Excerpts from the Canadian House of Commons Hansard
re Bill C-380 (as reintroduced May 9, 2009)
Previously known as Bill C-254


October 22, 2010
Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib)
:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a petition that supports my private member's bill, Bill C-380.

Those who engage in the propagation of violence based on race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation can be charged under the hate crimes provision of the Criminal Code. However, those who would post hateful and menacing messages against women on blogs and websites or glorify the mass murderer responsible for the École Polytechnique massacre, cannot be charged under Canadian hate laws.

If a religious or ethnic group had been the victims of École Polytechnique, the glorification of this mass killing would be criminal. Because the target group were females, it is not.

Therefore, the petitioners support Bill C-380, as it addresses this situation by adding sex, the legal term for gender, to the list of identifiable groups.

September 27, 2010
Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib)
:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-380.

In Canadian hate law, propagation of violence based on race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation is criminal. Incredibly, misogyny and the propagation of violence against women is legal. This bill would add sex, the legal term for gender, to the list of identifiable groups in relation to hate propaganda provisions in the Criminal Code.

Half of Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical and sexual violence since the age of 16. This type of violence against women is often motivated by gender based hatred. For these reasons, the petitioners urge the government to adopt Bill C-380

June 16, 2010
Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib)
:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition signed by students of the women's studies program of the University of Waterloo.

These students are mindful of the fact that violence against women is often motivated by gender-based hatred, that half of Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence, that Canadians continue to be horrified by the hate that motivated the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, and aghast that the glorification and incitement to similar acts of violence by misogynists is currently legal in Canada.

For these reasons, the petitioners urge the government to adopt my private member's bill, Bill C-380, which would add sex, the legal term for gender, to the list of identifiable groups in relation to hate propaganda provisions in the Criminal Code. Hatred and incitement to violence based on ethnicity, race and religion, and sexual orientation is proscribed by Canadian law. Why not misogyny and all gender-based hate crimes?


December 3, 2009
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes (Brossard-La Prairie, Lib):

Mr. Speaker, December 6, 2009, will mark the 20th anniversary of the massacre of 14 female students at the École Polytechnique de Montréal. Sadly, violence against women still exists. The Conservatives are the only ones to have refused to include “sex” in the hate propaganda legislation.

Why do the Conservatives so strongly oppose a simple amendment like the one proposed by Bill C-380, which would protect our sisters, our mothers and our daughters from hate crimes and violence?

Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State (Status of Women), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a number of concrete steps to protect women across this country. We passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We have made significant investments in policing. We are supporting Sisters in Spirit. We have introduced Bill C-42, which is to end conditional sentences for violent crimes such as kidnapping, human trafficking and rape, and yet I note there are so many members in the opposition benches who are against this piece of legislation.

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 2000, the current finance minister wrote in a letter:

"Federal hate crimes legislation offers protection only on the basis of race, religion and ethnicity. This...would make it difficult to proceed with a prosecution for alleged hate crime relating to gender....

"It is time for the federal government to provide such tools to prosecute those promoting hatred against women."

Why have the Conservatives vetoed the efforts to add sex to hate crimes legislation, not once, not twice, but three times?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, a better question is why did the Liberals do nothing in their 13 years in government? When it came to standing up for victims, when it came to standing up for women, when it came to standing up for children, they did nothing.

That is the difference between them and us. We are getting the job done.


December 4, 2009
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during question period, I directly quoted from a document signed by the Minister of Finance, and I feel honour bound to table that document. I ask the House's permission to do so.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.


May 6, 2009
Criminal Code
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Moved for leave to introduce Bill C-380, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.

The bill seeks to expand the definition of “identifiable group” under hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by gender.

Currently the law states that it is prohibited to propagate hate against an individual because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. However, it is not against the law to propagate hate against individuals because of their gender.

By enacting this important improvement to the Criminal Code, Parliament can begin to address the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women or men.

