|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
BILL C-250 TO LIVE AGAIN
The questionable private member's Bill C-250
introduced by NDP MP Svend Robinson in November 2001, did
not become law because it did not pass in the Senate, where
it died on prorogation of Parliament last November. The purpose
of this bill was to amend the hate propaganda provision in
the Criminal Code, by providing that "sexual orientation"
be added to the definition of "identifiable group"
to be protected from "hate" propaganda. If passed,
the bill would have been highly dangerous, as it would unquestionably
have been used as a tool by homosexual activists to shut down
debate on the homosexual issue in Canada.
Although the bill was the subject of thousands
of letters objecting to it, the bill, nonetheless, did pass
the House of Commons, only because it was protected there
by the then Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon. Although Bill
C-250 was a private member's bill, Mr. Cauchon and the Liberal
government treated it as a government bill and pressured all
Liberal MPs to vote for it. Approximately 40 Liberal MPs refused,
and did not do so. Because of Minister Cauchon's protection,
the bill passed third and final reading in the House of Commons
on September 17, 2003. At that time, it was then sent to the
Senate for passage. Bill C-250, however, sat in the Senate
for two months without moving to second reading vote, or to
committee for review, thanks to the tireless and intelligent
efforts of Senator Anne Cools.
The House of Commons was prorogued, that is
closed down, by Mr. Chrétien on November 12, 2003.
It will re-open on Monday, February 2, 2004 in a new session.
It is known that homosexual activists regard
Bill C-250 as of vital importance. According to an article
published in the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra of October
6, 2003, "the hate crime legislation … is more important
to everyone in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered
community than the right to marry." Consequently, Mr.
Robinson and fellow activists will be looking for ways to
bring Bill C-250 back to life from its death in the Senate.
The Senate rules have no provision to revive
a bill after its death at prorogation. Bill C-250, therefore,
is completely dead in the Senate. However, the House of Commons
Standing Orders do permit a revival of a bill after prorogation.
Standing Order 86.1 states that if the Speaker is satisfied
that a private member's bill is in the same form as it was
at prorogation, then the said bill shall be "deemed"
by the Speaker to have been considered and approved at all
stages completed at prorogation.
Most certainly, this means that Mr. Robinson
and the NDP will try to revive the bill in the House of Commons
using Standing Order 86.1. The fact is, however, that Bill
C-250 was not in the House of Commons at all at prorogation.
It was in the Senate. Consequently, it should not be revived
using House of Commons Standing Order 86.1. It should not
be on the Order Paper there at all. To use Standing Order
86.1, would be highly improper, and contrary to the Parliamentary
process. Such an action by Mr. Robinson would be an abuse
of the process.
Despite this, Mr. Robinson, without doubt,
will attempt to use the Speaker and Standing Order 86.1 to
declare his bill read a third time and sent up to the Senate,
even though Bill C-250 was not before the House of Commons
and had not been there for quite some time.
A cause of concern is that the Speaker, Peter
Milliken, M.P. for Kingston and the Islands, well known as
a homosexual, in 1996, before being elected Speaker, had introduced
a private member's bill (Bill C-256), similar to Mr. Robinson's
Bill C-250. Under these circumstances, his impartiality and
objectivity can be called into question. We also know that
earlier the Speaker had refused to allow any substantial amendments
to Bill C-250. Therefore, one can now speculate that he would
allow Mr. Robinson's Bill C-250 to be revived in the House
of Commons, and be deemed to have been read and voted a final
time and sent again up to the Senate.
In other words, Bill C-250 could be revived
based on a decision and action between just two Members of
Parliament, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Milliken, since there is
no provision for all the Members of Parliament to vote on
this reinstatement of the bill - it is a decision to be made
only by the Speaker.
Since Bill C-250 is so important to homosexual
activists, Mr. Robinson will be attempting to continue to
push it through by this dubious process of reinstatement when
the House of Commons resumes sitting on February 2, 2004.
We must request MPs to object to the attempt
to reinstate a bill that was not even before them, and also
to object to this abuse of the Parliamentary process.
Please write to:
Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
The Hon. Peter Milliken, M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 996-1958
E-Mail: Milliken.P@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Milliken should be made aware that the
public is alert to the irregularity arising by any attempt
to reinstate Bill C-250 in the House of Commons.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
