be considered a legitimate sexual orientation. This has to be addressed.

Another problem with section 718.2 is it opens the door for all kinds of confusion before the courts. If a person who fits into any one of the categories has been assaulted, this person will have the right to insist the crown attorney show the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on sexual orientation of the victim.

Clearly bias, hate and prejudice against another person should not be tolerated. However, opening up this section as a basis for increased penalties opens a can of worms the government will not be able to close.

In determining appropriate sentences for crimes, courts should only consider the nature of the offence: Was it a robbery or a sexual assault? Was violence involved? Whether or not the offence was directed against a heterosexual or a homosexual, a Catholic or an atheist, a Caucasian or non-Caucasian is simply irrelevant. The whole concept of adding hatred threatens equal treatment under the law.

Hatred, bias and prejudice cannot be defined. The nature of the crime should be judged and punished accordingly, not the race, religion or sexual orientation of the victim or the perpetrator. It should not matter who or what kind of person the victim or perpetrator is when a crime is brought before the courts. Law has no business investigating or questioning these attributes. In doing so the proposed law will infringe on the civil rights and liberties of individuals.

Just as this government proposes to impose on civil rights and liberties of Canadians with its prejudicial hiring quotas in Bill C-64, the act to impose hiring equity, the government also proposes to entrench inequities through this bill. Just as all

Canadians should be able to compete equally for jobs irrespective of race, religion, gender or disability, so should all Canadians be able to defend themselves in a court of law regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Canadians will not tolerate the big brother attitude of this government. The Liberals may be able to hide from Canadians the contents of their bills now by invoking closure on debate but Canadians will not be silent when their rights and liberties are threatened.

Over 71,000 Canadians have petitioned this House not to pass Bill C-41 as it stands. Over 10,000 letters opposing this bill were delivered to the justice minister last week. The justice minister has received over 70,000 letters opposing this bill. There is no question Canadians clearly do not agree with the Liberal government on this issue.

The minister states that he consulted with Canadians before implementing legislation, but with whom did he consult on Bill C-41? The growing arrogance of this government is becoming very apparent and Canadians simply will not continue to tolerate it.

Come next election the message of Canadians will be loud and clear. Just as the people spoke in the 1993 election, so they will speak in 1997. The government may be able to ignore and silence the will of Canadians today but no government is above the democratic voice of the people. The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them who did not listen to the people, will go down in flames.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, originally, my speech was supposed to be in French but as you know, this is an issue that has caused some controversy in many parts of English Canada and especially among representatives of the third party here in the House.

There is only one part of this bill which is controversial. Let us cut to the chase and talk about that one part, namely crimes motivated by hatred, particularly hatred of a person's sexual orientation.

In this debate, we have heard that sexual orientation is an ambiguous term. Not only is this term in the bills of rights in almost all of our provinces, but only two weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that sexual orientation was a form of discrimination and used those specific legally definable words.

We have heard talk about special rights being given to one segment of society. This bill does not give anyone special rights. It tries to restore basic human rights which are being stolen from some segments of our society.

Gangs of neo-Nazis are not prowling the streets looking for straight, white males to beat up and throw off cliffs. There are however gangs of neo-Nazis beating up and killing gays.

We have heard that looking at intent sets a dangerous precedent for our criminal justice system. Intent is the basis of our entire criminal justice system. After all, what is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder if it is not the intent of the perpetrator? The sentence for the latter is life in prison, yet both deal with killing.

We have heard the argument that a crime is a crime and that punishment for beating and killing should be the same for all people. There are different crimes and the punishment should fit the crime.

When a Jewish cemetery is desecrated the damage is not to property, it is to the entire community. As a result Jewish people feel unsafe in their homes as they recall their history and an entire segment of our society is scarred. That is exactly what the neo-Nazis want. When a gay person is beaten or killed it is not simply that person who is murdered but the entire community is victimized. This is exactly what the neo-Nazis and bigots of all kinds want.

We have heard the right wingers talk of conspiracy and agendas. The only agenda is that of the radical religious right trying to advance religious beliefs on the Canadian public. After all, this is not about new rights but about saving lives. The polls show that the Canadian public overwhelmingly wants this legislation, more than those who wanted gun control and that was well over 70 per cent.

I realize there are some members in this House who feel their personal religious beliefs are more important than either their constituents' views or an individual's fundamental rights and freedoms. However I would urge them to follow the lead of Quebec, the only province in Canada which has an official religion and the first province in Canada to acknowledge that there is widespread discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I would also urge these members to remember what we are talking about here. We are not talking about same sex benefits. We are not talking about adoption. We are talking about stopping gay people from getting systematically beaten and killed by bigots of all kinds.

Not too long ago a person walking across the bridge out here from Hull to Ottawa was seized upon by a gang of so-called neo-Nazis. His crime was only that these bigots thought he looked gay. The media later made a point of saying he was not gay but that should not have been relevant. This young man was thrown to his death at the foot of the cliff beneath these Parliament Buildings because the neo-Nazis thought it was good and right to kill gays.

I know some of my colleagues believe that their religion prohibits homosexuality. I also know that their religion prohibits killing. In Christianity the basis for the former is an obscure passage written in prose and the latter is one of God's Ten Commandments. I sincerely hope they will see their duty clear and join us in trying to stop these killings once and for all.

As a Roman Catholic and as a married man, I fully recognize the obligation of this House to recognize equal rights for all. All we are asking is that these fundamental rights which we hold especially on the government side be extended to all Canadians and that includes gays and lesbians.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enter into the public debate on Bill C-41. I was just having a private debate with one of the government members on the controversial section 718.2.

There are some good points in this bill as well as the bad ones. The emphasis has been on section 718.2 regarding the phrase of sexual orientation. I wish to go on the record as being totally and absolutely opposed to the point that we would introduce that phrase and give the protection under the Criminal Code.

I may be wrong but I think this is the first time the House has given to people the protection of sexual orientation which is totally undefined, whatever their sexual orientation may be and however repulsive that may be to a large number of people. They will now be protected under the Criminal Code.

If we go back to the charter of rights and freedoms that was passed in 1980 at that time the House specifically said that sexual orientation shall be left out. Then we found that the courts have introduced it. They said it shall be read in. I wonder who gave them the power to read it in when this House said it shall not be in there.

Thousands and thousands of petitions have been presented in this House and the government has not listened to any one of them. There is an article in today's Ottawa Sun regarding some members of the Reform Party who delivered to Parliament in a wheelbarrow thousands and thousands of letters objecting to the term sexual orientation. Not one of them was listened to by this government.

I do hope government members took note of what happened in this province last Thursday when the government was thrown out for not listening to the people. A new government was introduced which promised some serious policy, not only in balanced budgets but also in social reform.

Most unfortunately, perhaps the Liberals will pay more attention to that than the tens of thousands of Canadians who have registered their strong disapproval to this clause. It has identified certain segments of society and has given them special protection. That special protection is not available to anybody else. We pride ourselves as Canadians for being fair, treating everybody equally, that no one is better or worse than anybody else.

Yet because of a person's sexual orientation, which is undefined and may be reprehensible and disgusting, that person is not only protected but we are also going to mete out a more severe punishment to people who are victims within those groups than those who are victims of a group not mentioned in the section. That is why I find it repulsive. It is not only the fact that sexual orientation is in here which I find repulsive, but also the fact that a few Canadians have been identified and are being told that they are entitled to special treatment but nobody else is. All of us are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law but we now find that is not the case.

I fully expect the citizens of Canada will remember this at the next election. They will ask MPs how they voted on June 14, 1995 on Bill C-41 when this type of amendment to the Criminal Code was introduced for the first time. I am fairly sure a large number of people who voted Liberal last time will not be voting Liberal the next time based on the fact that the Liberals have totally ignored the wishes of Canadians and have pushed this through much against their will.

Moving on to other sections, section 745.1 deals with people under the age of 18. Because we have focused on section 718.2 we have not talked about the other sections. Section 745.1 deals with the sentencing of people under the age of 18 convicted of first degree murder and second degree murder who shall be eligible for parole between five and ten years.

No more than 10 years shall the person spend in jail if he or she commits a murder in this country while under the age of 18. No more. What is the value of human life when we let our young people run through the streets committing murder and violent crime and we say the maximum is 10 years in jail for the crime?

There is a trial going on at this very moment which has despicable and heinous videotapes of the most repulsive crimes that perhaps have ever been committed in this country. Had these people been under the age of 18, the sentence would have been no more than 10 years in jail.

