JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 6, 2003

0910

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Derek Rogusky (Vice-President, Focus on the Family Canada Association)

0920

The Chair

Mr. Read Sherman (First United Church)

0925

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt (National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada)

0930

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Inspector David Jones (Vancouver Police Department)

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.))

Insp David Jones

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Insp David Jones

0945

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

0950

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Insp David Jones

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Insp David Jones

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Insp David Jones

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Insp David Jones

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

0955

The Chair

Insp David Jones

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Richard Marceau

1000

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Derek Rogusky

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas)

1005

Insp David Jones

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1010

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Insp David Jones

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Insp David Jones

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Svend Robinson

1015

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1020

Mr. Read Sherman

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Insp David Jones

Mr. Derek Lee

Insp David Jones

1025

Mr. Derek Lee

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

1030

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

1035

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

1040

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Insp David Jones

Mr. Svend Robinson

1045

The Chair

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Derek Rogusky

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Read Sherman

1050

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt

The Chair

Insp David Jones

1055

The Chair

Ms. Hedy Fry

The Chair

Mr. Derek Rogusky

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 041

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 41st meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today we are continuing our study on Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.

We have as witnesses this morning, from Focus on the Family Canada Association, Derek Rogusky; as an individual, Read Sherman; from Real Women of Canada, Gwendolyn Landolt; and as an individual, Sergeant David Jones....

Is it Inspector Jones? Sorry. Congratulations on the.... They call me Mr. Speaker all the time, and I still don't get a house.

I think everybody has been advised of the process. Each group or individual has ten minutes to make a presentation. Following that, we will have dialogue with members of the committee.

Without further ado, I'm going to go first to Derek Rogusky from Focus on the Family Canada Association for ten minutes. At nine minutes I'm going to indicate that you have one minute left and that I'd like you to bring it to a close.

Mr. Derek Rogusky (Vice-President, Focus on the Family Canada Association): Thank you very much.

On behalf of Focus on the Family Canada and our many supporters across Canada, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express our views on Bill C-250. I hope our input will be helpful.

Just so you know, Focus on the Family Canada is a charitable organization. We're based on Christian principles and we seek to support, encourage, and strengthen Canadian families. Although many of the committee members are most likely familiar with our advocacy activities, those are really a very small part of what we do. Thousands of families are more familiar with our efforts to simply help families.

For instance, we offer a program on how to drug-proof your kids. It's a parenting course designed to help parents guide their children through the temptations of drug use. We also offer single-parent camps where children and single parents both have an opportunity to relax, have fun, and be encouraged. This is just a small sample of the activities Focus on the Family Canada offers.

I tell you this simply because I think you need to know who it is we believe Bill C-250 may restrict, and whose voice it may actually silence.

As a former research analyst at the Alberta Legislature, in fact under Laurence Decore with the Alberta Liberal Party, I had the opportunity to draft various private member's bills. I know they're often written with very little help, and with even less expectation of ever being proclaimed into law. However, it's important they still be written so that if they are in fact enacted--rarely--they will prove to be good legislation.

That said, I have some real concerns with this bill, and I'd like to share those now.

Although there's no one formula for developing good legislation, there are some basic questions that should be asked and addressed to ensure that any bill will make for good legislation. First, is the legislation needed? Does it address a significant and important concern of Canadians?

As the senior general counsel you had before you on February 25 said, dealing with this legislation:

Justifying a limitation on freedom of expression imposes an evidentiary burden on government. The legal tests for justifying a limitation on a charter right requires that the government demonstrate that the objective of the legislation is pressing and substantial; that the limit on freedom of expression is rationally connected to the objective; that the provision minimally impairs freedom of expression; and that the negative effects on expression do not outweigh the positive effects achieved by the provision.

In my opinion, this legislation does not meet this evidentiary burden. Even the sponsor of the bill concedes that statistics on hate crime directed at gays and lesbians are scarce. The hate and bias round table convened by then Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, Dr. Hedy Fry, stated the exact same thing.

When one of my colleagues contacted a number of major police departments across Canada asking for current statistics on hate crimes committed against homosexuals, she was told the statistics were rather inaccurate and therefore unavailable.

The little evidence that has been presented has generally been based on anecdotal experience and actual acts of violence, not hate propaganda. It seems the only potential example of hate propaganda directed at homosexuals that the bill sponsor presented to this committee was an American citizen, Fred Phelps, who has not been in Canada for a number of years and who has been denounced by our organization and many others. In fact, he's expressed some of the same threats to our sister organization in the United States, so we share that in common.

Mr. Robinson also points to some of his own experiences as evidence of people wilfully promoting hatred against homosexuals. However, these are actual violent acts already punishable under the Criminal Code. They are also not unique to Mr. Robinson or his constituency office. For instance, I worked in a constituency office, and we had eggs actually hit an MLA. To enact legislation that would only protect Mr. Robinson and his office staff, for example, but not his colleagues and their office staff, seems to me to be discriminatory.

Given that current laws prohibit actual acts of violence against homosexuals and that there is a lack of substantial evidence that hate propaganda targeting homosexuals exists in Canada, it would be improper to enact legislation that has the potential to seriously restrict freedom of speech.

The second question we need to ask is, are the terms of the legislation clear and well defined? This bill proposes they add to the Criminal Code the term “sexual orientation”, and yet this phrase is not defined. In fact, in the explanatory note accompanying the legislation, it says, “This enactment expands the definition 'identifiable group' relating to the area of hate propaganda in the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation.” The word “any” should provide committee members some cause for concern as to what might in the future be considered by the courts to be a section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation. It may seem obvious at this point, but I am sure it was obvious to the framers of the BNA Act, for example, that marriage did not need to be defined at that time.

Although it's already in the existing sections of the Criminal Code impacted by this bill, “hate” is another term that is not clearly defined. There seems to be no consistent interpretation of the term. Even the Supreme Court of Canada's attempt to define the term for the purposes of the Criminal Code provides little certainty to the average Canadian on the issue. If the lines are not very clear, then Canadians run the real risk of never being sure where their freedom of expression ends.

Yet another term that is unclear is “religious subject”. Most faiths, Christianity in particular, teach that a person's faith should impact all aspects of his or her life. Therefore, if an individual expresses strong concerns about homosexual behaviour that is motivated by his or her faith but is expressed in medical or sociological terms, is the religious freedom defence still available? The answer to that question is at best unclear.

Finally, the question that needs to be considered is what are the potential unintended consequences of the legislation? Who might be negatively impacted by the legislation and how, and are there ways to limit these negative consequences?

Opponents to Bill C-250 such as ourselves are deeply concerned about what Bill C-250 might do to religious freedom and freedom of expression for those who disapprove of homosexual behaviour. The recent track record of the courts and government agencies gives rise to that concern. The courts have simply failed to protect religious freedom against claims based on sexual orientation.

A prime example is the Ontario court ruling that simply dismissed centuries of Catholic Church doctrine regarding acceptable sexual behaviour. The injunction granted in this case forced the Catholic school board to abandon its sacred teachings and permit a student to bring his same-sex partner to the high school prom.

More recently, a Saskatchewan court found that Hugh Owens was guilty of exposing homosexuals to hatred for simply displaying Christian scripture references condemning homosexual behaviour, along with an equal sign and the universal “no” symbol over two stick-men holding hands.

Government agencies have also failed to recognize religious freedom. The Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission forced the owners of a bed and breakfast to choose between allowing non-married couples to share one room and closing their business. Rather than offend their moral standards, they had to cease operation.

Last month the British Columbia College of Teachers found public school teacher Chris Kempling guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher and ordered his teaching certificate be suspended for one month. His offence? He wrote letters to the editor, published in his local paper, opposing the promotion of gay-friendly curriculum materials in the school system.

Focus on the Family Canada itself was subject to this kind of treatment by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, a private broadcasters watchdog endorsed by the CRTC. In 1997 the CBSC found that an Alberta radio station airing one of our broadcasts broke the standards when it aired one of our programs discussing the homosexual agenda in schools.

The result of these decisions and others like them has left many Canadians wondering what can and cannot be said about this issue. Whether intended or not, there can be no denying the real risk Bill C-250 poses to freedom of expression and religious freedom in Canada.

Bill C-250 supporters point to the protection of religious freedom found in paragraph 319(3)(b), where it states:

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject;

Well, there are three weaknesses with this religious freedom defence. First, religious freedom is already protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and yet the courts and government agencies have systematically rejected that freedom in favour of rights based on sexual orientation. This clause provides no assurances that this trend will not continue.

Secondly, the clause only applies to offences described in subsection 319(2). The defence does not apply at all to the two other offences, section 318 and subsection 319(1).

Finally, as mentioned before, the paragraph appears to have a narrow view of opinion based on religious or moral beliefs.

Supporters of Bill C-250 also point to the safeguard in place in subsection 318(3) and subsection 319(6), which requires that no proceeding for an offence shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. It is important to note that this safeguard is not available for an offence under subsection 319(1).

More significant is the fact that the safeguard may be a bit misleading. An individual reading these subsections may have the impression that the actual elected Attorney General of their province will need to consent to any prosecution. The reality is that section 2 of the Criminal Code defines the Attorney General as:

the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy

So the decision to prosecute does not necessarily have to made by the actual elected Attorney General; as is suggested, a designate of the Attorney General can make that decision.

In conclusion, it is Focus on the Family Canada's position that the committee recommend to Parliament that it should not enact Bill C-250. One, there is little or no empirical evidence at this time to suggest the need for Bill C-250. Two, Bill C-250 and the sections of the Criminal Code it amends contain terms that are ambiguous and unclear, thus putting Canadians in a position where they will not know with certainty what restrictions, if any, are being placed on their freedom of expression or religious freedom. And three, Bill C-250 poses a real risk to the religious freedom and freedom of expression that Canadians enjoy. The defences against prosecution, in our conviction, are rather limited.

Thank you.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sherman, for ten minutes.

Mr. Read Sherman (First United Church): Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee this morning.

My name is Read Sherman, and I am a minister at First United Church here in Ottawa. I speak to you today on behalf of the congregation of First United, which is one of 25 affirming congregations in the United Church of Canada that publicly affirm the value and worth of people of all sexual orientations. I also speak on behalf of Affirm United, a national ministry of and for Christians who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual allies, and transgendered, within the United Church of Canada. Finally, I speak on my own behalf as a gay man. Together with these organizations, I urge you to support Bill C-250.

As a pastor in a local church that has long been an oasis of acceptance for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, I have witnessed first-hand the destructive effects of hatred on some of God's most beloved yet vulnerable sons and daughters. The mission statement of First United reflects this when it states that as a church, worshipping God and guided by the spirit, we are to be a concerned and daring people, proclaiming God's presence and love in our actions for social and human justice.

We believe the central message of our Judeo-Christian scriptures regards God's care and protection of the vulnerable and oppressed. As a congregation, we have agreed to live by a behavioural covenant that values respectful language and dialogue as we work through disagreements, to embody the compassionate way that Jesus expressed himself to all.

Theologically, first, we choose to act as a Christian community out of Jesus' vision of radical justice rather than out of our own or others' sense of fear. As such, we see Bill C-250 as confirming the most central of biblical teachings rather than being contrary to them.

Similarly, Affirm United has as its mission the vision for which Christ calls us, to encourage openness and acceptance of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities and to act prophetically and pastorally on their behalf, both within and beyond the United Church. We do this in a denomination in which there is still respectful disagreement among some regarding religious understandings of homosexuality, and yet there is a broad national consensus that would support the aim of Bill C-250.

It is important to note that the General Council, the national governing body of the United Church of Canada, has since the mid-1980s affirmed our acceptance of all human beings as being made in the image of God, regardless of their sexual orientation. Specifically, the 30th General Council in 1984 stated clearly that in all areas covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act, provisions should be made for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In 1992 the 34th General Council reiterated this position, calling on the Government of Canada to immediately amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination. In 2000 the 37th General Council named transgender identity as well a gift from God, part of the marvellous diversity of creation.

Contrary to some of the concerns raised by some Christian organizations, Affirm United does not believe Bill C-250 threatens or limits freedom of religious expression or religious texts. The Criminal Code specifically protects this freedom in subsection 319(3), that no person shall be convicted of an offence:

if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject

We are satisfied that the legal safeguards under the current legislation are sufficient to prevent the inclusion of sexual orientation from being used to infringe upon religious or personal freedom. However, as a society and as a church, we must say clearly that personal or religious freedom does not give a person the right to actively promote hatred or violence against any group.

In conclusion, the members of First United Church and of Affirm United believe adding sexual orientation to subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code will fill a gap that currently allows egregious forms of hate speech to go unchecked by the law.

¿ (0925)

The Government of Canada recognized in 1970 that sections of the public who could be distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin needed protection from such threats.

Speaking personally, I can testify, as part of a generation that came of age in the 1970s and came out in the 1980s, and who is now living life openly in a permanent same-sex partnership, that people of minority sexual orientation, and even those perceived to be of minority sexual orientation, are a significant and identifiable group now being subject to the same threats. We need think only of Matthew Shepherd to know that the threat is real.

There is an old saying that sticks and stones can break your bones, but names can never hurt you. That is a lie. Names can hurt. Bill C-250 will help create protection for people like me from the kinds of names and speech that can break bones. I urge you to support it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now to Gwendolyn Landolt, from REAL Women of Canada, for ten minutes.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt (National Vice-President, REAL Women of Canada): Bill C-250 is a troubling amendment to a flawed provision in the Criminal Code, section 319, on hate propaganda. The history to that hate propaganda provision is worth reviewing.

In January 1965, the Minister of Justice, Guy Favreau, appointed a special committee to study the problems allegedly created by dissemination of hate propaganda in Canada. It was chaired by Dean Maxwell Cohen, QC, chairman of the Faculty of Law at McGill University.

According to the Cohen report, at page 3, the committee conducted a brief investigation. It did not hold public hearings. Neither did it receive or solicit the submissions of briefs from any groups or persons other than the ones that were already on file with the minister.

The committee members and those they consulted had no particular expertise in criminal law, according to pages 3 and 4 of the Cohen report. The report also declined the need for an in-depth study of the potential harm of hate propaganda in Canada.

The committee acknowledged that the criteria for hate propaganda to designate group defamation a crime did not meet the basic criteria for making an act criminal. He said that this was simply a matter of policy, on page 65; it was nothing to do with whether they had any proof of it.

The committee's report, plus the subsequent passage of the hate propaganda provision on June 11, 1970, created great controversy.

The above summary of the background to hate propaganda is important in order to appreciate the difficulties faced by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 in the Keegstra case, which is the seminal decision in the hate propaganda provision in the Criminal Code.

In a narrow decision, four to three, the Supreme Court upheld section 139. Although it violated freedom of expression, it regarded it as a reasonable limit, according to section 1 of the charter. However, the problems with section 319 were ably outlined in the dissent by Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice Sopinka and Mr. Justice Gérard La Forest.

Madam Justice McLachlin 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 on 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 hatemongers, while they chill the freedom of expression of innocent citizens. She said that the whole hate propaganda section raises serious questions as to whether it actually furthers the principles and values of social peace, individual dignity, multiculturalism, and equality. That was at page 864 and 865 of her decision.

Madam Justice McLachlin's views express the concerns of REAL Women with regard to Bill C-250. As she stated, hate is a subjective concept.

Chief Justice Brian Dickson did try to define hate in the Keegstra case:

...“hatred” connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature...associated with vilification and detestation...[based on] bigotry and destruction of both the target group....

But that itself raises questions, because his definition of hatred is, we might say, also vague and subjective. What exactly do the words “vilification”, “detestation”, “insensitivity” and “bigotry” mean?

As well, although not mentioned in the above quote by Chief Justice Dickson, Bill C-250 provides no definition of the words “sexual orientation”. What exactly is meant by that concept? It includes homosexuals and lesbians, of course, but does it also include bisexuals, transsexuals, cross-dressers, as well as pedophiles and those who have sex with beasts? What about polygamy? There's no definition, and this is a matter of no small concern.

It is also well established that homosexual activists view any opposition to their views as hatred, even when the opposition occurs during privileged parliamentary debate. Examples of this are readily available. For example, on September 20, 1994, on page 5910 of Hansard, Liberal MP Roseanne Skoke, speaking for Christian faiths, said that she objected to amendments to the sentencing sections of the Criminal Code that would include sexual orientation.

Svend Robinson stated that she'd made “hateful comments” and had used “hateful words”, in “hateful conduct”. He asked the Prime Minister to silence...and that this woman has no place in the Liberal Party.

¿ (0930)

Ms. Skoke responded that she was there as a member of Parliament, and there as a Christian to speak her views.

Not satisfied with this response, on September 27, 1994, Mr. Robinson stated in a letter to the Prime Minister that Ms. Skoke must retract her statements, which were homophobic and hatemongering, and be removed from the Liberal caucus.

On October 24, 2002, Svend Robinson accused opposition leader Stephen Harper of a “thinly veiled homophobic attack” in the House of Commons when Mr. Harper suggested photos of Mr. Robinson were being posted “in much more wonderful places than in a police station”.

Mr. Robinson's naked photograph, however, had been posted on the Internet in a fund-raising environmental appeal in June of 2001. His image was covered with seashells, but each $50 donation to the fund resulted in a shell being removed from his image. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Harper's comments could be construed as hateful.

