---

Hansard Record of April 1st Canadian Senate debate on Bill C-250

Canadian Senate debate on C-250
April 1, 2004

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaPierre, for the third reading of Bill C-250, to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).—(Honourable Senator Beaudoin).


The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, under the yielding provision, Senator Beaudoin would lose his right to speak, unless leave is given for him to speak later.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to third reading of Bill C-250.

Honourable senators, Bill C-250 has been the subject of much debate from across this country. In my region, over the last two months in particular, the voice of Western Canadians has been very strong and clear — that is, they do not want this legislative amendment as presently worded added to our Criminal Code. The very fact that representatives from all major faith groups — Catholic, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism — in Canada have sounded the alarm over the hate crime bill should say something to you.

Honourable senators, most Canadians who practise their faith aggressively oppose Bill C-250. The only other time I can recall Canadians objecting so strenuously to something their Parliament was about to adopt was when the gun registry legislation was being debated. Why the government, and indeed the Senate itself, seems so determined to rush through this legislation and not provide Canadians the opportunity to be heard and their questions seriously considered is beyond belief.

When Bill C-250 was before this place in the last session, I spoke to the bill. I spoke to the concerns of the people in my region, and I spoke against it being hastily passed by Parliament. Honourable senators, I sought to have the committee fully charged with examining each and every concern raised by Canadians. I raised some of these questions at the recent committee hearings. I had asked for a definition of sexual orientation and what this really means. I would ask how the words "sexual orientation" make gays and lesbians an identifiable group and whether the words "sexual orientation" include other groups.

(1630)

Honourable senators, our democracy was built based on Judeo- Christian values and the principles of law. In Canada, it seems that successive Liberal governments have sought nothing other than to secularize the faiths out of our democracy and laws. The fact that we had to include the amendment clause to protect our faith-practising communities gives real cause for concern. Every citizen across the land is fearful that their constitutional rights are being trampled upon, so much so that their freedom of expression and speech will be confined to being no more than the freedom of thought. What bothers most Canadians is that hate crimes are now being based on vague and undefined language.

Honourable senators, Canadians have been very clear with their concern over the bill, but one succinct account of the bill came to me from Carole Cole of Dundalk, Ontario, where she said the following:

The ground of "sexual orientation" does not satisfy the characteristics of the existing genus of the original identifiable groups. Colour, race and ethnic origin are characteristics which are generally both visible (henceforth the term "identifiable group") and innate.

All Canadians should be protected equally by the law. This proposed amendment, however, not only creates a special category or privileged class of people, based on controversial forms of sexual behaviour, for which any crimes defined under the sections 318 and 319 will be considered hate crimes committed against a distinct class of people, but also flies in the face of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Although the current provision contains a defence for a bona fide religious speech, both the amendment for a "religious text," which is arguably vague, and the existing defence are inadequate in that: 1) They do not extend to all offences; 2) the legislative history and the wording of the defence appear to limit its application to hate against religious groups; and 3) the courts have signalled that they would provide a narrow interpretation to the defence.

Furthermore, recent jurisprudence demonstrates that when there is a so-called "collision of dignities" between homosexual rights and religious rights, homosexual rights are the preference of the courts, and these will generally prevail.

Precedent recently established by court jurisprudence, such as the Owen and Harding cases, indicates that religious freedom could very well be jeopardised by this amendment, and it could therefore force the Judaeo-Christian majority of our population to become second class citizens, unable to speak their religious convictions or moral standards in the public square.

The defence would therefore be inadequate, particularly considering the provision's potential applicability to speech within places of worship and places of religious instruction. Moreover the fact that hate has no statutory definition, but is a rather judicially malleable concept, combined with a relatively low standard of mens rea that is required to constitute the crime, will inevitably muffle otherwise valuable speech out of fear of prosecution, thus violating the individual's or an institution's Charter rights.

Canadians believe it is fundamentally inappropriate to pass legislation that can be used to intimidate, accuse or harass citizens intent on defending their rights to advocate moral or religious issues related thereto in the public square. Judaeo-Christian values are at times non-negotiable on moral issues.

Honourable senators, I pray that you move to defeat this potentially very divisive bill. It is not in the national interest of peace and good government, nor is it in the interest of secular, spiritual harmony.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I move, seconded by Senator Stratton:

That Bill C-250 be not now read the third time but that it be amended, on page 1, in clause 1, by replacing lines 8 and 9 with the following:
"by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sex.".

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?

I know Senator Beaudoin wishes to speak. When Senator Beaudoin yielded, my recollection is that leave was granted for him to speak later, even though he had yielded and our rules provided he would have lost his right to speak. Do I recall correctly, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: I thank my colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Beaudoin: Honourable senators, Bill C-250 appears to be acceptable in strictly legal and constitutional terms. We will have a free vote; everyone will vote as he or she sees fit. We are living in difficult times. We have discussed the constitutional issue thoroughly in committee. I have carefully read the speech given in the Senate last Friday by my colleague, Senator Joyal, on the subject of Bill C-250.

I come to the conclusion that this bill respects the Constitution. The Supreme Court, I am certain, were it ever asked for an interpretation, would lean in that direction. The current body of precedent is clear, in my opinion.

I know that this is a controversial issue but we have no choice and, since there will be a free vote, of course, everyone can express his or her own opinion. We have examined the constitutional issue in committee with experts the past few days. I want to emphasize that; it is important. In Vriend, 1988, the Supreme Court found that the words "sexual orientation", which are not in the Individual's Rights Protection Act and which the Alberta legislators said they did not wish to include, should be read into the act. The Supreme Court ordered them added to the act, because of the principle of equality before the law, as stated in section 15 of the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court added that section 1 of the Charter did not justify the omission of the phrase "sexual orientation" from the Alberta law. There has been much talk in the newspapers about the three decisions on same-sex marriage.
A few months ago, the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down rulings on same-sex marriages. The Quebec Court of Appeal has just done so as well. These three appeal courts agree. According to all three courts, homosexuals have the right to marry.

There is a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of same-sex marriage and on the definition of the word "marriage." It was scheduled for April 16, 2004, but has been delayed until October 2004.

(1640)

The body of precedent suggests that, if Bill C-250 were before the Supreme Court, that court would conclude that the term "sexual orientation" is acceptable in law and that it can be added to the list of identifiable groups in section 318 of the Criminal Code — I am talking here in terms of constitutional law, not morals or other kinds of law. In my opinion, this might, therefore, refer indirectly to same-sex marriage, as interpreted by the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in the definition of marriage. All the elements suggest that the Supreme Court would go in that direction.

However, we are waiting, and the matter has been held over until October, at which time both sides will present their case to the Supreme Court. By October, there is a strong possibility that the Prime Minister of Canada will have the filled two positions at the Supreme Court which will become vacant in June following the departures of Justice Louise Arbour and Justice Frank Iacobucci. In any event, the Supreme Court can sit with seven judges.

I am speaking only on the constitutional issue. We are all free to go in whatever direction we like. Some prefer to take a religious approach. There is a very clear section in Canada. Each religion can interpret this as it likes.

Catholics, Protestants, followers of Islam and Judeo-Christians are all entitled to their religion, and this right in entrenched in the Constitution. There is consequently no doubt that the religious leaders each have the authority to follow the tenets of their religion.

In Canada, the courts have indicated that we are free to have no religion. This does not threaten the rights of religious groups. In my opinion, since all religions are equal, section 1 of the Charter could not restrict the application of clause 1, according to the courts that have already handed down rulings.

Let us be clear, with regard to religion, each of us is free to vote according to our conscience. But, from a constitutional point of view, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Supreme Court will agree with the principle of Bill C-250, because it is consistent with Charter equality rights.

[English]

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Senator St. Germain's amendment because, although his amendment improves the consistency of the Criminal Code in meeting the already established protection under the Charter, the Constitution, and the 1976 Human Rights Act, I should like to add that he did not go far enough. While ethnic origin is important, as Senator St. Germain so rightly pointed out, I believe that national origin is also of great importance and, personally, it would be difficult for me to decide which is of greater importance to me, my Ukrainian ethnicity or my own country of origin, Canada, in terms of any hate propaganda. They both speak to who I am. Hate propaganda directed at either should not be acceptable if we are to amend the Criminal Code on this matter.

Motion in Subamendment

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I move, seconded by Senator Gustafson:
That the motion in amendment be amended, by adding, before the words "ethnic origin" the words "national or."

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-250 at third reading. I recognize that we have two amendments before us, and I will also address those, and do so from the position I attempted to articulate in support of the bill when I spoke on the principle of the bill at second reading.

We are now at the stage where the substantive detail of the bill and the specific effect of the bill, which have been studied in committee, are now before us. I concur with my colleague, Senator Beaudoin, that, from a legal standpoint, the bill is perfectly legal and constitutional.

However, honourable senators, I should like to make at least four points, which I will place on the record at this time.

First, in my opinion, this bill is about the human rights of every human being. We are all members of the human community, and so hold any and all of those rights referred to as human rights. This is often referred to as the universality of the human rights idea. Overlooking universality is, of course, exactly what those who violate human rights do, whether those violators be repressive governments or others. They are quick to claim many things and protect themselves, but they fail to grasp or respect fully the twin commitment to universality and a form of equality inherent in the very human rights idea.

The first step on the road to systemic human rights violations is invariably to denigrate the person or persons targeted. The sad psychology seems always the same: Undermining the dignity and worth of the hated person or persons. This dislodges both conscience and sensitivity, which normally would prevent innocent people from being brutalized. Crude propaganda is sometimes used to cement such bizarre beliefs about the human dignity of those targeted.

Second, the Senate, being the second chamber of our bicameral Parliament, is part of the legislative branch in our Canadian system of governance. This raises for me the very idea that was inherent in Senator Beaudoin's intervention, namely, that if we fail as legislators to act in this matter, then we ought not join with those who criticize our judiciary when it stakes out an active position in the matter of equality. I refer here to the principle of ejusdem generis in the interpretation of law, what some describe as analogous ground, given the fact that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone is equal before and under the law and has equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination and without discrimination on the basis of a number of specified grounds. As well, as Senator Beaudoin has pointed out for us, the Supreme Court, in Vriend, has used the ejusdem generis principle and said directly that sexual orientation is an analogous ground. Therefore, in Vriend, the court read into the Human Rights Act a ground of discrimination that was not placed there by the legislators — sexual orientation.

(1650)

I believe it will be inevitable that, if called upon to do so, the courts in Canada will read into section 318 of the Criminal Code this analogous ground. Either we act as legislators or we had better not criticize the courts if they do what we do not do.

The Senate of Canada also has a special role to play in our system of enacting legislation in the area of keeping an eye out to ensure that minorities in Canada are protected. Very few groups that are victimized by hatred constitute the majority. It speaks for itself that the matter before us is very much a question of speaking for what some might describe, sadly, as a despised minority.

This is our job, honourable senators, if we have any job at all. Therefore, our analysis, I suggest, of this bill involves very much an assessment of the targeting which impacts on Canadians because of their sexual orientation.

Further, I give my assessment of the need for this addition of sexual orientation to the list of grounds contained in section 318 and applicable to section 319 of the Criminal Code. I call the attention of honourable senators to the annual reports published each year by the federal, provincial and territorial Human Rights Commissions. Those reports clearly demonstrate that discrimination against Canadians, against persons because of their sexual orientation, is not at all an abstraction but, sadly, a very real phenomenon. We have the numbers right there.

I believe the Human Rights Commissions do excellent work in the promotion of social justice in Canada. They should be encouraged in their work in this particular area, irrespective of the enactment of Bill C-250 and irrespective of those sections in question in the Criminal Code.

Why do I say that, honourable senators? I say that because of the limitation contained in this bill in section 318(3), namely:

No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Much has been made of that provision to try to respond to those who fear its misuse.

Honourable senators, it was precisely because of this type of qualification that Criminal Code action was not taken against anti-Semitic school teacher Malcolm Ross in my province of New Brunswick. Rather, complaints had to be filed under the New Brunswick Human Rights Act, which did not require the approval of the Attorney General. A full court of nine judges in the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld that proceeding.

Obviously, I would prefer not to have this qualification in the legislation, but I am prepared to accept it because I think the bill is fine the way it is.

I have examined the evidence gathered by the Senate committee that studied this bill. I have also carefully examined the mountains of material submitted by individual groups and churches, which all honourable senators have received.

Much of the argumentation is about questions that, in my assessment, do not relate to this bill at all. Some contain points of view allegedly based on religious and moral principles. I certainly accept the right of those who postulate such views to express the same; indeed, I will defend that right of religious conviction and freedom of expression.