Where is this country going when it comes to criminal justice? Canadians from coast to coast are saying that they want safer streets and safer communities. And we turn around and pat those criminals on the head saying: "Do not do it any more. Perhaps you should know better".

It is time we got tough on crime, time that we told criminals we do not want to see them back in court again. The sentence should be appropriate. It should give them the message that we are serious about being serious on crime.

Section 717 regarding alternative measures and sentencing allows more appropriate sentencing. A couple of weeks ago we heard that a court in Saskatchewan banished a native for one year to live in isolation because he raped and humiliated someone. That is not sufficient.

If we are going to give the courts the right to alternative measures then we should have some real serious messages built into the system that the punishment must fit the crime. To banish someone to the wilderness who is perfectly capable and acquainted with living in the wilderness is basically to tell him to go home for a year and stay there. When this country is totally and absolutely fed up with violence against women and everybody, we find that a sentence like that is repulsive.

We already have a private member's bill to try to repeal section 745.6. That is the open door for people who are sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 15 years. It used to be the faint last hope and now we find it is the open door to get back on the street. That also has to be closed.

I have one final point, on section 722. We have to applaud that one, because it now gives victims the right to be heard in court. We must say that is an advancement, because victims need to be heard. We need to hear the pain they have suffered. It is time that criminals realized they are destroying our society and society is going to speak back and hit back to ensure that criminals get the message once and for all that we have had enough with crime and criminals. We want to do what we can through tougher sentencing and tougher laws to ensure that crime statistics start going down rather than up.

I could speak all day on this particular subject, but I think I have put my point across. There are five bad points and one good point in this bill. Therefore, I think Reform and everybody else in this country wants this bill defeated.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 has proven to be a very controversial bill based exclusively on the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in section 718.2, two words in a bill that runs 75 pages in length. These objections, even with a cursory study, do not stand up to scrutiny.

First I want to briefly deal with what the rest of C-41 talks about. C-41 provides the courts with a clear statement of principles and guidelines to be considered when sentencing offenders. Sentencing is a very delicate balance between competing principles. There is far more to consider than simply locking up the offender and separating him from society. This is not to say that the safety of society must not be the paramount goal, but we must also rehabilitate where we can and use our limited financial correctional resources in the wisest possible fashion.

Canada has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the western world. This is not because we are a violent or lawless people. On the contrary, only 10 per cent of crime in this country actually involves violence. Over half of all crimes involve property, not people. And frequently offenders are locked up not because they represent in any way a threat to society but because we simply do not know what to do with them. We do not have the resources at present in our code.

For example, nearly a third of the people liable to incarceration in our provincial jails are in that situation because they could not pay fines. Particularly hard hit of course are aboriginal and poor Canadians. The bill provides measures to help the provinces collect outstanding fines through the civil court system or levy community service or withhold provincial licences or permits in lieu of fines.

The bill also takes into much greater account the victims of crime, the people so often overlooked in the sentencing process. The new law will revise the parole provisions of the code. Henceforth, when an offender brings an application for an earlier parole eligibility date the court will specifically be required to take into account the perspective and evidence of the victim or the victim's family in deciding whether permission should be granted to the applicant to seek early parole.

The bill also gives priority to the principle of restitution. Offenders must be made to understand the consequences of their crimes. To do this, the code will be amended to ensure that restitution orders can be enforced through civil courts like any other court order, through garnishment of wages, seizure, sale or otherwise. At the same time, the restitution order will not preclude the victim from suing for damages in the civil courts in that province.

Jails should be reserved for those who need them. Bill C-41 proposes alternatives to create a more equitable, less costly, and more effective system which Canadians can trust. It introduces a diversion program for adults guilty of minor crimes, for instance shoplifting, that will allow the courts to divert the offender into a program of community service and counselling to deal with the problem in a more humane and less costly manner.

Another new aspect of the bill is the conditional sentence. This provision will give authorities the discretion to have the offender serve his or her sentence in the community where-and I want to stress this-the court is satisfied that the offender would not endanger the safety of the community. If the offender does not comply with the conditions imposed as part of that sentence, he or she is brought back before the court to explain. If the court is not satisfied, it can order that the remainder of the sentence be served in custody.