This amendment should have been made long ago. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on all sides of this House will support this long overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)


May 15, 2008
Criminal Code
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise and participate in the debate on Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution). This bill would create a new offence in section 430 of the Criminal Code to prohibit hate motivated acts of mischief against an identifiable group of persons at an educational institution, including a school, day care centre, college or university, or community centre, playground, arena or sports centre.

I would like to congratulate the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for her initiative in introducing this bill and thereby raise attention of this type of hate crime in our society.

In discussing this proposed legislation, there are two main elements that should be underscored. First, the importance of fighting hate motivated crimes; and second, to provide protection to the educational and social places where ethnocultural and other identifiable groups gather.

These are places where people gather to joyfully share in cultural experiences, often passing on through generations the richness of our multicultural mosaic. These are institutions to which children are entrusted to be educated. Yet too often, those who would hate and cause violence target these very places of joy and education.

Canada is an open and welcoming society that has embraced multiculturalism as an underlying principle. Our multicultural mosaic is a shining example to the world of peace and harmony among all races, religions, ethnicities; in fact, humanity in its endless multitudes of variations. Unfortunately, there are those among us, individuals and groups, who would act to spread hatred and violence, even violence against identifiable groups.

In 2004 the pilot survey of hate crime was published by Statistics Canada. This study reported a total of 928 hate crime incidents.

Overall, 57% of these hate crimes were motivated by race or ethnicity. The second most common motivation was religion, which accounted for 43% of incidents. Sexual orientation was the motivation in one-tenth of the incidents.

Blacks and South Asians were among those most frequently targeted in hate crime incidents motivated by race or ethnicity. The majority of incidents by religion involved anti-Semitism followed by those targeting Muslims.

The most common types of hate violations included: mischief or vandalism at 29%; assault at 25%; uttering threats at 20%; and hate propaganda at 13%.

While statistics are important, I would also like to point out a number of examples of hate crimes against several communities, religious and educational institutions that make the case of supporting Bill C-384 even stronger.

On March 24, 2004, the Al Mahdi Islamic Centre in Pickering was intentionally set on fire. Its interior walls were spray painted with supremacist graffiti. On September 2, 2006, the Skver-Toldos Orthodox Jewish Boys school in Outremont was firebombed. On June 21, 2007, the community centre of the Kitigan Zibi Anishnabeg Algonquin First Nations community in Quebec was vandalized with swastikas and white supremacist graffiti. On March 11, 2008, RyePRIDE, a community service group at Ryerson University was vandalized with hate graffiti.

The study also concluded that young people, those between the ages of 15 and 24, experienced the highest rate of hate crime victimization. This rate was two times higher than the next age group. As well, it was educational and other community institutions that were the most frequent targets of hate crime propaganda.

Acts of vandalism motivated by racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and hatred of the other are more than simple acts of mischief. To the victims and the community to which they belong these are traumatic assaults on the very core of who they are and their place in society. It is an assault on the very values of inclusion, tolerance and pluralism that are at the core of our Canadian identity.

I would now like to address a gaping omission in our current hate crimes legislation. According to the 1999 General Social Survey, 18% of hate crimes were motivated by hatred of a gender. Yet, gender-based hate crimes, misogyny and misandry, are not covered.

As it is currently drafted, Bill C-384 only addresses acts of hatred or incitement to violence against an identifiable group based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

As Valerie Smith, a leading expert and advocate on the issue of violence against women, underscores, misogynistic acts of vandalism carried out against a girls' school or university women's centre would not be covered under this bill because it protects only those groups identified by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. Bill C-384 adopts a limited list of identifiable groups found in section 318 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda.

For this reason, it would seem prudent to amend the proposed legislation to ensure that hate targeting a gender group is also included, because as the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics shows, women and girls continue to be targets of hate crimes at disturbingly increasing rates. Because sex, the legal term for gender, is not included in the list covered by this proposed legislation, girls and women will not be protected under this law.