On December 7, 1999, Mr. Robinson seized a sign that had on it quotes from Catholic teachings on the homosexual issue. This sign was held by a Catholic priest, Father Anthony Van Hee, who protests outside Parliament on a daily basis. Mr. Robinson broke the sign and threw it over the wall, claiming it was hateful, even though the sign merely quoted Catholic teachings.

On March 9, 2000, a group of feminists, calling themselves Collectif autonome féministe, were in Phillips Square in Montreal to propose the alleged oppression by the patriarchy. Following their protest, they donned ski masks and launched an assault on nearby Mary Queen of the World Cathedral. They spray-painted on the church, “Religion--A Trap for Fools”, and erected a burning cross outside. Inside they disrupted worshippers by spray-painting slogans on the altar, overturning flowerpots, sticking used sanitary napkins on pictures and walls, and throwing condoms around the sanctuary while screaming in foul language their opposition to religion and claiming their right to freedom of speech.

The Montreal police did not lay charges against these women because, according to the police spokesperson, there was no evidence of a hate crime but merely a political statement being made by these women. Hate crimes apparently only become hateful when the attacks are made on favoured, protected, identifiable groups. Attacks on other groups are apparently not hateful.

Although no one supports the promulgation of hate against identifiable groups, there is concern that those who wish to challenge homosexual conduct may be obliged to answer to a hate crime charge. If mere innuendo, such as Mr. Harper's comments, or the expression of a Christian belief in privileged comments by a MP during parliamentary debate, or a Catholic priest protesting outside Parliament merits outrage, one can imagine the eagerness with which homosexuals will attempt to bring prosecution under section 319 to silence a priest, an MP, or other individuals who hold deeply held moral convictions on the issue of homosexuality.

Too, the defences set out in the hate propaganda are highly illusory. They are not real. They will not provide protection. For example, in a statement in the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil, dated May 13, 2002, the objectives of homosexual activists were set out. It stated that the next step on the homosexual agenda is to prevent individuals and churches from discriminating against homosexuals who allegedly seek refuge behind a screen of religious principles.

In Xtra West, Barbara Findlay, a lesbian lawyer in Vancouver, reiterated this when she said, in the January 8, 1998, issue of Xtra West, that “the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation”.

One wonders, then, what protection will be there for religious groups--the Marc Hall case has already been mentioned--when someone is prohibited from expressing their Catholic beliefs even within the confines of a Catholic community, that being a Catholic school. In the Trinity Western University case, the Supreme Court said that a person can think religious thoughts but they are not permitted to actually act on them in a public place. This raises the concern of the definition of “public place” in section 319 of the Criminal Code. It is defined so that it will include a church itself.

¿ (0935)

To wind up, I'd like to refer you to other examples of how attacks have taken place, but I'd like to make it clear that there are no statistics available to show that homosexuals have been affected.

As an example, I must say that the number of--

The Chair: Ms. Landolt, your time is up.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Okay. Just one more sentence. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to bring it to the committee's attention that on February 25, Mr. Robinson brought forward the fact that the Toronto City Police have brought forward hate statistics. If you look at page 17 of my brief, you will see that hate statistics against homosexuals have decreased from 35% last year...and that against homosexuals, it's down to the lowest it has been since 1992.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Inspector Jones, for ten minutes.

Inspector David Jones (Vancouver Police Department): Thank you.

My name is Dave Jones. I'm appearing on behalf of the Vancouver Police Department. I'm also supported by the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Vancouver Police Board. As well, I learned yesterday that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports the addition of “sexual orientation” to subsection 318(4). Those initiatives arise from the Vancouver Police Department's initiative to tackle this subject.

About a year and a half ago, a man was murdered in Stanley Park, and the gay community in Vancouver came forward, expressing concern and bringing stories of homophobia, abuse, and assault. We began to have a look at those stories and do some research. We initiated a two-year research study in the years 2001-02 on all hate-bias types of crimes in Vancouver. I'm going to make six points today in relation to that research.

First, our research shows that of attacks against identifiable individuals on the basis of personal characteristics in Vancouver, sexual orientation represents 38% of the identifiable groups. There are 12 groups protected under subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code. Those groups are: race, religion, colour, ethnic origin, language, age, sex, mental disability, sexual orientation, national origin, physical disability, and similar factors. Of those 12 groups, only five are reporting incidents in Vancouver of crime or abuse. Those five are: race, religion, ethnic origin, colour, and sexual orientation. Four of those five groups are protected under 318(4) as identifiable groups.

In terms of violence, in Vancouver 62% of the acts of physical violence, up to and including murder, are on the basis of sexual orientation, considerably exceeding that of all the other protected groups under subsection 318(4).

In terms of actual damage, such as wounds, sexual orientation is again the leader. Sexual orientation attacks occur on the street and in restaurants. Attacks on race, colour, and religion tend to occur at institutions, at homes, or in letters.

The point quite simply is that this group is at risk. The police recognize it, and brought forward an initiative to add sexual orientation to subsection 318(4). That has been supported by various police boards, up to the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. This initiative started before we were even aware that there was a bill before this committee. We now join that bill in support.

We have a brief. Unfortunately, it hasn't been translated yet. I'm not going to read all of it, but I'll simply refer to it.

In terms of police interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada case in Vriend, which was an Alberta case involving a man who was fired from his job on the basis that he was gay.... He took it to the then Alberta human rights group--I've forgotten the name of it--but they refused to hear it because sexual orientation was not included in the legislation. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was very clear that under section 32 of the charter, provincial legislation must conform to the charter and must conform to section 15. Section 15 had been found, in the case called Egan at the Supreme Court of Canada level, to include an analogous group, “sexual orientation”. Therefore, sexual orientation was to be considered part of the Alberta legislation.

Police take the position that section 32 also says that federal legislation must conform to section 15 of the charter, as bound by section 2, freedom of expression, and that sexual orientation is already an analogous ground under subsection 318(4) of code. Therefore, if the right circumstances existed, it is currently within police power to lay a charge under section 319.

¿ (0940)

Contained within the Supreme Court of Canada decisions are many references, which I've included in the brief. I won't go through them. There is recognition of the extreme instances of abuse and oppression and difficulty people have had on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I will read one portion, on the Vriend case:

Perhaps most important is the psychological harm which may ensue from this state of affairs. Fear of discrimination will logically lead to concealment of true identity and this must be harmful to personal confidence and self-esteem. Compounding that effect is the implicit message conveyed by the exclusion [of sexual orientation in the provincial legislation], that gays and lesbians, unlike other individuals, are not worthy of protection. This is clearly an example of a distinction which demeans the individual and strengthens and perpetuates the view that gays and lesbians are less worthy of protection as individuals in Canadian society. The potential harm to the dignity and perceived worth of gay and lesbian individuals constitutes a particularly cruel form of discrimination.

The risk to people on the basis of sexual orientation is not contained simply to....

That was nine minutes?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)): I apologize, I'm “wrong time”. You still have four minutes and some recovery time.

Insp David Jones: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Sorry about that.

Insp David Jones: The risk to persons on the basis of sexual orientation extends to other people as well. In the case in British Columbia, Jubran, a young man in a North Vancouver school who was subjected to years of horrendous abuse and hateful comments of a sexual orientation nature appealed to the British Columbia Human Rights Commission. They found in his case that the school board had not adequately protected him. It went to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the decision was that because he wasn't gay, the legislation didn't apply to him. Well, I assure you, the harm was the same.

The point I want to make here is simply that there is sufficient hatred of gays, lesbians, transgendered, bisexual, and two-spirited individuals in Vancouver that it extends not only to gay people but to people who aren't gay. That is, people draw out of the air the most disgusting terms when they don't like somebody, and those terms are often related to sexual orientation.

Police are concerned that the risk to youth is particularly acute, with bullying and violence that leads to suicide. We have several cases. In New Westminster a young man jumped to his death from Patullo Bridge, having endured sexual orientation abuse for some period of time. The Jubran case in North Vancouver is a classic example. A young aboriginal man in Prince George killed himself citing harassment and homophobic treatment in the school. That included having his locker set on fire, with the word “fag” carved on it, and having pop cans thrown at him. One youth expressed the opinion that it was not suicide that killed the young aboriginal man but homophobia. In one Vancouver investigation, a couple of young men referred repeatedly to a transgendered woman as “it”, dehumanizing her considerably.

From a police perspective, a focus on prevention measures among young people is a critically needed public safety initiative. Integral to this is recognition, through the addition of sexual orientation to subsection 318(4,) of the value Canadian society puts on the protection of lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual people.

The historical events that established intolerance and hatred towards the four groups currently protected in subsection 138(4) extends to people on the basis of sexual orientation going back to the Second World War--and probably prior to that--where gay men were required to wear pink triangles, lesbians were required to wear black triangles, and they were loaded on the same rail cars as Jewish people to the extermination camps.

Finally, I just want to make a comment here. There seems to be a lot of concern about religion, that somehow the freedom of religion is being quashed. I do refer to section 319, which says that expressing or attempting to establish, in good faith, by argument an opinion on a religious subject is a defence. If there's concern that the police might charge a person expressing a view on a religious ground, then the police opinion is that this jeopardy already exists, because sexual orientation is an analogous group for the purpose of subsection 318(4) and section 319. In additional, sexual orientation is currently included in section 718.2, and the same jeopardy has more clearly existed for some time.

The definition of sexual orientation seems to be problematic for some people. It hasn't been problematic in that section for 23 years.

The history of hate and bias towards homosexuals and the need to fight for basic rights is disturbing. From a police perspective, the lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual community is in need of the additional protection that can be afforded by subsection 318(4). This protection will not likely take the form of persons being arrested and placed before the courts. Rather, it is the more subtle effect of the Government of Canada recognizing, through articulation in subsection 318(4), the need to protect homosexuals in the same way that people of colour, ethnic origin, race, and religion are protected. This powerful acknowledgment will hopefully effect the same transition in behaviour that has made harmful behaviour towards the protected groups socially and criminally unacceptable.

Police believe the inclusion of sexual orientation in subsection 318(4) will mitigate the current harm, which is not only disproportionate to the general public but is also, in terms of physical violence, disproportionate to the harm suffered by the current groups listed in subsection 318(4).

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you very much to all the panellists.

Before I go to Mr. Cadman for seven minutes I'd like a motion adopted--and you'll appreciate that the panellists would be interested in this--to allow us to undertake today's work. I'm going to read the motion:

That the proposed operational budget of the Committee for its study on Bill C-250, in the amount of $9,600.00, be adopted and that the Chair present the said budget to the budget Sub-committee of the Liaison Committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

You'll all be pleased, I'm sure.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a brief question for Mr. Rogusky and Ms. Landolt.

You both expressed some concerns about the impact on religious freedom and religious freedom of expression, or the potential impact of this legislation, this bill. I'm just wondering, in your mind is there any possibility of adding or amending any safeguards to this legislation that would allay those fears and those concerns? If there is, could you suggest any? If you have difficulty, if you don't think there is a possibility to add those safeguards in, why not?

¿ (0950)

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: To respond first, no, and the reason is that any legislation you might bring in to protect religious freedom has already been curtailed by the Supreme Court of Canada. When you get hold of the brief once it's been translated, you'll see the list of cases I've provided that indicate there is no protection. The court has already ruled that homosexual rights trump religious rights. One example is Chamberlain versus the Surrey School District in December of 2002, the most recent decision.

There seems to be hierarchy of rights, and freedom of religion is on the bottom of the pyramid, whereas sexual orientation--which, I might add, was added by the court in Nesbit and Egan in 1995--seems to be at the top of the pyramid. So there is absolutely no protection that can be brought in for religious rights.

We've already seen the attacks on religion, time and time again, and the court has always protected sexual orientation and trumped the other part of the charter, which is religious freedom under paragraph 2(b).

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Rogusky.

Mr. Derek Rogusky: I think we would take a similar view. In terms of our feelings about the words “hatred” or “hate”, already in this panel here we've heard some different views or different definitions. When this bill first came before the committee I saw there were some different definitions. Then again, different definitions are being used throughout the legal process, whether that's at the provincial level with human rights legislation or now with the Criminal Code.

So we're very concerned that until you can clarify what in fact hatred is, so that people know clearly when and if they've crossed the line, religious freedom will continue to be in jeopardy.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

Inspector Jones, you have some statistics available. Does the committee have them?

Insp David Jones: Yes, I've forwarded those statistics to the committee.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay. Just a quick question on that.

Do those statistics just represent actual offences against homosexuals or do they represent offences where sexual orientation was the motivating factor?

Insp David Jones: They represent offences against people of all of the section 718.2 groups, so that includes race, religion, ethnic origin, and colour, but sexual orientation is not part of section 318, unless it is analogously a part. So it's the five groups. Those are the ones that are being reported. They are criminal offences being committed in relation to those groups on the basis of those identifiers.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: And where it was determined that sexual orientation or race or whatever was the actual motivating factor for the offence, or is it just a general statistic?

Insp David Jones: No, we used....

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm sorry; I hope I'm clear here.

Insp David Jones: No, you are clear. You're very clear. This is a problem that exists in Canada, getting definitions as to what you include as a hate crime and what you don't include as a hate crime. We used a very strict definition that it couldn't just be the person's perception; if it was a hate crime, it had to have some fact basis that police could put forward as evidentiary.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay.

Thank you.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Mr. Chairman, could I make a comment about that?

The Chair: Certainly.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: It should be pointed out that there is a difference between a hate-motivated crime, which these statistics would reflect, and hate propaganda under section 319 of the Criminal Code. The hate-motivated crimes that are simply reported to the police are not convictions. That is a difference; it's only because people report it. And the definition of hate is different from one police department to another, from Toronto to Vancouver, so you cannot rely on the police statistics.

What happens in a hate-motivated crime...where someone is assaulted, somebody has a burglary, and they say they're motivated by hate. That is categorically different from hate propaganda, which you're dealing with under section 319.

The point is, they're not convictions. They're what someone has said has been against a homosexual or against...and I think it's important to point out that in all the police hate crimes units in Canada, in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Toronto, the largest number of hate-motivated crimes occur against black members of the community, Jewish, and southern Asians. Sexual-orientation motivated crimes are way down on the list, as reflected, as I mentioned previously, in the Toronto hate crimes list.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Inspector Jones.

Insp David Jones: I would commend to Ms. Landolt the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics' report based on 26,000 interviews.

I will say that in Vancouver, we use the same criteria for all of the groups. Therefore, I believe it is not only statistically relevant but also comparatively relevant across the groups. So we're talking about the same types of behaviour.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Monsieur Marceau for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the witnesses for coming this morning.

I'll start with a comment. After hearing Mr. Jones' statistics, I'm trying to remember what was taught to me in religion class, at the private Catholic school I went to. I'm trying to figure out how anybody can base their opposition to a bill such as C-250 on their Christian faith.

If I understand you correctly, Mr. Rogusky, you are concerned that as a Christian organization--that's how you described your organization earlier--you will no longer be able to say that homosexuality is wrong according to your interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

[English]

Mr. Derek Rogusky: Certainly we feel there is a great risk that we would be restricted in being able to express what we believe is the way the scriptures are to be interpreted.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: According to my personal experience and what I learned as a Christian going to a private Catholic school, I assume you would agree with me that by refusing to accept Jesus as their Saviour, the Jews have it wrong theologically. That's what I've been taught and I assume that that is also what you believe.

[English]

Mr. Derek Rogusky: Well, certainly. I mean, in the Christian faith, the conservative or orthodox Protestants believe Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. So, yes, we would agree that others, including Jewish people but many others as well, would in essence have it wrong, yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No one in a more conservative denomination, shall we say, has ever said that you do not have the right to teach that the Jews are theologically wrong. That is protected by freedom of religion. However, if based on that, on the fact that the Jews do not recognize Jesus as their Saviour, you say that they should be beaten, persecuted, etc., we understand that that is quite another thing.

Consequently, why would a Church such as the one you represent not have the right to say that according to its interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, homosexuality is not acceptable to God? That right is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In keeping with my analogy with the Jews, there would be no problem in that.

What would not be acceptable, however--and that's what Bill C-250 tries to address--is when based on that, someone would say that you have the right to beat a homosexual because he's a homosexual, you have the right to persecute him, you have the right to commit acts of violence against him. Your moral judgment on homosexuality is protected, but to act in a heinous and violent way based on your interpretation is not protected.

À (1000)

[English]

Mr. Derek Rogusky: I would argue that you're talking about two different things.

I don't think anyone at this table is suggesting that people have the right to harm others because of their behaviour or because of their views. What we are concerned about, and there are precedents in this country, is the fact that what we believe is reasonable discussion of the issue and reasonable statements on the issue are being restricted already, and that this will simply add to those restrictions. Well-meaning, well-intended citizens--in fact, beneficial citizens, and citizens who are a credit to our society--are going to be at risk of facing a potential hate crime simply because they have opposed homosexual behaviour.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: But it is important to make that distinction, because unfortunately I don't think you are making that distinction, I think you're confusing the two things.

A person can be as you said well-meaning, well-intended, and say that homosexuality is not right and unacceptable in the eyes of God. That is not a problem.

However, how can a well-meaning, well-intended person advocate violence against others simply because they're gay? How can anyone be well-meaning when inciting violence? This is what is at issue here. We're not talking about opinions regarding homosexuality, we are talking about acts of hatred and violence based on these opinions. There are two very different things and unfortunately you seem to think that they are one and the same thing.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marceau.

Mr. Rogusky, and then to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Derek Rogusky: To begin with, I have never supported anyone who suggests that people should go out and harm individuals. For example, with Fred Phelps, who seems to be the only example we have of this activity, we've actually put out several news releases suggesting that we denounce the individual. Our own organization has been a victim of his attacks.

Our problem is that we believe this bill goes far beyond dealing with people such as Mr. Phelps. It goes far beyond that. It in fact would restrict the deeply held beliefs, whether for faith reasons or other reasons, that many people in this country have whereby they think homosexual activity or homosexual behaviour is inappropriate.

I think we need to be very clear that no one here is suggesting that we harm individuals. No one here is supporting people who would advocate that. However, we have some very real examples in our court system of people who, in my opinion and others' too, have presented this issue, have discussed this issue, have tried to present a view on this issue, and have been faced with the very real possibility, in some cases, of convictions under human rights legislation, under teachers' standards of conduct, and those types of things. Now you're going to throw in the potential of a criminal conviction and a criminal prosecution, and we just think that's not the way to go at this particular time.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, for seven minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rogusky mentioned Fred Phelps. I just want to quote from the former head of the hate crimes unit of the Ottawa-Carleton Police Department, Sergeant Pat Callaghan. I'm sure Inspector Jones is familiar with Pat Callaghan.

Here's what he had to say about Fred Phelps' activities in Canada:

If this was done against a Catholic, a Jew or a black person, charges could be laid. If we had that legislation, we wouldn't have to put up with his nonsense on Monday. We could have told him, “If you show up and start spreading this hate, we'll arrest you.”

I think that's one of the most important points about this legislation. As it now stands, as Inspector Jones pointed out, there are five groups who in real terms are targeted by hate propaganda. Five groups are targeted. And the group that is targeted more than any other, at least in the Vancouver area, is the one group that isn't included in the legislation. It's the one group that's not included.

So when all of the attorneys general of Canada support this bill, when the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support it, when the Canadian Association of Police Boards support it, as much as anything else, it seems to me it's because of the fact, as a society and as a Parliament, we have to send out a signal here that this exclusion is not acceptable. That seems to me the point that Inspector Jones was making.

Mr. Rogusky suggests, well, you know, there are not many examples. I didn't want to get into a lot of examples, but I want to tell you that gay people are subjected far too frequently to threats of violence and harassment. I mentioned the example to my colleagues when I appeared as a witness before this committee of sitting in my storefront office. There's a window there. It was at night, and my light was on. I heard a crack against my window. This was just two to three months ago. I heard a crack against my window. It could have been anything. It could have been a bullet. It could have been a rock. As it happens, it was an egg, and people were yelling out, “Hey, faggot!”

Now, I'm not suggesting all of that will be criminalized. It won't. Since 1970 there's been a grand total of five prosecutions in Canada under the hate propaganda laws--five in 30 years. Three of them have been successful.

What this bill is about, and I appreciate Inspector Jones' point, is just recognize that as long as you leave it out, there's a message that the lives of gay people aren't as valuable.

It's not just American propaganda. I just looked through some of my literature and I found this. This is a leaflet that was circulated in 1988 in my constituency. I think it's hate propaganda. The headline is, “Sodomite Invasion Planned for 1990”. There's all sorts of stuff in here. Part of it is a picture of a little boy being dragged into a men's washroom. It says, “Homosexuality is a crime against humanity.” This kind of thing is clearly hate propaganda, and it seems to me we have to recognize that.

To Inspector Jones, how do you respond to the suggestion that somehow the police might actually target religious belief, and target those who in fact are expressing their religious views? They may say that homosexuality is an abomination, that their religion says that homosexuality is evil, that homosexuality is a sin. Could you just comment on that? Do you really believe the police would in any meaningful way be targeting that under this legislation?

À (1005)

Insp David Jones: I hadn't actually even considered that religion was part of this discussion. I thought this discussion was about a group of people who were being targeted as other groups have been targeted; a group of people who have been oppressed and have had to fight for their rights; a group of people who have come up through school system frightened to be who they are, many of whom end up killing themselves as a result of their sense of a general hatred towards them and discrimination towards them. And who knows? We'll never have that data, because many kill themselves without ever disclosing their sexual orientation or that this was the reason behind it.

I don't understand or get where religion even comes into this argument. Police are not interested in entering the freedom of expression arena except to protect it. This is about violence. This is about people being killed, assaulted, and attacked in public and private places. That's what this is about. From a police perspective, I'm not here to debate religious beliefs. I'm certain they are many and varied, but they really have no relation to this particular situation that I can see, from a police perspective.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have just a couple of other brief questions, if I may.

The Chair: Two minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

The threshold for this legislation is very, very high. Chief Justice Dickson said, “...the term 'hatred' connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” He says as well, “The hate-monger must intend or foresee as substantially certain a direct and active stimulation of hatred against an identifiable group.”

He goes on to say:

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.

That's what we're talking about here. We're not just talking about quoting from the Bible or quoting from the Koran or something else. We're talking about saying these people don't have a right to exist; they should be subjected to violence and harassment.

I remember Focus on the Family and my old friend Gwen Landolt appearing on the Canadian human rights legislation many years ago. With dire warnings they said, my god, we don't know what sexual orientation means. It could include bestiality. It could include pedophilia. Ms. Landolt remembers that, and Mr. Rogusky probably remembers that as well.

That was five years ago. There has never been a court anywhere, or a tribunal anywhere, not just in Canada but in the world--

À (1010)

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: But there's never been a court challenge.

Mr. Svend Robinson: --that has interpreted sexual orientation in those ways.

So I just think we have to take those dire predictions, Mr. Chairman, with a grain of salt.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien, for seven minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I think for the record, on my two versions of the agenda it says, “Sergeant Jones, As Individual”.

So I guess I would ask, who officially is he appearing for? And then I think the record should be corrected.

Insp David Jones: I am officially appearing on behalf of the Vancouver Police Department and Chief Constable Jamie Graham.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you. You had mentioned some other groups, and I wasn't entirely sure....

Insp David Jones: Just to clarify, the Vancouver Police Department started a petition from the community, a resolution to add sexual orientation to the Criminal Code under subsection 318(4). We ran that through the Vancouver Police Department Diversity Advisory Committee to the Vancouver Police Board, who took it forward to the national board, who passed that resolution on to the Minister of Justice. Similarly, we ran it through the B.C. chiefs association, who sent it forward to the Canadian chiefs association through their law amendments committee, who, because they will not be meeting until this August, took the step to send a letter supporting this legislation.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay, that's great. Thank you.

So I just ask that the record be corrected appropriately.

I don't think anybody who thinks about it has much doubt that gay and lesbian people, and transsexuals and on and on down the list, unfortunately in this country are targeted for violence because of that fact. That's a sad reality. I don't think anybody denies that. Certainly nobody here today denies that, and I think we have to address that as a society. The question is how. The more pertinent question is, does this particular bill do that and still give assurances for religious freedom and freedom of opinion?

Sergeant Jones says that from a police perspective, religion is not part of this discussion. I can appreciate that, but this is far more than a police perspective being looked at. From a parliamentary perspective, religion has everything to do with the discussion. From the point of view of the courts, religion has everything to do with the discussion. I think Ms. Landolt has given some very good evidence as to where the courts are being less than reassuring to people that they will have freedom of religion to oppose homosexuality.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope we can find a way to give the protection in law that gay and lesbian people and people of other sexual orientation will not be targeted on the basis of that. I certainly think we need to try to achieve that. I'm very concerned that this bill might not...well, it probably does that, but I at least am not convinced that it gives the adequate protection for freedom of expression that's been talked about.

It's pretty important, Mr. Chairman, when we have the incidents cited by Ms. Landolt. When a member of Parliament in the House of Commons is expressing opposition to homosexuality and that's called hateful, I have a concern about that as a Canadian, let alone as another member of Parliament, whether or not I agree with everything that particular individual had to say and how she said it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, very briefly.

I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. O'Brien--

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, go ahead.

Mr. Svend Robinson: --but I didn't want to take the time to respond to Mrs. Landolt.

I would just invite Mr. O'Brien to read the actual record of what took place. Ms. Skoke was actually equating homosexuality with pedophilia, with bestiality, and that was the context in which I responded.

À (1015)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'll review that.

On the Father Van Hee incident, I would refer to Mr. Marceau's comments about people being opposed to homosexuality, and not wanting to incite hatred. You couldn't meet a more gentle, kind, non-violent person than Father Van Hee. I know him personally. He's a Jesuit priest. He has a sign out there saying homosexuality is against the laws of God, and yet there are people attacking him for having the right to say that.

It's one thing to have a bill in front of us, which I support the intentions of in terms of protecting gay and lesbian people from unwarranted attack, but it's another thing when you see actions of people who are proposing those steps that really call into question religious freedom. So I think it has everything to do with this discussion.

I recall, Mr. Chairman, that at this very committee one of the first groups of witnesses that I questioned was a lesbian couple. I was aggressive, respectfully aggressive, in my questioning, as is my job, challenging their views. Then one or two members of the committee held a press conference, and with a lot of innuendo basically implied--not about me specifically, I don't believe, although I didn't hear the press conference--that those of us who didn't agree, or who were challenging witnesses, were somehow homophobic.

The homophobic card gets played too quickly and too easily, and that's the concern. It gets played much too quickly and easily, to the detriment, I think, of those who want to advance the appropriate cause of trying to make sure that people are not targeted for their sexual orientation.

So those are some of the concerns I have that I wanted to put on the record.

This is a long way to my first question, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Landolt, can you again just quickly highlight the ways in which you think the courts have shown less than adequate protection for freedom of religion around this issue?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I mentioned the Chamberlain case, the most recent decision, where they said the homosexual material--which Mr. Justice Gonthier, in dissent, characterized as pro-homosexual--should be made available in all the schools in British Columbia from kindergarten on. Now, that was contrary to the views of the Surrey School Board, who represented views of all the parents. That's one example of the pyramid of rights. The Marc Hall case is another example.

In the Scott Brockie case, the Ontario Divisional Court said that the printer was obliged to print homosexual material even though it was contrary to his Christian faith, and he was fined $5,000.

Other cases are listed in here, including the case of Hugh Owens and the Court of Queen's Bench.

There's one other point, Mr. O'Brien, I want to make. Mr. Robinson has claimed that homosexuals aren't protected. Well, many people are not protected, including REAL Women. I'd like to tell you that we have no recourse from hate propaganda.

For example, on June 17, 1992, REAL Women was sent a revolting and disgusting letter from the homosexual organization Queer Nation. It was despicable and vulgar, and it's one case that would fall within the description of hate. We have copies of this horrible, despicable letter that was sent to us, if you would like to read it. We have it available, although we didn't attach it to our brief.

We have no protection.

On March 4, 1999, we had a caller warning us that when the hate propaganda law is passed, we will not be able to speak out publicly. That's mentioned on page 20 of my brief.

On April 22, 1989, the federal Human Rights Commission accused us of hate propaganda, and yet everything we say is straightforward. There's no protection.

This is one of the major problems, that the hate protection law is unfortunately discriminatory, with only four groups...and Mr. Robinson wants to add this fifth group. But all the rest of us in Canada are not protected from hate, and we certainly have proof of hate against our organization, as do many others.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I'm fine.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Robinson, for three minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: [Technical difficulty--Editor]...religious belief, even if it is virulently opposed to homosexuality--we know that some denominations have taken a very strong position on this--that somehow this might give rise to prosecution under the hate propaganda legislation.

I mentioned earlier the attorneys general. Even the Attorney General of Alberta, Dave Hancock, who spoke in support of this legislation, said this has nothing to do with endorsing homosexuality:

I support the hate crime legislation

--that's the legislation to include sexual orientation in Bill C-250--

which prohibits people from spewing hate against anybody for any reason. There are appropriate ways to discuss issues in our country...and you don't need to put forward hateful literature. It doesn't matter what you believe about sexual orientation.

Could you just comment a bit about what you've heard around the so-called threat that some religious beliefs would be in any way jeopardized by this bill?

À (1020)

Mr. Read Sherman: I'd be glad to.

From what I understand about this legislation, the test is very high for prosecution under it. In fact, it's all but never been done three or four times.

In the United Church of Canada, in First United and in Affirm United, we fully endorse freedom of religious expression. In fact, part of our reason for existing is to conduct respectful dialogue with those who have differing opinions from us. The behavioural covenant we have at First United is predicated on the fact that we will have differences of opinion within our religious family, and there are appropriate ways to conduct that dialogue.

From my perspective and from what I hear in the United Church of Canada, there is no fear whatsoever that this legislation would prohibit any religious expression that we are in fact engaged with. We welcome dialogue between those who have varying views of religious understanding of sexual orientation. In fact, that is crucial to learning and growing, which I think God calls us to do.

I'd like to say that other points that have been made here today are very important, the signal that this legislation represents that sexual orientation as a new and emerging identifiable group, targeted for hate by speech and action, is crucial for protection.

I'm also scratching my head that people from other Christian organizations would be opposed to this legislation, because we believe Christianity and the church should be promoting dialogue and understanding and reconciliation of all people within the church and in society. To come from a privileged position as heterosexual people--I'm making a presumption there--and as organizations with resources that come from the majority is a very different position from those of us who are part of a minority. We do not have, almost by right of birth, or in some denominations, by right of faith, the same protections as people, as citizens, as people of God.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, for three minutes.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

Earlier in the testimony today, Inspector Jones said this is about people being killed, assaulted, and attacked. While I respect that issue--as we all do here, because that is a serious issue--with all due respect, and I'm hoping you'll just agree very quickly, while that may be something that is an issue, this bill is not about that. This bill is not about violence, assaults, things like that. This bill is about hate and verbal expressions of hate.

Would you agree with that?

Insp David Jones: Not entirely.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay.

Insp David Jones: Subsection 319(1) speaks to the incitement of violence, to breach of the peace. It's public expression, a public statement, that incites a breach of the peace. So in a sense it covers both.

À (1025)

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. But the issue I'm concerned about is not the violence one. On the violence one, I'm in agreement with you then; on the incitement of violence, I agree with you. But on this simple issue of freedom of expression, I have a difficulty. Mr. Robinson may not think it's a difficulty at all, and others may think it's a big difficulty.

Here it is. This bill, with more precise definition, would constrain some forms of expression, those which would be hateful against, or be hateful in relation to the issue of sexual orientation, no matter what that sexual orientation might be--heterosexual, homosexual, sexual orientations. But in restricting that freedom of expression, there's one level where it's just freedom of expression, and that we can deal with straight up. However, there's another category of freedom, and that is freedom of religion and religious expression.

The difficulty that comes up is that I can see that in some religious writings--in the Bible, and it's possible it's in the Koran, although I'm not fully informed on this--homosexuality, or the practice of homosexuality, is described as a wrong thing, an immoral thing, an evil thing, or unworthy, whatever the expression is. I've heard the quotes, or I may have read them.

So I guess I'm going to ask Ms. Landolt, this bill constrains those who would have a view based on those religious writings, those who subscribe to those religious writings, and I'm having difficulty making the two pieces fit, the constraint versus the freedom of expression on a religious basis.

By the way, I do know that section 319 allows someone to express an opinion in that no one shall be convicted under this section if they're expressing a view on a religious subject. But the view that they may be expressing, following the adoption of this bill, may not be on a religious subject but on the simple issue of homosexuality and their influence in their view of homosexuality from what they subscribe to in terms of religion.

In my view, then, the protections against religion that exist in the bill now aren't good enough to protect somebody who truly, religiously believes the practice of homosexuality, or something in relation thereto, is morally wrong.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Mr. Lee, we already saw the attacks on freedom of expression on the issue of homosexuality without...on the very issue that was before this justice committee. I can give you examples from my brief.

People who have spoken before this committee on the issue of marriage have been attacked as being hateful. You've raised a very good point. For example, our organization spoke in defence of traditional marriage, and yet on the website of March 12, 2002, a homosexual organization characterized our brief, which was well documented and certainly well referenced, as hate. “Stop hate,” they said.

As well, Senator Anne Cools in the other chamber had a bill to protect the definition of marriage. Senator Jaffer from Vancouver said anybody who supported the traditional definition of marriage was guilty of a “hate crime”.

A third example occurred when Senator Cools was on CPAC. Callers said that because she spoke in favour and defence of traditional marriage she was making hateful comments.

So it doesn't even have to be a religious protection; even speaking out on a matter of a public issue, we're all being attacked.

À (1030)

The Chair: Mr. Marceau, three minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Ms. Landolt, once again you seem yourself to criticize a certain form of freedom of expression.

I have a five-year-old boy—actually, I have twin five-year-old boys—who are always saying, these days, “it's not fair, it's not fair”. It's not because he says so that it is necessarily true. There are a lot of people who say they are being discriminated against. That doesn't mean that a court would admit they are right. Also, just because an organization—and I'm speaking here without having seen that website—says that you made heinous remarks doesn't mean that would fall under this bill if it becomes law.

The test is so high that just because someone thinks what you're saying is hate propaganda doesn't necessarily mean that charges will be brought against you, especially criminal charges, where the test is so high, for one thing, and also where the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Thirdly, there are very important defences available. Fourthly, despite your belief that freedom of religion is no longer considered a priority, freedom of religion is very well protected under section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of religion is not absolute, but I believe it's a good thing. If it were absolute, there are children who would have died because their parents would have refused them a blood transfusion for religious reasons. It's a good thing that freedom of religion is not absolute. Nothing is absolute in life.

That said, just because an organization says that you have made hateful comments will not lead to criminal prosecution. You could talk to Inspector Jones, and it would be interesting to hear what the crown prosecutors would have to say on that. My wife is a crown attorney and I can tell you that they have to have very solid evidence before laying charges like that.

You seem to think that the simple fact that an organization believes you made hateful comments will mean criminal proceedings against you, but that's not true. You just cannot say that.

[English]

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Mr. Marceau, thank you very much, because you have made the point we want to make. People...because it says that people who accuse you of hate crime have to go to court to prove it, but what has happened is exactly what Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin said: It has a chilling effect that you can be prosecuted. Even letters to the editor give a chilling effect. She said this was one of the main problems with section 319 of the Criminal Code.

The fact that people call it hate, the fact that you can be open to prosecution, the chilling effect on public discourse, public debate, religious belief--that's one of the main problems with this legislation, and that's what you have clearly exposed. If we say this, we are going to be attacked, and then charges laid. It's open to this problem...and this public discourse. Yet if homosexuals get this, and sexual orientation is included in section 319, those of us who have no protection are open to attack at any time without any recourse to say that there have been hateful comments against us.

Four categories under the Criminal Code are now protected, and Mr. Robinson wants to add a fifth. But what about all the rest of Canadians who are attacked, and hateful things are said? We have absolutely no protections, especially on gender. We have no protection on gender, either.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Landolt.

Mr. Marceau is going to get a final opportunity, but I would ask him not to put a question but just make a point so that we can move on. We'll come back, but we're well over the time.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'd like to make a comment. When you say “what about the rest of us?”, the legislation was made to protect groups who are clearly subjected to discrimination and violence. As a white, Catholic and French-speaking man, I cannot really consider myself as part of a group that has truly been affected by violence or hate-mongering, unlike homosexuals, Jews or persons of colour.

À (1035)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Fry, three minutes.

Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that I think we're having a big problem here in what exactly is meant by adding this to the list. I think we've heard Inspector Jones explain very carefully, and I think we've heard Mr. Marceau explain very clearly, what we're talking about here. We're not just talking about the right of people to say certain things, such as the fact that you think, as your church, homosexuality is immoral and you don't agree with it. This is not what it's about.

If you think about it, since these sections have been there, there have only really ever been four cases brought. Only one of them, and that's the Keegstra case, actually brought charges against the particular person for spreading hate.

So it's a very difficult thing, because the bar is set so high for the criteria, but we're talking here about hate proven to have been said in a way that will create harm for people. It could be inciting to violence, etc. The bar is so high that nobody yet, out of four cases, except for the one on Keegstra, which was a split decision, has ever been able to get a positive case going.

So I don't understand how, therefore, this creates any new problem. We already have four groups there--race, colour, religion, and ethnicity--and we're not changing the criteria, we're just adding another group. As we've heard from Inspector Jones, and as I know, coming from British Columbia and as a physician, that group has enormous hate against them, not only violent hate but basically psychological and other forms of hatred that have been enacted against this group. I know it because I know about the high risk of suicide in gay youth. I know about the terrible stress that same-sex couples live with.

So I don't understand why this is creating a problem. It's only adding a category that has been shown statistically to be under attack.

Second, you say you're concerned that religion isn't protected, but it's my understanding that religion is protected, since it is one of the four groups named. So what are you concerned about in terms of religion and its lack of protection? It's obviously protected from hate--

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Are you asking me?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I'm asking anyone who wants to answer.

Religion is obviously protected from hate, so are you then worried that religion might not be protected from saying hateful things? I don't get the idea that you're concerned that religion is not protected from hate itself, but religion needs to be protected from saying things that border on the hateful, which I think is an appropriate thing to do.

So I just don't understand what the concern is here. I don't see a huge move to change anything except to add a group that we know has already been subjected to violence, to hate, psychologically and otherwise. Religion is protected under the four groups already, so what is the problem here? I don't get it.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: Could I respond?

The Chair: Ms. Landolt.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I would like to hear from Ms. Landolt, but I would also like to hear from those who are concerned, obviously.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: First of all, what is the concern? You were the former Secretary of State for the Status of Women, and in that capacity you were to protect the rights of women. But you know, we're not protected under this. Why are we discriminated against, as women? Why are we not one of the favoured groups? Why have you not demanded that women be included as well?

I mean, someone could attack me or put out hate propaganda, and my goodness, I have no recourse. I have no recourse if a women's organization is attacked.

On the question of religion, as we've already discussed and discussed and discussed, the courts have not protected religious freedom. We've gone through the cases, Ms. Fry, we've gone through them, and they show that we're not protected under religious rights.

Now, we're not a religious organization, we're a women's organization, and yet there's no protection for us. You want to add one person. Well, what about the rest of society?

Ms. Hedy Fry: I hope I can answer the three questions the witness has now asked me. I ask a question and I get questions thrown back at me.

The Chair: No, here's the deal. Ms. Landolt is going to quickly finish. Ms. Fry is going to have the opportunity to respond to some of the suggestions that have been put, and then I'm going to Mr. Robinson.

Ms. Landolt, are you finished?

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I'm finished, but I have more to say--later.

The Chair: I'm sure you do.

Ms. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: I think there's a great deal of protection for women in terms of violence. We know there are huge projects in legislation about violence against women. We know there is protection under the Criminal Code in terms of rape. We know there is protection to do with battering of women. Gun control legislation has been brought about to protect against the murdering of wives.

I mean, I could easily ask why we don't put out protection for MPs, because I can tell you, a lot of us get hate mail a lot of the time--for me, because I was a feminist and because of all kinds of other things, but it's also purely from being an MP.

I don't think that's the point. I think we're talking here about groups that statistically have been shown to be victims of hate and violence, and who suffer enormously as a result of it. I think that is what we're discussing here. By adding this, I don't see how that detracts from anything else we're doing. When we support and protect a group in society, it's as if we think that means we're taking away something from another group. And I don't get that. I don't even see it. I don't understand it.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, I think we've made history in this committee; I couldn't imagine that I would ever be agreeing with Ms. Landolt on anything, but certainly I wouldn't disagree, necessarily, that in future the justice committee might want to consider, in the hate propaganda section, looking at other possible grounds.

In fact, a study was done for the Department of Justice by Professor Ellen Faulkner, who I believe is now one of the chair's constituents, teaching at St. Thomas University. I'm sure he's familiar with the study that says let's look at some of these other grounds, and if a case can be made, then indeed....

So I commend you for your wisdom, Ms. Landolt, on that particular suggestion.

I just wanted to come back to Inspector Jones to deal with a concern that my colleague Derek Lee raises. He's saying, as I understand it, although he can correct me if I'm wrong, that if a person has deeply held views, maybe not religious views at all but just deeply held views--that homosexuality is an abomination, that it's evil, that it's, in his words, “wrong” or “unworthy” and so on--and not necessarily religiously based beliefs, that somehow, because the religious exemption wouldn't cover that, the police might actually be charging people for expressing those views.

What I would suggest, and I'd like your comment on this, Inspector Jones, is that this falls far, far short of what would lead to prosecution under the hate propaganda section. In Keegstra, the court said it's not just expressing those views; you can do that as much as you want. You actually have to be deliberately promoting hatred and bigotry against one of the targeted groups. It's not just expressing it, but it's saying, look, as a result of these views, I think these people should be....

In the words of the Chief Justice of Canada, it's bigotry, it's destruction, it's despised, scorned, denied respect, and made subject to ill treatment. It goes way beyond just expressing those views.

I wonder, Inspector Jones, if you could just confirm that this is indeed the case, and that the police have no interest at all in going after people who might be just voicing views, even deeply held views, not religious views, but deeply held views, about homosexuality.

Insp David Jones: There are so many reasons police don't want to be in the business of prosecuting on the basis of people's opinions. We're looking more for invitations to hate in the context of their then applying violence to individuals. That's really what the concern is from a police perspective. We also don't want to be refereeing between two protected groups, with religion as a protected group, on hatred itself. We don't want to be refereeing that debate.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear on where it stands on the issues of homosexuality and the rights and the problems individuals have had in society. I still say, and hold the opinion, that sexual orientation is an analogous ground under subsection 318(4), that police could currently attempt to lay prosecution under that. I certainly don't want to make a legal argument here, but you could have legal advisers who could perhaps give you some information that you were morally bound to add this because it is already there.

Mr. Svend Robinson: One other question, if I may, for Mr. Rogusky. He referred to Fred Phelps and said his organization doesn't like him very much. Fred Phelps is the guy who has a website, www.godhatesfags.com, that has a picture of Matthew Shepherd burning in hell and so on, and who actively promotes hatred. He did threaten to come to Canada and spread his hatred. The police did say, look, if we had this change in the Criminal Code, we could deal with that kind of nonsense. We could tell him, look, you're not welcome here. And certainly under the provisions of the hate propaganda legislation, if sexual orientation were included, we could deal with that.

You're saying you don't like the Fred Phelpses of the world. Well, don't you think individuals who, in the words of former Chief Justice of Canada Dickson, are promoting bigotry or destruction of a target group should be despised, scorned, denied respect--individuals like Fred Phelps? Shouldn't there be an opportunity, under the same legislation that protects your religious belief, to protect gay and lesbian people, and those who are perceived to be gay and lesbian, from that kind of hatred?

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Rogusky.

Mr. Derek Rogusky: Certainly if someone is promoting hatred--and by hatred I mean if they're promoting violent acts against people, whatever their identification might be--then certainly there needs to be something to address that. But I would say this bill goes, unfortunately, beyond that.

I would just direct you to what the courts are doing right now. For example, in the Hugh Owens case, Mr. Owens put biblical references, an equal sign, and two stick-men holding hands with the universal “no” sign.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And “Wipe them out.” That's what they said.

Mr. Derek Rogusky: Wipe them out?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Wipe out those gay people.

Mr. Derek Rogusky: Well, don't go to Edmonton, because you'll see a sign there that says “No jaywalking.” Do you think this means we should wipe out jaywalkers? I don't think so. It means don't engage in this activity.

You see, you had an interpretation--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Was that a criminal prosecution that was--

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Rogusky and Mr. Robinson. I would commend both of you to read the decision.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly.

The Chair: We'll leave it at that and go to Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I was going to ask Mr. Rogusky something just following up on my previous line of questioning, but the line of questioning has sort of moved on a little bit. I think Mr. Robinson's line of questioning has clearly pointed out there's a difference between hate or incitement to hate, on the one hand, and disapproval on the other.

Do you think, Mr. Rogusky, in the context of churches--and maybe I shouldn't exclude Mr. Sherman here, either--there is ample room under the current wording here of the existing Criminal Code, that says you're free to discuss, or that no person shall be charged if the issue comes up as a religious subject? Is that ample room to allow freedom of expression within the church groups or other worship groups who subscribe to firmly held views based on religious writings?

Mr. Derek Rogusky: I would argue not. I think one of the problems is that you don't have a very good definition of religious subject, and if you do have a definition, it tends to be a very narrow definition.

For example, I am motivated by my Christian faith, but when I address this issue, I address it from a philosophical and sociological view, and from my experience working with legislation. None of those are specifically religious in nature, and yet I'm dealing with those issues in that way. I think there is a real danger that this religious freedom defence in a sense is not broad enough to cover people who are discussing the issue, motivated by their religious faith but not actually talking about it in terms that we would refer to as being religious.

Mr. Derek Lee: Can I ask the same question of Mr. Sherman?

The Chair: Yes, and then we'll go to Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Derek Lee: Did you have a possible response?

Mr. Read Sherman: I would disagree with the gentleman. In my discussions with the people in my church and the organization Affirm United, we believe the protection is adequate and the test is high enough, as borne out by the lack of prosecutions under that. And yet the signal it would present to society about protection of an identifiable group is so important; I can understand other people's different opinions, but we believe it's right on.

I also would like to say quickly, too, that when you see the sign of a jaywalking man with a cross across it, that's very different from two men holding hands or whatever they were doing. I would object to some of our presenters' characterizations of that as.... I mean, those are two beings in that first picture. A man who is jaywalking is breaking the law in a very pedestrian--pardon the pun--fashion. So I think we need to make a distinction between what those two signs are saying. I think we especially, as religious people, should be making that distinction.

À (1050)

The Chair: I invite everybody on the committee and the panel to read the decision. It's amazing how much we talk about this. I would think everybody should just read the decision. It's quite clear.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is more of an anecdote or a comment than a question. It's along the lines of Mrs. Landolt's question, “What about the rest of us?”, or in that kind of context. And it's very rare that I go into personal issues, but I will here.

My colleagues on this committee know, and I'm sure Inspector Jones, being from B.C., is aware, that my son was murdered in 1992. Two weeks after he was murdered, I got a letter in the mail suggesting that he deserved it because his hair was long, because he wore an earring, and because he was a skateboarder. To me, especially in Surrey, that is a very identifiable group.

Now, I would wonder, in the context of what we're discussing here, why that would not be considered hate propaganda, a letter like that.

The Chair: Is that to Inspector Jones?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: To anybody. As I said, it was more of a comment than a question.

The Chair: Don't feel compelled. If you want to answer, go ahead.

Mrs. Landolt.

Mrs. Gwendolyn Landolt: I have something to say on this issue.

Again, that's the whole problem with the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code. It only gives a priority or favoured group protection, but none of us--whether it be women or whether it be in your position--have protection from hate. That's the crux of the problem. It's discriminatory legislation.

That comes up...and if you look at the background to the bill itself, when it was first introduced into the House of Commons in the late 1960s. It's very, very provocative legislation, and it raised controversy then.

I think if we're going to have protection of people, it should take away all the groups, every one of them, leave out the designated groups, and just say that hate propaganda is wrong. That's the only way it will be a fair, open, and non-discriminatory piece of legislation so that you, me, and all the rest of us will have similar protection to the favoured groups listed in the legislation.

The Chair: Inspector Jones, and then to Ms. Fry and Mr. Marceau.

Insp David Jones: The groups listed in subsection 318(4) come across as two distinct groups. There are people who simply are who they are, and they're protected because they're attacked on the basis of who they are. There are other groups who are attacked on the basis of what they believe.

The loss of Mr. Cadman's son was a tragic, tragic event. The letter was despicable. Oddly enough, this happens fairly frequently. Ji-Won Park was a young Korean lady attacked in Stanley Park. She will have a life of disability ahead of her as a result of it. The Korean Society in Vancouver received two letters with respect to this that are vile beyond description.

But those are rare letters. One would suggest there is some mental illness involved there. In fact, in the research we did, we had to exclude 17 letters of hatred to a variety of groups because the man was writing from a mental institution. So we had to exclude those letters. They were contemptible, the letters received.

So these five groups are groups of people being attacked on a consistent basis, and there is a need for protection.

À (1055)

The Chair: Members, we're holding up the room here for 11 o'clock, and I understand they're lined up well into the corridor.

So I'm going to go to Ms. Fry, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Marceau, and then I think we're finished. We have less than three minutes left, two questioners, and we're done at 11 o'clock.

Ms. Fry, very quickly.

Ms. Hedy Fry: To Mr. Rogusky, I still believe...and I want to ask you this question. Do you believe freedom of religion should include the right for religions to have carte blanche to say whatever they choose about identifiable groups in society, and to incite hatred and violence against those groups? That's what I want to ask. Because lots of religions speak against fornication when they stand up and make a sermon. Religions speak against adultery. Religions speak against divorce, such as in the Catholic Church. That never has been seen as incitement to hatred.

At the same time, if someone should stand up and say, “I believe we should go out there and stone all adulterers”, do you believe that is a totally different thing from saying, “I believe adultery is a sin and therefore you should not do it if you're a member of this church”? I think that's what people are trying to say.

You can stand up, and have always been able to stand up, according to your church dogma and to church canon law and say, “I believe homosexuality is a sin. We do not condone this in this church.” But to stand up and say, “I believe, therefore, all homosexuals should be eradicated and we should do whatever we can to get rid of them in society”, is a totally different thing.

Do you agree that religion should have a freedom of expression to say whatever they choose, or there should be limits even on expressions of hate and violence from religions?

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fry.

Mr. Rogusky, quickly, so I can get to Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Derek Rogusky: If anyone incites violence or promotes the physical harm of individuals, no, there's not a blanket religious right to do that. But I would just add that if you look at the courts right now--and that's the only thing we have to go by, because this isn't in legislation yet--and at quasi-judicial bodies, we have people who are not inciting hatred, in my mind, not inciting violence, and yet they are facing prosecutions and sometimes convictions and penalties that are quite severe, frankly.

I think of Chris Kempling back in our home province of B.C. A quasi-judicial body punished him by suspending his teaching certificate for one month simply because he wrote to his local newspaper suggesting that pro-gay materials should not be used in the schools.

The Chair: Monsieur Marceau, you have less than a minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: First of all, I understand that Mrs. Landolt would prefer no legislation whatsoever against hate propaganda.

Secondly, she mentioned many times the Supreme Court's minority decision in the Keegstra case. I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is the majority decision that has become law.

Thirdly, Mr. Rogusky, you're a former legal researcher and as such, I'm a little disappointed that you would equate a discussion... You say you are afraid of being charged simply for having a discussion whereas hate has been very, very clearly defined in Keegstra by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who said it is an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation”.

You say that this would apply to a simple discussion; that's a legal shortcut which leads to a completely wrong conclusion, in my opinion. You are raising fears that are completely unfounded because there's a very clear distinction between hate-mongering as defined legally in Keegstra and the simple discussion you have mentioned. I would respectfully submit that you are being biased when you equate the two.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

I want to thank the panel for being here today. The committee is now going to meet upstairs immediately.

This meeting is adjourned.