Last, Bill C-41 will require that a judge passing sentence state her or his reasons and enter those reasons in the record of proceeding. This will increase public understanding of the judicial decision making process, encouraging judges to make consistent, well-informed, reasoned decisions based on the principles enunciated in the bill.

Now to section 718. Hate crime is increasingly manifest in Canada. There are over 40 organized hate groups operating in Canada today, and there is no evidence that the number is abating. It is with this in mind that the Liberal government has moved to toughen up the Criminal Code to crack down on crime and to make it known in absolutely unequivocal terms that we cannot and will not allow hatred and prejudice to tear us apart in this country. This was our promise to the Canadian people during the election campaign. We say now that crimes motivated by hate will be and indeed must be more severely punished.

Hatred comes in many guises. There is neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism, racism. They are only the obvious forms. Prejudice based on sexual orientation is just as real and one of the most common forms of discrimination we encounter today.

Some studies estimate that as much as 12 per cent of the population is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Others purport to put the number as low as 3 per cent. Whatever the percentage, be it 1 per cent or 50 per cent, the fact is that we cannot tolerate prejudice and hate motivated crimes against any segment of our population, no matter how small. In fact, I will argue that if it is smaller then they need our protection more, since they do not have the numbers to protect themselves.

Studies show that as many as one-third of the people we are talking about here-or they are talking about, that great they over on the other side-have been threatened or subjected to violence simply because of who they are. According to the Metro Toronto police force, hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation today represent the third largest category of hate related offences.

The evidence all points to a steady increase in hate crime, particularly in the United States. It is naive to think that this does not spill over to Canada. If we contemn hatred, we must contemn all hatred, not just against some groups, but against all groups equally.

Some people have expressed a concern that the new law would legalize pedophilia. Let us be perfectly clear here. This legislation does not legalize any sexual activity that is currently outlawed, and the bill explicitly states so. A person's sexual orientation no more includes pedophilia than it does sexual assault or incest. I wonder how many heterosexuals think of themselves as rapists.

People who violate the sexual offences in the existing Criminal Code will continue to be punished to the full extent of the law. In fact, section 718.2.(ii) of the bill will allow for even harsher sentences to be imposed on sex offenders where the victim is in a relationship of trust to the offender, for example, where a doctor molests a patient, a teacher a young student, a babysitter his or her charge, or a priest his parishioner.

I have also heard it said that the new bill will make it a crime to speak out publicly against homosexuality. Again, let us be perfectly clear. It is the right of every Canadian to be able to speak his or her mind. A church sermon expressing a moral view is not a crime. Freedom of speech and religion are both specifically protected under our charter of rights and freedoms.

Bill C-41 as a sentencing bill will become operative only after someone is found guilty of a crime. Only at the sentencing hearing may a judge hear evidence that the crime was motivated by hatred, and only then may the judge take it into account in passing sentence.

Some critics have expressed concern that the bill will open the door to sweeping changes leading to the recognition of same sex families or gay and lesbian spouses. Bill C-41 does not and will not have this effect. You are in the wrong act, people. It does nothing more than what it appears to do. It is a bill to give the court guidance in determining a sentence where a crime has been committed. The bill does not advocate or encourage any lifestyle, nor does it undermine in any way the traditional family. It does not even speak to the subject. It is relevant only to the criminal law.

Bill C-41 is about many things. It is about the right of everyone to live as they choose within the law and to live their lives free from fear. It is far more than a debate on sexual orientation. It is about sentencing. It is designed to restore faith in our courts, faith in our system of justice, and faith in our communities, where people need to be reintegrated.

I urge all members of the House to give their support to this important bill.

I must say that I have felt ashamed in the last two days about statements of intolerance I have heard in the debate. I hope I never rise again saying that I feel ashamed about statements of intolerance in the greatest democracy in the world today, Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.12 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 8, 1995, and in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the interest of avoiding reading the list of motions aloud, I think you might find a disposition on the part of the House to consider that all the motions have been put, the division demanded and deferred, so

that we can proceed at once with the ringing of the bells for the division.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if we could have unanimous agreement that after the vote on Bill C-41 is complete the House would adjourn for the evening, we would be agreeable. Otherwise we will not give unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will not partake in the negotiations. I will simply put the motion as proposed by the parliamentary secretary and await the decision of the House.

The proposal of the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is that the House deem moved and seconded, deem read, deem deferred for a recorded division. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is not unanimous consent.

The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.