As further underscored by Valerie Smith, this legislation would be enhanced if the more inclusive definition found in Criminal Code subsection 718(2) were to be used.

In 1996 this law was amended to allow courts to increase a sentence where an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental and physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor. There is no legal reason for Bill C-384 to use the limited list of identifiable groups found in section 318.

As section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms underscores, everyone has a right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability.

In the spring of 2005 I was reviewing Canada's hate crimes legislation and I noted that there were a number of categories, identifiable groups. However, I was startled to find an omission. Gender was not covered. That spurred me to draft Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), a private member's bill that is perhaps unique in the sense that all it entails is the addition of one single word to existing legislation, “sex”.

Returning to my colleague's Bill C-384, I think that besides increasing punishment of hate-based acts of mischief against an identifiable group, vulnerable groups also need assistance to better help protect themselves against these cowardly attacks. This would entail governments taking proactive measures to help defray the increased security costs that would have to be paid by vulnerable communities in protecting their institutions from hate-based attacks.

The current government has set up a pilot project with only $3 million in funding for the purposes of helping vulnerable communities to protect their institutions.

Canada's Jewish community estimated that it would require a minimum investment of $8 million to begin to upgrade the security surrounding its community centres and schools.

In many cases the communities whose institutions were attacked were forced to raise funds to repair and enhance security in their facilities. This has taken much needed funding away from the educational needs of children and youth.

In response, the leader of the Liberal Party announced in April that a Liberal government would create a $75 million fund to boost security at places of worship and community centres targeted by racist vandals.

It is my view that Bill C-384 is a worthy piece of legislation that should be supported by all members. It is also my view that Bill C-384 would be further enhanced by friendly amendments that would deal with gender-based acts of hatred.

When people talk of a future global village, I respond by saying that it exists here in Canada, in our urban centres. We are a shining example to the world of how humanity, in all of its variations, can live constructively and joyously in peace and harmony.

However, in our midst threats exist to our multicultural mosaic, to our Canada, a Canada which celebrates all of our diversities. With this legislation we will further diminish the ability of those who hate, who would do harm, and who would incite others to do so.


Monday, April 7, 2008
Violence Against Women
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2005 I was reviewing Canada's hate crimes legislation and I noted that there were a number of categories, identifiable groups, which were covered: race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. However, I noticed that there was an omission. Gender was not covered. That spurred me to call the Department of Justice to find out if perhaps there was other legislation that covered off gender.

I received a call back from an official who told me that it seemed to be an oversight. I thought to myself after that conversation, my goodness, what kind of Canada do we live in when this sort of oversight can occur? Is it a reflection of the gender inequality in our House of Commons? Or is it a reflection of society's tacit acceptance of certain hateful types of expression?

That spurred me to draft a piece of legislation, a private member's bill, perhaps unique in the sense that all it entailed was the addition of one single word “sex”, the legal term for gender, in existing legislation.

Since the original introduction of hates crimes legislation, there has been a diminishing number of hate crimes in Canada. We have become more accepting and respectful. In fact, we often now celebrate our differences.  Unfortunately, women continue to be the target of hate crimes at increasing rates.

Several months ago, every MP in this House stood for a minute of silence in memory of 14 young women massacred at the École Polytechnique. Yet three times, a number of these same MPs have blocked the passage of Bill C-254 in our House of Commons, allowing the continuation of the spreading of gender-based hatred. It is a hatred with which vulnerable new generations are being infected.

For instance, a musician who has sold thousands of CDs in Canada raps these horrific lyrics:

Then punch a bitch in the nose
Until her whole face explodes
There's three things I hate: Girls, women,--

And he continues.

Minister, why are these lyrics legally protected? Yet, if we were to substitute equally pejorative terms for Jew, Black or gay, charges would be laid. Today, the hands of our police forces are tied when attempting to deal with this type of hatred.

Soon after introducing my bill, I received a letter of support from the office of William Blair, Chief of Police in Toronto. His letter stated:

The Toronto Police Service supports and applauds your efforts to combat the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women.

It is not just our police forces which support Bill C-254. The media violence coalition, representing some 160,000 teachers, principals and trustees in Ontario, is actively lobbying on its behalf.

Finally, I hope that the Minister of Justice will concur with the opinion of his colleague, the Minister of Finance, who, as Ontario's attorney general, stated in a letter dated December 20, 2000:

"I will continue to ask the federal government to expand the definition of identifiable groups to include gender."

He further stated:

"It is time for the federal government to provide such tools to prosecute those promoting hatred against women by amending the Criminal Code."

I hope that all my parliamentary colleagues will put their political differences and ideologies aside for the sake of Canadian women, to protect our mothers, to protect our wives, to protect our sisters, and to protect our daughters.

I call upon the minister to act and to add one word, just one word, “sex”, the legal description for gender, into existing hate crimes legislation.

Tough on crime should also apply--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Order. It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member.

The floor now belongs to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do find it a little bit ironic that when we as a government bring forward legislation that would actually, in a substantive and measurable way, protect Canadians, men, women and children alike, we are met with obstruction and criticism by the opposition.

When we have bills for which Canadians have been calling for years that would, in a meaningful way, protect them, we are met with that kind of response, and yet today we have a member raising the issue of protecting women, protecting Canadians. It is a little ironic.

The member also does touch on the issue of deciding which lyrics he likes or does not like or what he finds offensive or inoffensive, and, to be sure, there are lyrics that he cited that I think all of us would find terribly offensive and troubling. I would urge him to talk to some of his colleagues who are raising issues of so-called censorship, saying that the government wants to censor production, when that, in effect, is what he is proposing in his speech.

I want to state from the outset that our government not only recognizes both hate crimes and violence against women as serious issues and issues deserving of serious treatment by the criminal law, but in the last two years our government has acted in tangible, meaningful ways to better protect women, better protect all Canadians from those who would do them harm.

I do want to consider the existing criminal law on this issue. Section 319 of the Criminal Code prohibits publicly inciting hatred against any identifiable group. Identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Keegstra, considered whether this offence violated the accused's freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court unanimously found that the hate propaganda offence did indeed infringe on freedom of expression. However, by a narrow majority the court upheld the offence under section 1 of the charter on the basis that its infringement constituted a reasonable limit upon freedom of expression that could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The judgment underscores the importance, indeed the necessity, of having clear and strong evidence to support any expansion of the hate propaganda offence.

In 2004, statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics study on hate crime in Canada reported that of the 928 hate crimes reported to 12 major police forces in 2001, only 8, or less than 1%, were reported as having been motivated on the basis of sex. Compare these statistics to the fact that 57% were reported to be based on race and ethnicity, 43% based on religion and 10% based on sexual orientation.

Other existing Criminal Code offences can be used to address the type of messages against women that motivate the proposed expansion of the hate propaganda offence. For example, subsection 163.8 of the Criminal Code prohibits making and distributing material, the dominant characteristic of which is “the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence.

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:

Mr. Speaker, initially, as the parliamentary secretary began, I was a little discouraged because he began diverting into various tangential discussions. However, he then came back to our legislation and to the essence of the matter. In fact, he quoted the particular section that lists out the groups that are covered by the legislation, the identifiable groups based upon race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. Gender is not covered.

Bill C-254 calls for the addition of one word, “sex”, the legal term for gender, into the existing legislation.

When he said that the government has acted, it has. Three times members of the government blocked the passage of Bill C-254.

Just a couple of hours ago I received an excited phone call from my wife. She had received the results of an ultrasound and we now know that this summer we will have a baby daughter. I know that she will be born--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): As I interrupt the hon. member, I must congratulate him.

The floor now belongs to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on the joyous news of his forthcoming child. However, as someone who just had a baby daughter four and a half months ago, I must warn him to be prepared for the late nights and, of course, the concerns that we have because we both want to make our Canada a better and safer Canada for our children and the next generations to come.

