Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that I fully understand the intent of the bill and the impact that hate crime can have on an individual. That is why I am pleased that the courts already take that into consideration.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is a medical doctor and not a lawyer, but perhaps if she looked through transcripts of trials and sentencing she would find that the courts now take that into consideration in sentencing. They already take into consideration that a beating might have been because a person was homosexual or because they were of another race. They already give more severe sentences based on that aggravating factor.
I appreciate that, but I recognize that this is already happening now and we do not need to codify it so there is more debate as to whether or not another group should belong to that list, that enumeration. And that will happen.
We had a case in Vancouver, which she is very much aware of, where it was the profession of an individual that caused him to be the victim of a shooting. He may or may not fall into this list. We will have lawyers debating back and forth and wasting court time when right now the courts would take that into consideration because there is not an exclusionary list.
I would suggest to the hon. member that already the courts take it into consideration, the judges take it into consideration. There is absolutely no need to put a law together to specify a list. I repeat that it is only one part of this legislation.
In case the hon. members in this House missed the point, this is also about alternative measures that are not defined, that are not specified as to who makes decisions, that are not specified on what crimes or what offenders qualify or whether they get alternative measures one, two, three, ten, or fifteen times. I think those things have to be addressed. We cannot pass a law for one clause; we have to look at the entirety. If the entirety of it is bad, we as legislators have a moral obligation to see it does not become law.