BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANIPULATION AND DECEIT GIVES NEW LIFE TO BILL C-250
(AMENDMENT TO HATE PROPAGANDA PROVISION)

Like a cat with nine lives, Bill C-250 (amendment of the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code) to include sexual orientation as a protected identifiable group, has been near death several times, but each time it has been revived to live another day. During its near death experiences, the life support system has been provided by Liberal Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon, and his diligent assistant, Liberal MP, Andy Scott (Fredericton, NB), Chairman of the House of Commons Justice Committee.

The Story Behind Bill C-250

The House of Commons Justice Committee received literally thousands of requests from individuals and groups to appear as witnesses to speak to Bill C-250. The Justice Committee decided, however, to restrict hearings on the bill to only two days - May 6 and May 13, 2003. Choosing to hear only a handful of witnesses, among the thousands making such a request, was a signal that Bill C-250 was to be killed in Committee.

REAL Women was one of the few organizations requested to appear before the Committee on May 6. We provided in our brief an extensive review of the contentious history and implications of the hate propaganda provision in the Criminal Code, and the problems with Bill C-250. (A copy of our brief is available from our National Office at a cost of $4 to cover mailing, or is available electronically by contacting us at: realwcto@interlog.com

Our presentation was well received by the Alliance members on the Committee, as well as a majority of the Liberal MPs. They understood and shared our concerns about this controversial bill. Mr. Robinson, the sponsor of the bill, did not have a good day.

When we left the Committee hearings on May 6, we were confident that the bill would not be returned to the House of Commons for third and final reading. We believed that the Committee would recommend that the bill not be proceeded with. This conclusion we reported to our members in our May/June 2003 issue of Reality, "Project Justice."

However, unknown to those opposed to Bill C-250, Minister of Justice Cauchon had decided to take control of the bill, even though it was a private member's bill. That is, Cauchon decided to treat Bill C-250 as a government bill. Minister Cauchon and his obliging side-kick Justice Committee Chairman, Andy Scott, then colluded with self-acknowledged homosexual NDP MP, Svend Robinson, who sponsored the bill, to ensure that the bill would pass through the Committee unamended using every device possible to do so.

It is significant that, although Mr. Robinson was not an official member of the Justice Committee, he sat on the Committee replacing NDP MP, Lorne Nystrom (Regina-Qu'Appelle). This was a clear conflict of interest, since Mr. Robinson pushed, protected and filibustered his bill, and worked unceasingly for its unamended passing through the Committee. His was a rare privilege, since private members' bills almost never reach the committee stage, and especially when he was not even a member of the Committee.

Under the House of Commons Standing Orders 97.1, a committee has 60 days (with an additional 30 days if requested) to deal with a bill that has been referred to it. The House of Commons committee may then decide to report the bill back to the House of Commons, with or without an amendment, or present the House with a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill. If no report is presented to the House of Commons by the end of the required time, then the bill is deemed to have been reported back without amendment.

At the May 14, 2003 Justice Committee meeting, Alliance Justice Critic, Vic Toews (Provencher), moved, seconded by Liberal MP, Pat O'Brien (London-Fanshawe), that the Committee recommend to the House of Commons that Bill C-250 not be proceeded with. No vote was called at that time on Mr. Toews' motion because Mr. Scott, the Chairman, allowed Mr. Robinson to commence filibustering the meeting by permitting him to speak non-stop for the full time allotted for the Committee hearing.

At the next Justice Committee meeting on May 15, 2003, the vote was not called again as Solicitor General, Wayne Easter, and RCMP Inspector, Giuliano Zaccardelli, addressed the Committee on other matters. Mr. Toews, however, near the end of that meeting, announced his intention to introduce another motion, this time to get around Mr. Robinson's filibuster of the Committee. He stated:

In view of the turn of events yesterday, specifically the filibuster by Mr. Robinson, I would ask the chair, under his authority, to call a meeting to discuss the rules of private members' business. These are new rules, and obviously precedents are being established. It seems strange to me that this process of private members' business could be frustrated in this matter. As a committee, we need to establish a clear precedent that respects the intent of the rule.