That is why our government has been taking very clear and substantive steps. The cornerstone among those steps was the Tackling Violent Crime Act, an act to get tough on those who prey on innocent individuals, on those who would break the law, who would be recidivist, on individuals who have shown a disregard for the law.


Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Lib, Etobicoke Centre):

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties with respect to Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), first introduced during the 38th Parliament and reintroduced May 24, 2007.

This bill at long last includes the legal word for "gender" in the categories protected from hate crimes.

On the cusp of International Women's Day, I hope to find consent for the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), be deemed read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No. [Jay Hill, Conservative Party Whip, was one of the MPs who voted against this motion]


December 6, 2007
Violence Against Women
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 18th anniversary of the massacre of 14 women at Montreal's École Polytechnique, yet the glorification of violence toward women continues. We do not tolerate incitement to violence based on ethnicity, race, religion or sexual orientation. All are protected by law, yet incitement to violence toward women is not included.

Will the minister agree today to adding one word, “sex”, the legal description for gender, to existing hate crimes legislation and end gender-based incitement to violence and hatred?

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we stand four-square against violence toward women in all forms and in all manners.

I would ask the hon. member about this. He knows that the fighting crime agenda we have before Parliament right now, the tackling violent crime act, is with his colleagues. These are concrete steps to protect young women and to protect women against firearms crimes. I hope he will impress upon his colleagues in the Senate to move that bill through. Canadians and Canadian women deserve that.


November 29, 2007
Criminal Code
Mr. Brian Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) stand in the name of the member for London West instead of the member for Etobicoke Centre, and that it stand on the order of precedence in the place of Motion No. 400.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Guimond: No. The answer is no.

The Speaker: The answer is no. There is no consent.

Mr. Guimond: We need to talk before that.

The Speaker: Good. I am sure there will be continuing talks.


Please note, in the excerpt below from Hansard, the motion referred to was actually introduced on April 19, not April 22.  

June 20, 2007
Hate Propaganda against Women
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on April 22, a motion put forward by the Hon. member for Etobicoke Centre to add the word “woman” to the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda was adopted by everyone except the Conservative Party.

The government and its Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women do not seem to be too concerned about the prevalence of hate propaganda, yet it can be found in ads, in songs, on television, everywhere.

It is high time to give the justice system tools to eradicate this scourge. That does not mean encroaching on freedom of expression, but when freedom of expression is used to perpetrate gratuitous violence against women, it has to be censured.

The Conservative government has to implement this April 22 motion. It is a matter of political integrity and, above all, dignity and respect for women.


May 4, 2006
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)

He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to table, for a second time, my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.

The purpose of the bill is to expand the definition of an identifiable group under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by its gender. The way our current law is written, it is prohibited to propagate hate against an individual because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. However, it is not against the law to propagate hate against individuals because of their gender.

By enacting this change to the Criminal Code, Parliament can begin to address the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women or men. This is an amendment that should have been made long ago. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will support this worthy and overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)


May 11, 2005
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Moved for leave to introduce Bill C-385, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table my first private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda.

The purpose of the bill is to expand the definition of an identifiable group under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code to include any section of the public distinguished by its gender.

The way our current law is written, it is prohibited to propagate hate against an individual because of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. However, it is not against the law to propagate hate against an individual because of their gender. By enacting this change to the Criminal Code, Parliament can begin to address the serious issue of promoting hatred and violence against women.

This is an amendment that should have been made long ago. I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House will support this worthy and overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)


November 23, 2005
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Discussions have taken place between all parties with respect to Bill C-385, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda) which received first reading on May 11, 2005. I hope to find consent for the following motion, "That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-385 be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed".

This is especially appropriate as in two weeks we will be marking the 14th anniversary of the massacre that took place at Montreal's l'École Polytechnique.

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members:

Agreed.

Some hon. members:

No.