However, I have great difficulty in understanding the theological basis of many of these positions. Indeed, I would argue that these positions are not a proper analysis theologically nor philosophically. In all faith communities one finds theologians who cogently argue that one must not discriminate nor demean persons because of their sexual orientation, but rather the commandment of love for all created in the Imago Dei must trump hatred.

Honourable senators, this bill proscribing hate propaganda is doing simply that. We are not dealing with anything other than proscription of propaganda and hate and the consequences that would flow from that — consequences which do not speak to nation-building.

Theologically, most faith communities believe that hatred is wrong. For example, in my own faith community in the Roman Catholic Catechism, we will find in article 2303:

Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbour is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbour is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm.

I speak this way as a student of theology myself who has read a fair amount in the area. It is my conclusion that most theologians recognize that every human being, as I said, has inherent dignity given the nature, the source, the origin of our creation.

Finally, the catechism of my church provides also at article 2358 that persons who are homosexual:

...must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Hon. Lowell Murray: I wanted to ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition whether he had addressed the amendments proposed by his colleagues Senator St. Germain and Senator Tkachuk. Does he have anything to say about those?

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I think my position is perfectly clear. I find the bill as drafted "perfectly constitutional," to use the words of my colleague Senator Beaudoin. It is satisfactory to me. The bill does not need to be amended. Furthermore, the debate across the country on this issue might very well turn out to have been quite salutary because it has forced us to examine where the line is drawn between religious approaches and religious tenets, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience on the one hand and interference with the rule of law.

(1700)

In my judgment, that has been one of the healthy outcomes of the debate that we have had up to this point.

Senator Murray: I appreciate that point. On that last point, does the honourable senator agree with me that this bill, having already died twice on the Order Paper, ought now to be brought to a final vote and conclusion very soon?

Senator Kinsella: As this is the second day of debate at third reading stage of this bill, I would hope that we would allow for a fulsome debate and reach a judgment on it.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I should like, very briefly, to place on the record why I plan to vote against the proposed amendment and subamendment. I believe this clause should include "sex" as one of the prohibited grounds, but I think it should be done separately. I cannot possibly support an amendment that deletes the reference to sexual orientation — that is what this bill is all about. It is about coming to the public, official, formal, solemn defence of an extremely vulnerable minority.

We have supported this bill at second reading and in committee. I personally support it strongly. I want it on the record that when — I hope before too long — this chamber, in a second bill, is asked to include sex as one of the grounds in this same portion of the Criminal Code, I will gladly support that.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: I should like to have some clarification, because I sense that Senator Fraser was speaking to two questions simultaneously. It is my understanding that, at this moment, the question before us is Senator Tkachuk's subamendment and that we must dispose of that before we can move on to the other one.

Am I correct that Senator St. Germain's amendment is, in fact, not before us at this time but that the question before us and to which we are currently speaking is Senator Tkachuk's subamendment?

The Hon. the Speaker: I think that is a question for Senator Fraser.

Senator Fraser: I promised to be brief, so that is the only question that I will take, honourable senators.

It is my understanding, from listening to the debate, that we have been engaging in senatorial fashion in a rather wide-ranging debate on all the questions related to this legislation. It was in that spirit that I rose.

Senator Cools: My question may go to Senator Fraser, or to the sponsor of the bill, or to someone else. It is my understanding that the question currently before the Senate is Senator Tkachuk's subamendment.

Could I get that clarified?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Fraser is taking no more questions, and that is obviously the case, Senator Cools.

Some Hon. Senators: Question!

Senator Cools: I should like to speak in this debate, Your Honour, and I should like to make it clear that I wish to speak on Senator Tkachuk's amendment. According to my understanding of the rules, senators are allowed to speak on each question. Therefore, I am reserving my right to speak on the other questions as we move along. I am just trying to be crystal clear as to what I am speaking on.

Senator Tkachuk's amendment goes some ways, although not, to my mind, a long way, to meeting some of my concerns. Honourable senators, since I did not get an opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill a few weeks ago, I shall have to rely on what I said at second reading in the previous session of Parliament.

Honourable senators will remember that, at that time, I raised a concern about the inclusion of the term "sexual orientation" in what is called the genocide section of the Criminal Code. I did so because it was my clear understanding that section 318 of the Criminal Code, as it was designed, addressed immutable characteristics, including race and colour, et cetera.

Mr. Robinson told us that religion is not immutable. However, at the time these sections of the Criminal Code were created, religion was inherently connected and tied to race. In other words, most members of the Jewish race were members of the Hebrew religion, and most Arab people were members of the Muslim faith, so there was an inherent connection.

Senator Tkachuk's amendment goes some way to meeting some of those concerns, but I am still concerned about the phenomenon of including these terms in that section of the Criminal Code. To my mind, everyone should be protected, not only identifiable groups — whatever that may mean. That is another problem I have; I am not sure how to identify "sexual orientation."

I take my lead on some of this from Mr. Svend Robinson. When he appeared before us in committee, he told us very clearly that Bill C-250, in point of fact, was not necessary and that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code were satisfactory for the job of proceeding with prosecutions in the instances where any crimes were committed.

On March 10, 2004, when appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Mr. Robinson said the following:

This bill is largely symbolic; I would be the first person to concede that. There will not be a lot of prosecutions under this legislation. Yet the symbolism is enormously important because it says to gay and lesbian people that our lives and our safety and our security are just as important.

Honourable senators, I do not know anyone in this chamber who does not believe that the lives of all Canadians, all human beings, are especially important. I do not know anyone who believes that the life of any homosexual person is not important.

That was also confirmed at a March 11, 2004, meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. At that time, Mr. Jones from the Vancouver police appeared before us. I took the trouble to ask Mr. Jones whether these provisions were needed by the police force. He responded in essentially the same way. He said:

The power of this legislation is in the message it sends to Canadians about those things that we hold most dear — and that is the protection of those disadvantaged or minority groups or marginalized groups.

Honourable senators, the Criminal Code is a mighty instrument. Historically it has been the thought, when creating criminal law, that one does not use it as a social tool, a teaching tool or a public relations tool. The danger with using the Criminal Code is that when you create a power of prosecution, there is always a temptation and possibility that that power will be abused. As William Lyon Mackenzie — the grandfather of King — once said, there is a natural disposition among humans in positions of power to abuse power and to quickly substitute their own interests for the public interest. I put that comment forward.

(1710)

Honourable senators, in the famous Keegstra case, which is one of five prosecutions under these sections, Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin essentially dissented, as did Justice Sopinka. She described freedom of expression in the Charter as the right to let "loose one's ideas on the world." She referred to the "chilling effect" of the exercise of this freedom of expression by law- abiding citizens because of the subjective concept of hate. In her opinion, criminal sanctions do not operate as a deterrent to hate mongers, while they chill the free expression of the ideas of ordinary individuals who, by fear of criminal prosecution and because of inherent vagueness of the provision, will refrain from exercising their freedom of expression.

She went on to Criminal Code section 319 imposes limits on freedom of expression in relation to the search for truth, vigorous and open practical debate, and the value of self-individualization. She also stated that, in her opinion, and mine as well, the hate propaganda provision raises serious questions as to whether it furthers the principles and values of social peace, individual dignity, multiculturalism and equality.

Honourable senators, millions of Canadians in this country are concerned that by criminalizing speech — this is what this bill does — they will be subject to vexatious, menacing and malicious prosecution. For that reason, Bill C-250 is pernicious and unprecedented. It is a direct attack on Canadians who hold strong moral views, religious and non-religious, about human sexuality, the human anatomy, the human body and the design, purpose and function of the human body. They hold strong moral views about sexual practices, such as sodomy, rimming, sado- masochism, swinging and so on.

Honourable senators, not content with equality before the law, Bill C-250 seeks by coercion to establish domination over those who disagree and to subject those who disagree to the oppression and the weight of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-250 will subject many Canadians — make no mistake — to criminal prosecution. In addition to ordinary people, this bill would also expose professionals —such as nurses, doctors and teachers — to prosecution if they make condemnatory statements about dangerous human sexuality practices such as, for example, fisting, rimming, sodomy and sado-masochism.

Honourable senators, my concerns are not ill-founded. For that, I would like to go to the views that were expressed in a case called the Little Sisters case.

It is very interesting. Little Sisters is a homosexual bookstore in British Columbia. I would like to quote the Supreme Court of Canada 2000 judgment in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice). I cite Mr. Justice Binnie, who is citing the appellant supported by LEAF. He said the following:

The appellants, supported by the interveners LEAF and EGALE, contend that homosexual erotica plays an important role in providing a positive self-image to gays and lesbians...

This is very interesting. Then he continues. He is speaking for other people, by the way. He is repeating other people's factums.

Gays and lesbians are defined by their sexuality and are therefore disproportionately vulnerable to sexual censorship.

I disagree with that. I do not believe that anyone is or should be defined by their sexuality.

He continued:
The intervener LEAF took the position that sado- masochism performs an emancipatory role in gay and lesbian culture and should therefore be judged by a different standard from that applicable to heterosexual culture.

These are the statements from the appellant's factum. Clearly, people who will take a different view from this will find themselves subjected to some sort of prosecutorial mischief. One can be absolutely certain.

Honourable senators, I would like to respond to one or two points that have been raised in this debate. Many people are concerned about questions such as paraphilia, pedophilia being one. I would like to call the attention of honourable senators to the fact that, for example, on May 19, 2003, there was a paper presented by Dr. Charles Moser and Dr. Peggy Kleinplatz. They argued in that paper before the American Psychiatric Association that paraphilias should be withdrawn from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM.

Honourable senators would know what the paraphelias are, but they certainly do include pedophilia. The concern of many that I speak to is that somehow or the other pedophilia will one day be seeking some sort of legal protection.

Honourable senators, I would like to read from a document called the Journal of Homosexuality. I am speaking from the journal, volume 20, which was published in 1990. This journal is dedicated exclusively and totally to what is pedophilia and is entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical Social- Psychological and Legal Perspectives." I would like to go to one particular article in it called "Man-Boy Relationships: Different Concepts for a Diversity of Phenomena," written by Dr. Theo Sandfort and two other.

If one were to look at page 11 of this publication, published by the Haworth Press in New York, one would find the following statement:

It is difficult to predict what will happen in the future with respect to man-boy relationships, child sexuality, the position of children in our society.

Will pedophilia become a lifestyle for some people, based on their personally designed sexual orientation? Will society allow people to adopt such a lifestyle, or will society persist in seeing them only as child molesters? Can sexual involvement between adults and children be only conceived as child sexual abuse, or will the professionals and the public come to realize that there are various kinds of intimate involvement between adults and children and that distinctions between voluntary involvement and forced involvement can be made...

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Cools, I regret to advise that your 15 minutes have expired.

Senator Cools: I was just finishing off.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are you asking for leave for additional time?

An Hon. Senator: No.

Senator Cools: I did not have to ask.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is not granted.

(1720)

Are honourable senators ready for the question on Senator Tkachuk's motion in subamendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Question!

The Hon. the Speaker: I take it we are ready for the question.

Senator Cools, do you have a point of order?

Senator Cools: I have a point for clarification. In the recent weeks, many votes have been held because His Honour has been responding to some senators calling out "Question!" For example, that happened some weeks ago, and I was denied the opportunity to speak at second reading.

I think a better way to proceed is for His Honour, before he calls the question, to ensure that no other senator wishes to speak.

Senator Robichaud: That is what he does all the time.

The Hon. the Speaker: That is good advice, Senator Cools. I see no senator rising, however, which would be my signal that a senator wished to speak.

Senator Cools: I was on my feet at that time.

The Hon. the Speaker: I would now ask honourable senators if they are ready for the question to ensure that they know that we are to proceed.

Some Hon. Senators: Question!

The Hon. the Speaker: I will put the question. It was moved by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gustafson:

That the motion in amendment be amended by adding before the words "ethnic origin" the words "national or."

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those in favour of the motion in subamendment will please say "yea."

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion in subamendment will please say "nay."

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: I believe the "nays" have it.

And two senators having risen:

Hon. Terry Stratton: In accordance with rule 67(1), I should like to defer the vote until the next sitting of the Senate at 5:30 p.m.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Perhaps we can have a decision now to debate the amendment moved by Senator St. Germain, or must that await the vote?

The Hon. the Speaker: Whether or not the amendment passes is an important consideration in the debate.

[Earlier]

Honourable senators, I have an important matter to which I am advised I must give priority.

After some debates on other matters:

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 2 p.m.

 Back to Top

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.