When the Justice Committee met again on May 27, 2003, the final day allotted to study Bill C-250, in order to circumvent Mr. Robinson's continued filibuster, Mr. Toews introduced his new motion. Mr. Toews' frustration with Mr. Robinson's filibuster was apparent when he stated at p.7 of the Committee's proceedings:

If the sponsor of the bill disagrees with the amendments made by the committee, all the sponsor has to do is filibuster the motion to report the bill back to the House.

Liberal MP, Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) was more philosophical about the filibuster. He stated at p.8 of the proceedings:

… the mover of the bill has inserted himself on the committee considering the bill and, in what appears to be a patent conflict, is prepared, I think - I may be wrong - to filibuster the bill and bring it through to the deadline, at which point the committee will be prevented from adopting the bill or doing anything with the bill, so returning it to the House. …

… We have a problem with the rules, we have a problem with how the member is, in my views, dealing with this. It creates a great difficulty for the chair …We may be prevented from doing the work of the House, but so be it.

Peter Mackay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, current Progressive Conservative leader) who subsequently voted for Bill C-250 on September 17 at third reading, stated that the procedural problem of an MP filibustering his own bill was a matter for another House of Commons committee to deal with. He stated at p.9:

To put it bluntly, this particular legislation [Bill C-250] would be unfairly targeted if your discretion were to punish this one bill. It will have implications for all private members' business, and it should be back before the procedure and house affairs committee.

Mr. Scott then ruled Mr. Toews' motion out of order, stating:

Granted, Mr. Robinson has taken up those 45 minutes, but I think this place is familiar with a filibuster, and it is a legitimate part of this process …

Mr. Toews challenged the Chairman's ruling on his motion. However, his challenge was defeated 11 - 4. Significantly, all the Liberal MPs supported the Chairman's decision. They had been ordered by Mr. Cauchon to do so. This ended the Justice Committee's review of Bill C-250. The bill was then returned triumphantly to the House of Commons for third and final reading on June 6, 2003.

During that debate on June 6, four amendments were proposed by Mr. Toews in order to provide greater defences for religion and freedom of expression. However, two of his amendments were ruled out of order by the Speaker, self-acknowledged homosexual Liberal MP, Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands), on the grounds that the amendments were beyond the scope of the bill. Mr Toews' other two amendments were defeated on the final vote on Bill C-250 on September 17, 2003.

However, at that debate on June 6, the Speaker, Mr. Milliken did allow an amendment by Liberal MP Derek Lee, without a moment's hesitation, and this amendment easily passed the House of Commons with full Liberal support. This amendment had Mr. Cauchon's full agreement, since it is a fact that no amendment to any bill is ever passed in the House of Commons unless it has the approval of the Justice Department. We subsequently learned from other Liberal MPs that Mr. Lee's amendment came directly from Minister of Justice Cauchon himself. The amendment provided an exemption from the hate propaganda provisions for all statements based on "religious texts." This is a very narrow protection, not only for clergy, but for anyone else who may object to homosexuality for reasons other than those stated in religious texts: people such as professionals, educators and academics, not to mention all pro-family groups and individuals.

Mr. Lee's amendment, however, proved to be most useful in encouraging Liberal MPs to support the bill, and for Mr. Robinson, who sent a letter dated September 16 to all Liberal MPs (the day before the vote on Bill C-250) stating:

I know that many of you have been deluged with calls and messages from constituents concerned that this bill might in some way threaten those who cite religious texts such as the Bible in support of their strong opposition to homosexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The current Criminal Code protects religious speech, as does the Charter of Rights. No prosecution can take place without the approval of the Attorney General. And just to be absolutely clear, I accepted an amendment to the bill proposed during report stage debate in June by Liberal MP Derek Lee. The amendment specifically protects "… opinion based on a belief in a religious text." This amendment was PASSED UNANIMOUSLY by the House at report stage and is now part of the final bill to be voted on Wednesday.

Just prior to the final vote on Bill C-250, Mr. Cauchon publicly acknowledged that both he personally, and the Liberal government, supported the bill - an all too obvious fact.

The bill passed by a comfortable margin of 145-110. About 40 Liberals voted with the Alliance against the bill. PC Leader, Peter Mackay, supported the bill, while several of his caucus did not. The bill was then sent to the Senate.

The bill was introduced into the Senate on September 24 sponsored by another self-acknowledged homosexual, Liberal Senator Serge Joyal. Given this bill's history, we can expect further manipulation and deceit at the Senate level.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS