Bill C-384 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by making it an offence to commit an act of mischief against an identifiable group of persons at an educational institution, including a school, daycare centre, college or university, or at a community centre, playground, arena or sports centre.

Criminal Code

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-537, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of conscience rights in the health care profession).

Mr. Speaker, this conscience clause private member's bill would prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable. The bill seeks to ensure that health care providers will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia.

Canada has a long history of recognizing the rights of freedom of religion and conscience in our country, yet health care workers and those seeking to be educated for the health care system have often been denied those rights in medical facilities and educational institutions. Some have even been wrongfully dismissed.

The bill would make those conscience rights explicit in law and would safeguard the fundamental human rights of health care workers.

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

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved that Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to participate in the second reading debate of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

Bill S-3 was first introduced last October. The Special Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act reviewed the bill and made three amendments. The bill was passed by the Senate on March 6, 2008.

In order to ensure that all due consideration be given to this bill, it is important that we fully consider the bill, its background and the importance of this bill to Canada's law enforcement agencies. This is what I will be focusing my remarks on.

First, I will provide an overview of the bill. This bill seeks to reinstate two important powers that were created by the Anti-terrorism Act but which sunsetted on March 1, 2007. These powers are known as the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions.

Briefly and simply put, the investigative hearing is a tool that provides the opportunity to have a peace officer bring a person before a judge to be questioned in relation to a terrorism offence, past or future. Its purpose is to enable law enforcement to investigate terrorism offences that have either been committed or that will be committed. Thus, one of its main purposes, although not its sole purpose, is to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence. All of us in the House recognize that is an extremely important objective.

The recognizance with conditions is a tool that allows a peace officer to bring a person before a judge who, after being presented with the proper evidence, may order the person to enter into a recognizance with certain conditions to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity.

Let me provide the background information that led to these provisions sunsetting in 2007.

As everyone in the House is well aware, the Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-36, received royal assent on December 18, 2001. Before the Anti-terrorism Act became law, Parliament heard from many witnesses on a number of issues. One of these issues had to do with the two powers that are now contained in this bill.

Witnesses voiced concern over the creation of these new powers which were previously unknown in Canadian criminal law and which appeared to constitute a threat to individual rights and liberties protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In view of those concerns, Parliament agreed to subject these powers to annual reporting requirements and a sunset clause.

In addition, section 145 of the act required that a committee or committees of Parliament begin a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the act within three years from the date that the Anti-terrorism Act received royal assent. Consequently, on December 9, 2004, a motion was adopted by the House of Commons authorizing the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to begin a review of the Anti-terrorism Act. Its Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security began its review in February 2005. The Senate adopted a similar motion on December 13, 2004 establishing a special committee to undertake a separate review.

In late 2005, Parliament was dissolved and an election was called. The work of the committees was put on hold. When Parliament resumed in early 2006, the special Senate committee was authorized to continue its review. In the House of Commons, a new Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security began its review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Both committees sought and received extensions to table their final reports on the review of the Anti-terrorism Act. However, in October 2006, the House of Commons subcommittee released an interim report that addressed exclusively the use of the provisions that we are discussing today. It recommended a five year extension of these provisions, subject to a further review. However, it also recommended that the investigative hearing provision be limited to the investigation of imminent terrorist offences, not past ones. In addition, some technical amendments were also proposed.

Although this report was released in October 2006, the work of the special committee in the Senate was still ongoing. The statutory provision allowing for the renewal of these provisions by passage of a resolution through Parliament did not allow for amendments to be made to the provisions. In effect, time was running out.

In the fall of 2006 and the spring of 2007, the government thus moved toward presenting a resolution to have Parliament extend both provisions for a period of three years. On February 27, 2007 the House of Commons voted 159 to 124 against the resolution that was introduced in the House, and as a result, both provisions expired on March 1, 2007.

It is interesting to note that while this was happening, on February 22, 2007, the special Senate committee released its main report on its review of the Anti-terrorism Act. Two of its recommendations related to these provisions.

First, as was the case for the House of Commons subcommittee, it recommended these provisions be extended for a period of three years, subject to the possibility of a further extension, following resolutions passed by both houses of Parliament. Second, it recommended that the annual reporting requirements also require the Attorney General of Canada to include a clear statement, an explanation, indicating whether or not the provisions remain warranted.

One may wonder why the House voted against the renewal of these provisions when both committees reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act had recommended their extension. There were essentially three reasons given during the House debates.

One, the proposed resolution did not take into consideration the recommendations that had been made by the House of Commons subcommittee, nor the ones made by the Senate special committee.

Two, there were suggestions that these provisions were not necessary, given other powers that existed and the fact that they were rarely used.

Three, the government did not respond in a comprehensive manner to all the recommendations made by both committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

As I mentioned, these were the three reasons or excuses why members did not vote in favour of this issue.

The issue of human rights safeguards was also raised. With regard to the first question, as I indicated earlier, in the spring of 2007 there was no time for the government to address the recommendations made by the committees reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, as the deadline for the renewal of the provisions was too close to allow for a modified version of these powers.

Since that time the government has had time to give full consideration to the particular recommendations in relation to the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions that were made by the committees, and has had time to implement a large number of them in this legislation.

As for the second argument, allow me, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate why it is important that these provisions be brought back through this piece of legislation.

The current absence of the investigative hearing and recognizance powers has created a serious gap in our law. I wish I could say it were not so, but unfortunately, Canada continues to be exposed to the threat of terrorism and there are no signs that this is about to stop. All of us, being honest with ourselves, know that is indeed the case.

As we all know, since the introduction of the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, there have been horrific attacks on innocent civilians in Colombia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Canada and Canadians have been largely identified by leaders of al-Qaeda as targets for future terrorist attacks. Recently, a criminal trial has begun in the United Kingdom, where several persons have been charged with plotting to blow up planes crossing the Atlantic, including some Air Canada flights.

In its 2006-07 public report, CSIS confirms that terrorism remains a threat to Canada and to Canadians and indicates that the threat of terrorism from extremists posed the most immediate danger to Canada and Canadians in 2006 and 2007.

Given this obvious threat, there is no question that police and prosecutors need the powers to investigate terrorism and to disrupt terrorist activity. Representatives of our law enforcement agencies appeared before the committees reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act and indicated clearly that they needed these tools.

For all these reasons, the government believes that it is necessary to reinstate these provisions.

We must not forget that these tools are unique. There are no other powers in the Criminal Code that do what the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions do.

Today the efforts of terrorist groups are not abating. Terrorists are displaying increasing sophistication and the ability to use diverse technologies to further their deadly activities.

To combat terrorism, law enforcement must be able to investigate effectively individuals and groups who may pose a threat to the safety and security of Canadians.

For these reasons, I ask all members to give serious consideration to the following notorious facts.

One, terrorism is a very serious and very present threat in Canada. Two, and I think this is something we can all agree on, it is best to prevent terrorist activity and not wait to sift through its aftermath. I am going to repeat that one. It is best to prevent terrorist activity rather than sift through its aftermath. Three, the nature of terrorist activity is such that it must be disrupted at the preparatory stage rather than reacting in its aftermath. Important tools that allow disruption at this stage include the tools we are proposing to reinstate through Bill S-3.

The government is convinced of the necessity to reinstate the provisions that are contained in this bill. Our law enforcement agencies need these tools and we have the responsibility to provide them so that they may be properly equipped to adequately respond to any potential terrorist threat.

Let me also respond to the third argument that has been raised to justify voting down the renewal of these provisions, the fact that the government did not respond in a comprehensive manner to all the recommendations made by both committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

First, it was impossible at the time for the government to respond comprehensively to the reports of both committees, since when these provisions expired, the Senate committee had released its main report just a few days before and the House committee had not yet released its final report on its review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Second, since the expiry of these original powers, the government has been engaged in efforts to respond comprehensively to the reports of both committees that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act.

Earlier this year Parliament responded to the Supreme Court decision in Charkaoui by enacting Bill C-3, which creates a special advocate regime in the context of security certificates. The government also published last summer its response to the House of Commons subcommittee's final report on its review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

In short, this bill is part and parcel of an ongoing comprehensive approach to review the Anti-terrorism Act, an approach, I might add, that warrants full support by all members.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the chronology presented by my friend opposite appears to be an appropriate chronology. I may quibble with the details of the rationale that he was addressing, but the chronology is correct.

I think one of the reasons that this House voted overwhelmingly against these provisions was that in fact some of the concerns, that the committees had expressed in the reports that had been provided up to that point, were not taken into account in the simple renewal for three years, the resolution that was presented by the government.

I am pleased that the government now has taken into account several of the recommendations and has made improvements to this legislation. Therefore, although no one takes comfort in necessarily wanting to have these kinds of provisions as law, the fact is that in the kinds of times we are living in, sometimes we have to take difficult decisions to maintain peace in the country.

I believe that these provisions are appropriate, they are required, and they are now improved by the amendments that have been made in the way the legislation has been presented.

We take the issue of safety of Canadians very seriously. We also take the issue of liberty of Canadians very seriously. I believe that this improved legislation attempts to present that balance between those two sometimes competing and contending requirements and needs of any society like Canada.

Before I get into those changes, the member opposite on the government bench did actually provide a reasonable summary of the legislation. I believe that the legislation has been improved, and I will come to some of those changes.

First, any time an individual is to be detained by peace officers on the suspicion, on reasonable grounds, that he or she may be planning a terrorist activity, in order to prevent that, the individual obviously may be apprehended and presented to a judge.

I think one of the improvements that has been made in this legislation is that when we present that individual for detainment or at least released on bail with conditions possibly, the basis on which the detention is to be now ruled upon has been narrowed.

The scope of the grounds for detention by the Senate amendments has been narrowed and, therefore, the general clause on reasonable and just grounds that a judge may be able to detain the individual has been eliminated and the specific grounds that are only reasonable in the circumstances have been retained in this particular legislation.

I believe that improves this legislation and takes a certain degree of arbitrariness out of the hands of the presiding judge.

The second particular improvement that has been made by the amendments or the improvements that have been presented by the government is that in the previous legislation it was implicit and clear that the same judge who may have first heard the matter with respect to possible detention or bail would have to hear the matter.

Now in fact, as the legislation is presented, it makes room for any other judge of the provincial court to be able to hear the matter so that the matter can be dealt with expeditiously, and I believe that is very important.

One of the other amendments that has been made is the ability of any person ordered to attend the investigative hearing to deal with past terrorist activity or future potential terrorist activity. That person may retain counsel prior to the hearing, prior to the commencement of the hearing, or at any stage in the course of the hearing. That right to counsel, one of the fundamental rights that has been guaranteed all Canadians by common law and by charter, is now clearly mentioned and provided to those who may face investigative hearings, or of course the issue of detention.

These are unique and extraordinary remedies. When a person is picked up and asked to attend before a judge for an investigative hearing, it is only reasonable that the police officers involved should have made all reasonable efforts and attempts to actually get at the information they require through other regular means.

That requirement is now clearly placed in this legislation so that when police officers take a particular individual with the crown before a judge for an investigative hearing, either for past activity or potential future activity, one has to satisfy the judge that all of the reasonable efforts that could have been made to obtain that information without the use of this extraordinary remedy have been made.

I believe that actually provides some guarantee to individuals who may be asked to attend investigative hearings that the crown and the police have to make all reasonable efforts to get the evidence otherwise.

The new reporting provisions that are now in this legislation are that every year both the public safety minister and the attorney general, the minister of justice of Canada, have to provide annual reports to Parliament, and therefore to Canadians, indicating whether or not there is a continuing need to retain these provisions in the Criminal Code.

I believe that guarantees a certain degree of transparency and due diligence on the part of the government for Canadians, because Canadians need to know that these are extraordinary remedies and they are not being left on the books unnecessarily, that there is a continuing need. I think that is a very important change.

I believe that before the end of five years, before the sunset clause takes effect, there is now a mandatory provision for a review of both of the clauses in the Criminal Code with respect to bail and investigative hearings by both Houses of Parliament.

Either committee of either House, I believe, can complete that review. That is very important because this indicates that before we come to a situation as we did in the spring of last year where these decisions were made, where the government made no effort to change anything or take into account any of the recommendations that had been made by that date, that situation would not reoccur.

There is an obligation on the part of the House and the Senate, both or singularly, to actually engage in a mandatory review of these clauses and provide that report to Canadians and to the government.

Based on the four or five annual reports that would have been provided by both of the ministers and the last review before the end of five years, the government then can take those into account and determine whether or not these clauses ought to be renewed in the Criminal Code, and if they ought to be reviewed. Then the government would have all of the ammunition, so to speak, in its hands to be able to persuade the House and persuade Canadians that this is appropriate.

I believe there are several other changes that have been made that are very appropriate. One of the things that was heartening for me was to read the results of the reference that went to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to one of the clauses that is under discussion, and that is the investigative hearing clause.

I believe the Supreme Court in 2004 in that reference held that the clauses as they were, and they have now been further improved, did not infringe anyone's charter rights and did not violate the charter. They were within the four corners of the charter and they complied with the charter.

That is important for me because the charter is paramount. It is important. It defines and enshrines in our Constitution the rights of all Canadians, ordinary or not. It is important that we are always cognizant and mindful of the importance of the charter. Therefore, I am heartened to be able to read that decision from 2004 and see that all of those provisions, which are now being improved upon, are compliant with the charter.

Another thing I think is worth pointing out is that when the government brought these provisions in, in the first place, after 9/11, the government could have gone the route of invoking the Emergencies Act or the notwithstanding clause of the charter. The government did not do that.

The government wanted to ensure that these provisions were compliant with the charter and they were placed in ordinary legislation in the Criminal Code. I think that is a very important distinction.

That is why my reference to the Supreme Court review of 2004 is all the more important. It is important because when we try and seek extraordinary remedies to ensure the public safety and security of all Canadians, we try and do it within the four corners of the charter and be compliant with the charter.

I believe this bill commends itself to all members of the House. It is important. These are difficult decisions. For someone like me who comes from the background of civil liberties and human rights, it is very difficult sometimes to look at clauses like this and determine whether or not we need them.

I looked at the debates in the House that went on around the time of the original legislation, the presentations that were made to the committees, both for and against the continuance of these provisions, and in fact the current bill that is before us. Having looked at all of that and deliberated very conscientiously, I have come to the conclusion that these are important provisions, unique though they are, extraordinary as they are, nonetheless, they are absolutely, fundamentally important to maintain the safety and security of Canadians in extraordinary times that we are living in.

Other countries, Australia, U.K., and others, have similar remedies in their legislation. Their remedies are much more stringent and perhaps one might say that to some of us they may not be acceptable because they are so stringent.

Our remedies are stringent, but they are not too stringent and they are compliant with the charter. They are in conformity with our traditions, with the traditions of our charter, and the traditions of those who framed the charter and the common law traditions of liberty, freedom and justice of a country. It is important that we keep all of that in mind when we vote on it.

Having said that, I want to commend the work of the Senate in shepherding this legislation through in a way that was cooperative and collaborative on its part. The Senate ought to be credited with having made some of the changes that makes this bill much better than when it was first introduced in the Senate.

Therefore, I commend this bill to all members of Parliament. I stand in support of it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring balance in the legislation is one of the issues of concern to all of us in the House. Given the work that was done at the Senate, it meets a lot of our benchmarks.

Does my colleague have any concerns about the possible misuse of this legislation? We have not had to use it, thank goodness, and I hope we never need to. Is my colleague confident that there is a balance in the legislation that would protect people from having their constitutional rights abused? I would appreciate it if the hon. member could address that.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with tough laws, like the Criminal Code, there is absolutely no question that the system is not perfect and that there is always a danger of somebody somewhere doing something erroneous that one should not do.

However, I am comforted by the fact that in the five years that this law has been on the books in the Criminal Code, it has never been used, which means that all of the other tools were sufficient enough to deal with some of the issues that may have arisen. However, that does not mean that we will never have situations that will require the use of these extraordinary remedies, but I hope we never do. I am comfortable with all of the changes that have been made.

I believe there are enough checks and balances in the legislation so that when a judge is asked for an investigative hearing and the person is presented before a provincial court judge, the judge has no right to refuse any questions the individual might want to ask.

Initially, for an investigative hearing an individual could make an application ex parte, which is without notice, but the attorney general of the province had to give consent for that ex parte application. If no consent was forthcoming, the application had to be made with notice. Once there was notice, the individual could retain counsel.

It is similar for police officers who pick someone up without a warrant or with a warrant and take them before a provincial court judge and have him or her detained or released on certain conditions. The judge would have wide discretion under the new legislation to actually impose conditions upon release, which tells me that there may be fewer cases where there will be a need to detain an individual. We could actually be releasing individuals on bail with a wide variety of conditions.

The kind of discretion and the kinds of checks and balances that are clearly laid out in the legislation provide very little room for abuse. So far these provisions have not been used, which comforts me because that tells me that police officers and law enforcers are wise enough not to use these remedies in an ordinary fashion.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.

Could he give me just one example of a situation where a person should be brought before a judge to sign a recognizance in order to prevent a terrorist act from being committed? Such a thing could be handled better through regular application of the Criminal Code, especially the provisions authorizing a peace officer to arrest without warrant anyone he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we deal with hypotheticals and abstract issues, it becomes rather difficult. Under the ordinary Criminal Code provisions, I believe that the threshold is very high for someone to be arrested. These provisions have, implicit in them, serious terrorist activity, which is not like a regular criminal activity. Sometimes these are conspiracies that may be in the initial stages and we want to, if I might say, nip them in the bud. I believe these powers are extraordinary and that they will be useful under those circumstances.

I think it would be foolish of me to conjure up particular situations where it might or might not be used, but I can guarantee my colleague, who was the attorney general of Quebec when I was the attorney general of British Columbia, so we go back a long way together in these areas, that these are unique and extraordinary powers that may be useful. One never knows what will happen. So far, Canada has been generally blessed with peace. We have had our share of problems but we know Canada is on the hit list of terrorist organizations. I do not want our police officers and our law enforcement agencies to be without the use of these tools.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us now is very similar to the one that the House of Commons rejected some time ago. In fact, the changes are technical, and I believe there are three of them. As a result, our arguments for opposing Bill S-3 are essentially the same as those we made for excluding these provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act.

We are here because these provisions were part of a sunset clause, which said that these provisions would disappear if these powers were not renewed within five years. Since the House refused to renew them, the government wants to reintroduce them, this time through the Senate. The bill reproduces almost entirely the provisions that the House refused to renew.

What is more, the House's arguments against the provisions are simple, and we must stand firm. These provisions are completely useless in the fight against terrorism, particularly when we want to arrest someone, bring them before a judge and make them sign a recognizance. But these provisions could be used by a government that would like to discredit political opponents.

They also put the people who are meant to sign the recognizance in a terrible situation. They are arrested or receive a summons and are brought before a judge based on mere suspicions that they might be involved in a terrorist activity. If the judge believes that the suspicions are reasonable, that is, that there is reason to believe that a serious crime would be committed, the judge can force a person to sign a recognizance. He can imprison the individual only if that person refuses to sign the recognizance, which is valid for one year.

I imagine that this would not help with the arrest of a very dangerous terrorist, since he would immediately be released. However, for the danger we want to prevent with these other provisions, the Criminal Code states that a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is about to commit an indictable offence. He can therefore interrupt the crime. The individual is arrested and brought before a judge. The judge can refuse bail if he believes there is a real danger and that this person could commit a serious crime if he were released. In this case, the judge cannot do that. The judge can only ask the individual to sign a recognizance.

However, the person who was arrested, as an accused, can eventually defend himself and say that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds and that the individual had no intention of committing a crime. This person can present a full defence and be acquitted, or perhaps have the charges withdrawn, because the Crown would realize that the person had not committed a crime. This person could continue to participate in society, as he was doing before.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone in this situation. It is difficult for us because, as parliamentarians, we have reached a certain standing in society. Before, we also had careers that likely put us above these types of suspicions. But let us put ourselves in the shoes of an ordinary citizen, a young union activist who speaks out against injustices. But other people also speak out against these same injustices, but would rather use violence to change society.

The police could think that since this young man keeps company with people who have terrorist objectives, he could be involved in terrorist activities. Accordingly, they could make him appear before a judge and ask him to sign a similar recognizance. This young man could deny everything and swear that his actions are purely democratic, even though he knows those other people. If the judge finds that reasonable, under the law, relative to the severity of the terrorist act that could be committed, the judge can force him to sign a recognizance.

First of all, this individual will of course not go to prison. He will choose to sign the recognizance and be released. However, how will he be able to prove later on that those suspicions were completely unjustified? He will have no way to do so.

Let us consider the consequences of such a decision on that individual for the rest of his life. Does anyone believe he will be allowed entry into the United States if he tries to cross the border, having been the subject of a legal ruling forcing him to sign a recognizance in a context where there were concerns about possible terrorist activity? I am sure that individual would be denied entry. And what if his employer learns that he had to go to court to sign such a recognizance? In any case, these proceedings would likely be public. He would probably lose his job and have a hard time finding another one. Furthermore, I am convinced that he would appear on the no fly list, not only in the United States, but here too. He would have a hard time travelling to any other country.

This person would be stigmatized because a court ordered him to sign a recognizance to swear he will not carry out an act of terrorism. No one here has ever signed such a recognizance. The fact that someone is judicially forced to sign such a recognizance places a stigma on him that he will have to carry his whole life.

If anyone believes that these fears are unjustified, let us consider our past.

We had our own terrorists in the 1970s. They were not as dangerous as those we fear today, but they nevertheless caused the death of one person. Naturally, the killing of a minister horrified the population and also created tremendous fear. More than 500 suspects were jailed in one fell swoop. Five or six years later we had to compensate all of them. They included a popular singer, Pauline Julien, and her husband, Gérald Godin, who later became the minister of immigration and cultural communities and one of the best ever in Quebec. He was also a poet.

With the exception of one or two, all candidates in upcoming municipal elections who were members of FRAP were arrested. The parents, brothers and sisters of these people were detained.

There are times when we lose our reflex to defend a free society by respecting the freedoms of all and we feel obligated to restrict the rights of certain individuals.

I completely understand that the current international terrorist crisis and its consequences are worrisome. Yet I have not heard anyone reconcile the stigma that would be attached to the persons who have to sign these recognizance orders and the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism.

What do we think makes the secret service suspect that an individual is about to commit a terrorist act or will be involved in one? Judge O'Connor gave us a good example in the Maher Arar affair. It was believed that Maher Arar was involved in terrorist movements because he was seen walking in the rain, umbrella in hand, with someone who was also a suspect.

Apparently it is more difficult, even impossible, to record conversations when people are walking around under an umbrella. It has never occurred to me to criticize secret agents for operating on suspicion. Foiling terrorist plots is their job. Since these are secret organizations, these agents try to remain inconspicuous and analyze suspicions. It is normal for them to have suspicions.

However, they do not do surveillance on everyone. They target people of interest. A person of interest can be an individual who lends his car to a suspected terrorist, or people who take part in democratic organizations to denounce such injustices.

I am not criticizing these agents for having suspicions, but those suspicions must not have legal consequences. Those consequences happen because of suspicions; that is the criterion.

I want to say a few words about what the member before me said. He compared the degree of certainty we must have to arrest someone who is about to commit an indictable offence with the degree of certainty of our suspicions—can suspicions really be certain?—or rather the degree of knowledge or fear that pushes someone to make an individual appear before a judge to sign such a recognizance. In order to arrest someone without warrant because he is about to commit an crime, one must have reasonable grounds. It is true that this requires a little more than reasonable suspicion.

How do the police come up with their suspicions? By watching the people the individual spends time with. It is inevitable that some of the people who spend time with a person under police surveillance have nothing to do with terrorism. Therefore, it is also inevitable that people who have nothing to do with terrorism will be under suspicion.

I understand that surveillance of those people will continue. I understand, for example, that there may have been a good reason to keep Maher Arar under surveillance. The mistake made in the Maher Arar case is that he was clearly designated as a person of interest. A person of interest is not someone believed to be involved in the terrorist movement, but a person who has been observed among the entourage of those who are suspected, to be more precise, of being part of terrorist movements. That is the difference.

Now, instead of reasonable grounds, reasonable suspicion is enough. It is true that it is a small detail. However, I hope everyone grasps the potential stigma that could result from such a ruling by a court that orders someone, under the threat of imprisonment, to promise to comply with a number of conditions, including to stop participating in terrorist plots, of course.

When the police suspect someone is about to take action, to the point that they would make that person sign the recognizance, it is usually after wiretapping or something more substantial than just a suspicion. That being the case, the police probably have proof of a plot or the beginnings of a plot. And the plot, as well as its preparations, are considered criminal offences.

If it is important to intervene to prevent these plots from being carried out or ensure that the preparations are not completed, to the point that the individual is arrested and taken before a judge, it must mean that we have enough evidence to lay charges.

Yet laying charges allows the individual to go through the legal system and be acquitted, if that person is innocent. In the current situation, that person will carry the stigma of having been closely linked to terrorism and for the rest of his life will face all the major problems this could entail, given international travel these days.

I wanted to talk about something, but I have forgotten what it was. I will probably talk about it another time. I have been getting ready to give this speech since Monday, but it has been postponed repeatedly. About 15 minutes ago, I was told that I would be speaking now, but I do not have my notes.

Another thing that strikes me is how reluctant the rest of Canada is to look at what we are doing in Quebec. I am saying this to many nationalists whom I respect and who are not yet sovereignists. I was not born a sovereignist, I became one, as many others have done. I still understand that many Quebec nationalists in this House often look on Canada as an ideal. With two different cultures—we have two different languages and therefore different backgrounds—two sources of inspiration, two sources of reasoning, we could have a wonderful society built on the two languages that have played such an important role in the civilization we enjoy today. I understand those people. But I would have thought that both parties would benefit as a result. One party, inspired by the successes of the other, could take a page from the other's book, and the other party could learn from mistakes that were made and avoid repeating those mistakes. However, for many years now, it seems that successful initiatives in Quebec that could serve as a model for federal legislation have been systematically and completely ignored.

A good example of this was given here when a bill was introduced to amend the Young Offenders Act. The youth crime rate in Canada was 50% higher than in Quebec. Quebec had taken very seriously the old law, which was concerned with rehabilitating young offenders. In fact, the chief justice of the youth court in Quebec had summarized in a few choice words the Quebec courts' approach to young offenders: the right measure at the right time. Today, when he talks to me about the new law, he says that we used to judge a young person who had committed an offence; today, we judge an offence that was committed by a young person.

I know that in the west, for all sorts of reasons, people were terribly afraid of young offenders. People said that all they get is a slap on the wrist. The government decided to make a change and create a completely objective system that, in my opinion, does not produce the results Quebec had gotten.

Here, we have yet another example. We experienced terrorism and the reaction it elicits from those in power. Once again, we are unable to learn from those who lived through it.

I was a young lawyer at the time. In the 1970s—you can imagine that I was much younger than today—we had legal assistance. The difference between legal assistance and legal aid is that we were not paid. The young members of the Bar defended people. I defended many people accused of terrorism.

I learned a thing or two and I am realizing that these provisions could very well be used when the government panics. It has not done so in the past five years and that is a good thing. However, when such provisions are put into the Criminal Code, someone will find a way of using them eventually. In turbulent times, it could become a weapon used by a government to discredit its adversaries.

I believe that I have proven that not only is this bill futile, it is also dangerous. The risks of this bill outweigh by far its supposed advantages.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say for the member across the way that I was 23 years old in 1970 and had yet to become a member of the New Democratic Party. In 1970 the New Democratic Party stood up against the War Measures Act because it was invasive of the rights of Quebeckers and those of the rest of Canadians. In my opinion, it was an affront to democracy as we know it.

I want to speak a little more about what the member was saying with regard to what I would refer to as natural law: the fact that people have a right to know what they are accused of and the right to know the evidence against them. We have seen the move by the government to prevent that. It was drawn to mind with what occurred yesterday with the so-called Toronto 18 when a number of them had the charges against them stayed. That is just an example of a system that took some time but did work.

However, in my opinion, these provisions are terrible and take away that sense of natural justice in Canada. Would you agree with that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to address his questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this issue. I do not think I used the words “natural law”. Indeed, what I had in mind was the natural tendencies of humans, who need limits.

There is a minority in Canada that clearly understood. We are very similar to the NDP, except for our views on the sovereignty of Quebec and, generally speaking, the usefulness of the current Constitution. Otherwise, we are very similar. One must have lived through that time, however, to have felt the strength of the popular movements that called for punishment and were ready to dispense with all the principles of law to which we were accustomed.

It is to the credit of the member who asked the question, and to those around him, to be aware of that and have the courage to stand firm before an opinion, which I feel sometimes verges on hysteria.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak against Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions). I think I will be making some of the points that have been made by my colleague who spoke just before me.

I am proud that the NDP is once again taking a stand against the Conservative government for going too far. It is not being proud to take a stand against the government, but I will take a stand against a government that I think has gone too far in pursuing its national security agenda. We all believe it is important, but it is being done at the expense of civil liberties.

Ensuring public safety is essentially about protecting Canadians' quality of life. Quality of life can be defined in many ways. If we talk to our family members or next door neighbours, they would define quality of life in a variety of ways, perhaps by where they live, where they work, by their environment, whatever that might be.

In deeper conversation, though, I think two things would come out. There is the importance of finding a balance between security and freedom.

Security means feeling safe, feeling that our country and our communities are safe, feeling that we can safely go out on the street, and feeling that the federal government, our country, is protecting us. As well, Canadians want to see that security balanced with freedoms, because freedoms are something that Canadians hold dear as a principle of being Canadian.

There are the freedoms to which we are entitled, the freedoms which people have fought for and the freedoms which we enjoy on a daily basis and often do not even take the time to perhaps think about or make a list of or talk to people about. Although if we turn on the television most evenings, we would certainly be able to see countries in which many or most of those freedoms are not available to people.

For some reason, the Conservative government is either unwilling or unable to find that balance, as it has proven by introducing Bill S-3 and by the security certificate legislation that we debated in this House in January, which has some similarity to this legislation.

With both of these pieces of legislation, the Conservatives are taking the wrong approach, or an unbalanced approach, to fighting terrorism in Canada. Do we need to fight terrorism in Canada? Of course we do, but there are many tools at our disposal currently in the Criminal Code that could be used as opposed to introducing yet another set or piece of legislation.

Our country already has many appropriate mechanisms in place for charging people, for trying people and for punishing those suspected of participating in terrorist activities. These mechanisms are contained in the Criminal Code of Canada, a very significant piece of legislation which ensures that our country is protected, as I said earlier, from those who seek to do harm to others while ensuring fundamental rights are protected.

The NDP always has opposed and always will oppose any attempt to undermine those fundamental rights and freedoms upon which our judicial system was founded. Our system was founded on responsibility and freedom, which go hand in hand.

That is why we oppose the security certificate legislation. That is why we are opposed to Bill S-3. I do not think we are alone in this at all.

Many Liberals, and even some Conservatives, may privately admit that Bill S-3 is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. Certainly we saw many Liberals saying that over Bill C-3. However, knowing that this bill is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally wrong-headed did not stop the Conservatives from introducing Bill S-3 through the other door in the Senate, so to speak, the back door in the Senate, and it will not stop the Liberals, I expect, from allowing the legislation to pass.

Once again, the NDP--and I believe the Bloc, as I have just heard some of the comments--is left as the voice of reason, fighting to protect Canadian values that some other parties only pay lip service to.

Let us look at one key component of Bill S-3: the establishment of investigative hearings. These hearings would force an individual we suspect--we do not know anything, we just suspect--might have information about terrorist activity that has happened, or may happen, to testify before a judge. It forces individuals against whom we have no charge to testify before a judge.

This marks a major shift in Canadian law, which is based on a right to remain silent.

If the individual refuses to speak, he or she will be arrested and sent to prison for as long as a year, on no charge except that he or she might, we think, based on something somebody else said, know something. I am not sure whether most Canadians would consider that to be a balance between freedom and security.

As I say, the individual might go to prison for as long as a year. To some people this may not seem unreasonable at first glance. Certainly the NDP believes that anyone with knowledge of terrorist activity should be investigated and questioned. We would not deny that at all. However, we already have provisions in place under the Criminal Code of Canada for questioning those involved in criminal activity. Otherwise, we would have nobody brought before a judge and nobody arrested.

We do have the means within the Criminal Code to question people involved in criminal activity. If people think someone is involved in a terrorist activity or that something might happen or they might know that something is criminal activity, I would suggest that we have within our system a way to deal with that.

We do not need a special provision for interrogating witnesses that has a one year prison sentence as a consequence for appearing uncooperative. An individual goes before a judge. He or she may not have any information whatsoever or may wish to remain silent. Let us say that somebody says the individual appears to be or is uncooperative. We then have the right to send him or her to jail for up to a year.

That is outrageous. That is not acceptable. It is indeed acceptable to question under the Criminal Code people suspected of terrorist activity. It is not acceptable for people to be placed in jail for a year with no charge whatsoever because they appear to be uncooperative.

This undermines our current judicial system, which ensures that those who have knowledge of crimes but refuse to divulge that information face criminal charges themselves. That is what our criminal system says. Those who have knowledge of crimes and refuse to divulge it will face criminal charges.

Investigative hearings would grant new powers outside of what is normally allowed under the Criminal Code. It is an extraordinary tool that is subject to dangerous misuse. We can all stand in this House and say that it would never be misused. I do not know how often we have stood in this House or in other places of government or in our communities and said, “That is not how we meant it to be used”. It is there and there is the possibility for misuse.

Denis Barrette of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group appeared before the Senate committee examining Bill S-3 and spoke of the possible dangers involved in investigative hearings. He pointed out that investigative hearings allow for the compelled testimony of individuals involved in protest or dissidence entirely unrelated to our everyday understanding of terrorism. It may not be the intention, but it allows for that.

Mr. Barrette is right. Bill S-3 exposes many law-abiding Canadians to frivolous harassment and possibly even incarceration. It is a very slippery slope and one which the NDP will not condone.

This is not the only problem with investigative hearings. When the Supreme Court of Canada studied investigative hearings in 2004, it was clear that testimony gathered during the proceedings must not be used against the witness. I need to repeat this. Testimony gathered during the proceedings must not be used against the witness.

Bill S-3 does not follow the Supreme Court's direction. The legislation currently before us states that information gathered in an investigative hearing cannot be used in a criminal hearing, but the Supreme Court was clear that information gathered through an investigative hearing cannot be used against the individual in any kind of proceeding, criminal, extradition, or otherwise.

It is unclear, given this obvious disregard for what the Supreme Court of Canada has said on this matter, whether Bill S-3 would survive a challenge, as we have said about Bill C-3, but whether or not Bill S-3 is constitutional is not the issue being debated today. I call on my colleagues in this House to join with the NDP and defeat this legislation so that a Supreme Court challenge is never required. That is part one of Bill S-3.

The second part is recognizance with conditions. This is a very controversial part of Bill S-3, recognizance with conditions, or what is called preventive detention.

I am extremely disappointed to see preventive detention included in this legislation because it violates a basic tenet of our justice system, as I said earlier, that a person must be proven to be guilty of doing something or plotting something in order to be detained. That is not the case in Bill S-3.

Recognizance with conditions would allow law enforcement officials to arrest and hold people with no evidence against them. Furthermore, upon release, these individuals would be subject to conditions similar to a peace bond, but unlike a peace bond, the individuals released with conditions may have done nothing wrong. The purpose of this provision, we are told, is to allow law enforcement--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I hate to have to interrupt the hon. member, but she will have about four minutes left when this bill comes back before the House.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-13.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #90

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the amendment lost.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I will be speaking today about my private member's bill C-384 at second reading. This is my first ever private member's bill in the House, and I am very proud of what it contains and its message. I am sure that my distinguished colleagues will understand the importance and scope of this bill and that, ultimately, they will support it.

Bill C-384 amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence to prohibit hate-motivated acts of mischief against an identifiable group at an educational institution. The term “educational institution” would cover a range of institutions or community places, such as a school, daycare centre, college, university, community centre, playground, sports centre and many others.

There are two fundamentals elements we must take note of. The first is the fight against hate crimes. The second is the protection of places recognized as belonging to identifiable groups. In my opinion, these are two very laudable goals that will benefit all of our communities both on the social and cultural level.

I want to start off by saying that we live in a society known for its openness to the other and to difference. Our tolerance is the envy of the world. It is reflected in the social harmony underpinning all of our communities. However, there will always be people or groups seeking to disturb that social harmony, to spread base, degrading intolerance.

In general, they carry out their plans using the vilest, most reactionary ideas and actions imaginable. Studies have looked at hate crime activity nationally. One of these, the Department of Justice's 1995 study, showed that 61% of 1,000 hate crimes reported to police were perpetrated against racial minorities. That same proportion showed up again in another study conducted in 2002.

Offenders' second favourite target is religious communities, and these crimes are typically committed by anti-Semitic groups.

The third and fourth most common motives for hate crimes were sexual orientation and ethnic origin. According to several studies, individuals' reasons for committing hate crimes are varied.

I am more concerned about some of these reasons because they can easily result in mischief against educational institutions. Many people consider minorities to be scapegoats for ills that befall people and society. Others express their resentment of a minority's economic success. Some have inherited hatred and animosity from previous generations. Sadly, mischief-makers think that they have their society's tacit consent.

Nevertheless, we already have some legislative provisions to counter this kind of harmful behaviour. Initially, the definition of hate crime could be found in the sections in the Criminal Code on hate propaganda, sections 318 and 319, to be precise, which address advocating genocide, inciting hatred and wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group. The definition of “identifiable group” includes any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

In 1996, section 718.2 was amended to allow the 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 or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor”. Thanks to this amendment, the courts can now consider hate an aggravating circumstance.

Section 430(1) of the Criminal Code pertains to the general offence of mischief and prohibits damage to property. Section 430(4.1) covers a subcategory of the offence of mischief: mischief relating to religious property such as churches, mosques and synagogues. But is this enough to protect identifiable groups?

Some might be tempted to believe that hate crimes against educational or cultural institutions are infrequent or are committed by only a handful of individuals in a specific area.

But when we read the headlines, we see that more and more acts of violence are targeting schools and community centres.

I would like to share three recent examples with my colleagues.

On August 28, 2007, the Euclide-Lanthier elementary school in Aylmer was the target of a hate crime when one or more vandals covered one wall of the school with two anti-francophone and homophobic messages. The parents were shocked and disappointed that people would write such things on their school. They rightly believe that their children do not need to read such crude language.

On July 18, 2007, the third fire in two weeks broke out at a Jewish summer camp in Val-David, adding to the group's concern. One or more suspects broke into five homes in this community and tried to set them on fire. They succeeded in completely destroying one and damaging at least two others.

On September 3, 2006, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a Jewish school in the Outremont area of Montreal. For the second time in less than two years, a Jewish school in Montreal was the scene of a criminal act. In April 2004, a youth had targeted the library of the United Talmed Torahs elementary school in the Ville Saint-Laurent area of Montreal.

My colleagues will notice that I am using examples from Quebec to show that even a society as multicultural as ours, which has a low crime rate compared to the rest of North America, is no exception to the rule. Thus the need to create an additional offence specifically to address mischief against certain categories of buildings used or occupied by an identifiable group of persons.

Citing all the incidents that have occurred across Canada could have been a speech in and of itself, but that is not the purpose of my speech. I want people to understand the need to create this new offence against the educational institutions of identifiable groups. In my opinion, this would add another building block to tolerance and respect for our differences.

Second, the relevance of my bill is not just based on facts alone. It comes from a specific request from a number of organizations that defend identifiable groups. I am referring in particular to the Canadian Jewish Congress, which has been calling for this change to the Criminal Code for five years.

The need for this change has resulted in widespread support for my bill from groups and agencies from all walks of life. Promoting hatred against people is denying them a certain value as human beings and denying them the respect and dignity they deserve.

I want to acknowledge the support I have received from the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose director of intergovernmental relations, Éric Vernon, told me that more than 1,000 acts of anti-Semitism were committed in 2007 alone; Laurent McCutcheon, president of Gai écoute, who indicated that the gay community is still the target of aggressive behaviour and vicious comments; the president of Médias Maghreb, Lamine Foura, who pointed out that the Muslim community is a regular target of violence by certain individuals, as evidenced by the deplorable acts of vandalism committed in January 2007 against a Muslim school in Montreal; Dan Philip, president of the Black Coalition, who would like stronger legislation to allow all minority groups to live in peace without fear of threats and violent actions committed to intimidate them; and finally, Algonquin Chief Stephen McGregor, who told me about a sad incident involving an aboriginal cultural centre in Maniwaki, which was the target of racist graffiti.

But apart from organizations that defend the rights of identifiable groups, I am pleased to have received the support of two members who are well known for their fine contributions to the work of Parliament, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I greatly appreciate their support, which demonstrates the solidarity that parliamentarians can enjoy when a cause deserves to be moved forward.

This strong support surrounding the need to amend the Criminal Code to combat hate crimes more effectively says a lot. It shows us that we need to act as quickly as possible so that the Criminal Code can reflect the needs of our communities as much as possible. I would remind the House that, basically, hate crimes cause disproportionate harm to the individual and the entire group he or she identifies with. Let us imagine for a moment all the psychological harm caused by the destruction of a community space linked to one's identity.

This largely demonstrates why crimes motivated by hate are often more violent than crimes committed with other motives.

Most importantly, hate crimes invariably cause collateral damage to our communities. That is perhaps the most devastating consequence, because it leads to division within our communities.

As I was saying earlier, in a society like ours, we expect all groups to live together in harmony and equality. From that perspective, hate crimes are an abomination that literally deny all the fundamental values we espouse.

I will close by reiterating that Bill C-384, by creating a new offence involving mischief against educational or other institutions, will send a clear message that our society does not tolerate acts of violence against places that are occupied by or used by identifiable groups. That goes for all groups, without exception, including homosexuals, Muslims, Jews or any other group.

In short, we will send a message that we, as parliamentarians, will not tolerate violent acts motivated by the hatred of one group or community. This new offence will allow us to punish not only the material damage to the building, but above all the morally unacceptable nature of the feeling of hatred that motivated such action towards an identifiable group.

Moreover, Bill C-384 provides a perfect opportunity for the Conservative government to turn words into action. Recently, I was reading some of the Minister of Public Safety's news releases. Every time he visited an institution which was the target of a hate crime, he expressed his indignation and his sympathy for the affected community. Unfortunately, his government has not yet done anything to curb this kind of mischief.

The time is now. He should take this opportunity to act on his ideas. My bill addresses the problem he himself has condemned. All I am asking for is his government's strong support in order to move this bill through the legislative process quickly.

Communities whose educational institutions have been affected by malicious people will always be able to count on the Bloc Québécois and its members to understand their concerns and fight for them.

I would therefore invite all of my colleagues and all parties to wholeheartedly support my bill. This is a step in the right direction. It supports our sense of openness and confirms loud and clear that we believe in the benefits of harmonious social integration.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to speak to Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution), a private member's bill introduced by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

Bill C-384 proposes to add a new offence to the mischief portion of the Criminal Code. Specifically, it would propose to add the existing mischief provision to make it a specific offence, with increased penalties, when the mischief is committed against an educational or recreational institution that is used exclusively or principally by an identifiable group.

This new provision would apply if it could be established that the perpetrator's mischievous act was motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred.

This new provision would apply if the mischief occurred in relation to the property, that is, the building, that is used exclusively or principally by that group and as included, this would apply to an educational institute, including a school, a day care, a college or a university; a community centre; a playground, an arena or a sports centre; or any other institution with an administrative, social, cultural, educational or recreational function; or in relation to an object associated with an institution; or on the grounds of that institution.

In 2001 an offence of religious mischief was added to the mischief provision of the Criminal Code. Subsection 430(4.1) was enacted to respond to vandalism and threats against religious property, mostly Muslim, that followed the terrorist events of September 11, 2001.

That 2001 offence, subsection 430(4.1), made it a specific crime to commit mischief in relation to property, that is, a building or structure, or part thereof, primarily used for religious worship, including a church, a mosque or a synagogue, or a cemetery, where the commission of the mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin.

The new offence proposed by Bill C-384, like the 2001 offence of mischief against religious property, calls for an increased penalty over and above what exists in the current legislation. The proposed amendment would increase from 6 to 18 months the maximum penalty on summary convictions for mischief against the property listed in the bill.

Additionally, it would increase the maximum penalty, when prosecuted by indictment, from a maximum term not exceeding 2 years to a maximum of 10 years for property that is under the value of $5,000.

The objective of the bill would seem to send a message to all Canadians that we do not tolerate acts that are directed toward institutions in Canada that are used by what is defined in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code as an identifiable group.

There are of course other initiatives under way that work toward promoting diversity. One of them is Canada's action plan against racism. This initiative is a concerted and coordinated effort by federal departments and agencies to combat racism. The action plan is designated and designed to contribute to the long term goals of strength in communities and the realization of economic potential for all Canadians.

The action plan includes new and expanded initiatives to be undertaken by a number of departments, including Canadian Heritage, Justice Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Human Resources and Social Development.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has a lead on Canada's action plan against racism and is responsible for reporting to all Canadians through the annual report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Activities undertaken under the action plan support the values and principles embodied in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Canada's action plan is an example of work that the federal government is doing to promote equality before the law, and equality and respect for the people who make up our rich and diverse nation.

In Canada, we do not tolerate acts that are motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred, and we should continue to work together to ensure that all of our laws fully respect this fundamental value.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. I would like to congratulate my colleague for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for her valiant effort in bringing this bill before the House. The objective of the bill is praiseworthy and necessary, particularly as we approach the fourth anniversary of the bombing of the United Talmud Torah elementary school in Montreal. Hate attacks against cultural communities in Canada continue. Allow me to provide an overview of certain recent incidents.

In September 2006, the Skver-Toldos Orthodox Jewish school for boys in Outremont was firebombed a few hours after the end of the school day.

In January 2007, the Jeunes Musulmans Canadiens (JMC) school in the Saint-Laurent—Cartierville borough was vandalized. Twenty windows were broken and a school bus damaged. That was not the first time the school had been vandalized.

In June 2007, the Kitigan Zibi cultural centre was vandalized and damaged. White supremacist symbols and slogans were painted on the walls of this Algonquin cultural centre.

In March 2008, vandals covered the door to the gay lounge at Ryerson University with homophobic graffiti, including the slogan “Gays must be exterminated”. The incident occurred one month after a gay student was attacked on campus.

I will not read out quotes to the House on the hate crimes reported in Canada, since I think my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant painted a good picture.

I would, however, like to bring up a point about these statistics and data. Usually the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics collects data on hate crimes. Unfortunately, since the 1999 study, there have been no national data on hate crimes. The centre has not collected any data on the subject, so we have only partial data. We get information from police forces or cities that collect data on hate crimes. I think it is very important to update our data on hate crimes.

In its 1999 report, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics established the important link between data collection on hate crimes and the fight against hate crimes. To be successful, we need to have reliable data on the people in question, the facts of the situation, the circumstances, the location of the crimes, the frequency of the crimes, the number of victims and the perpetrators of the crimes. The data will define the problem, the target and the causes, and will help ensure the law is obeyed. Answers to these questions are important to evaluate the needs of victims and communities and to determine what action the police should take.

The 1999 study came to three major conclusions. First, hate crime victims are less satisfied with the actions taken by the police than those who were victims of other types of crimes. Whereas 29% of victims of other types of crimes were dissatisfied with police responses, the proportion jumped to 47% for victims of hate crimes.

Second, young people are the main targets of hate crimes. Persons between the ages of 15 and 24 had experienced hate crimes the most, with a rate twice that of the next highest age group.

Third, 30% of incidents targeted public institutions, often educational institutions.

Legislation is required to address these issues, to increase the consequences of hate motivated crimes, to deter potential criminals from targeting our cultural communities.

We need to demonstrate that there are serious consequences for hate driven acts of mischief, and Bill C-384 accomplishes just that.

Racist, xenophobic or homophobic acts of vandalism represent more than simple mischief. They are traumatic assaults not only on the victims of crime, but on society at large. Thus, by increasing penalties for hate motivated mischief, Bill C-384 represents an important step in bringing justice to those who violate not only the laws of the land but also the values of pluralism and tolerance that all Canadians hold dear.

Bill C-384 would make it an offence to commit an act of mischief against an identifiable group of persons at an educational institution, including a school, day care centre, college or university, or at a community centre, playground, arena, or sports centre.

It expands upon legislation which, as my colleague from the government side mentioned, was passed in 2001, which made it an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Currently those convicted of mischief or vandalism against educational institutions can face sentences of only up to two years. This bill, by grouping these vicious attacks in the same category as attacks against religious buildings or cemeteries, would increase the maximum sentence from two years to ten years.

In its present form, the bill only addresses acts of mischief rooted in ethnocultural, sexual, racial and religious prejudices. It might be appropriate to amend the proposed legislation so as to include hate targeting linguistic minority communities. Amending the bill to include discrimination based on language would send a strong message of support to our linguistic minority communities across Canada.

The relevance of including our official languages linguistic minority communities is that this very week the Regional Association of West Quebecers received an email from a group which threatened to put, and I quote, “lead in their heads”, in French, “du plomb dans la tête”.

In addition to increasing punishment for acts of mischief against identifiable groups, there is also a need to help vulnerable groups protect themselves against attacks. This would require the government to offset the increased security costs incurred by vulnerable communities in guarding their institutions against hate crimes.

The current government has created a pilot project which is financed with some $3 million. This is good. It is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step.

In 2004 Canada's principal Jewish organizations estimated that it would take approximately $8 million to undertake minimum investments to upgrade the security of their infrastructures, schools and community centres.

Officials from the Taldos Yakov Yosef school, which was attacked in September 2006, had to launch an appeal to raise $150,000 for repairs and security enhancements to that private Orthodox Jewish school.

It was precisely because of my concern with these increased costs incurred by victims of crime, who through no fault of their own were having to fork the bill to ensure the security of their institutions, that in 2004 I wrote a letter to the then prime minister, to the then deputy prime minister, and to the then minister of justice recommending the creation of a national fund for security infrastructure and training for communities with a high risk of victimization by hate crimes and terrorist attacks.

I am proud that last week the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, announced that a Liberal government would invest $75 million in a fund designed to protect at risk communities. That announcement represents the culmination of vigorous study and consultation by the Liberal Party's task force on cultural communities at risk, which was chaired by my colleague from Thornhill. The task force consulted with the communities that are most at risk at being victimized by hate crimes.

In conclusion, I support Bill C-384.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hochelaga on a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, without taking too much of the time of the House, might I ask a question, with the unanimous consent of the House, on a point of order?

I do not understand the government's position on the bill we are debating. Could the member for Peace River simply state, yes or no, if he intends to support the measure before the House?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

At this time we are in the period of debate. Questions may only be directed to the member moving the motion.

I know that the hon. member for Hochelaga is quite diligent. There will be other presentations by other members of the front benches. I hope that at that point he will have a better understanding of the government's position.

In the meantime, the hon. member for Outremont has the floor.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the NDP about Bill C-384, put forward by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

The purpose of this bill is to improve and update existing provisions of the Criminal Code. These provisions already state that if an act is committed against a place of worship, the penalty can be increased. This was in response to a number of tragic events throughout Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

What we are doing here is broadening the scope. It would apply not only to places of worship, but also, for example, schools or possibly sports centres. It could even include libraries or other places patronized by members of a group specifically referred to in existing regulations, also known as identifiable groups.

I am going to pick up the pass from the Bloc member who asked a question. We had the opportunity to hear from the person who tabled the bill, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, supported by the NDP and the official opposition. They made their points clearly.

Even though, as you stated, Mr. Speaker, we are not allowed to ask questions or make comments at this stage to a government member, I can still say that I am not very far away from the member in question. I spoke to the member for Peace River after his presentation, because I too did not understand whether or not the Conservatives were going to support the bill. He replied, with a little smile, “You will see.” So, I was not the only one, nor was the Bloc member who just spoke the only one who was unsure whether or not the Conservatives were going to support the bill.

I can say that we will be watching the Conservatives very closely. All things being equal, the support of the official opposition, the Bloc and the NDP should be more than enough to win the vote. But recent events concerning sexual orientation have made us very wary of the Conservatives' attitude.

I held a press conference with a gay man from Malaysia who was facing possible deportation. According to Amnesty International, which is helping us with his case, the penal code in Malaysia orders up to 20 years in prison and in some cases even lashings for one's sexual orientation. Despite that, the Conservatives proceeded with his deportation, even though he had been in Montreal for years. He was not a risk to anyone, he contributed to society and could have been an excellent citizen.

Then there were the clearly homophobic remarks uttered by a Conservative member. The response was: “That was a long time ago. He has since changed his mind. He said he was sorry.” True, but the fact remains that that is part of a bigger picture.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Outremont, being a member in good standing, certainly cannot stand here and say that homophobic remarks were made by a member of the Conservative Party. I was in the House that day. I heard no homophobic remarks. I did see the member for Outremont go a little wild and climb over desks, but I did not hear any homophobic remarks and I do not believe that is parliamentary language in any sense.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am standing so that means the hon. member for Outremont sits. I doubt that the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is rising on a point of order. It is more a point of debate. We will go back to the hon. member for Outremont, who I am sure is going to steer back to the debate at hand.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the remarks made by one of his colleagues that made the headlines last week. And I am not talking about the remarks made by his colleague when he interrupted me in the House, but the clearly homophobic remarks that his other colleague made several years ago. He apologized, but they are nevertheless part of the issue we are debating here this evening. Indeed, we are discussing a legislative amendment aimed at protecting groups that are identifiable because of their minority status. The bill aims to increase sentences not only in the case of places of worship, but also for example in the case of a school or sports centre, or anywhere identifiable groups get together.

I was simply summarizing recent events here. The member in question, who just rose in error, as was so rightly pointed out, alluded to the fact that when I was defending the rights of that gay man who was to be deported to Malaysia, I was constantly interrupted by shouts from the Conservatives, which is another indication of what they really think about this.

Back to what I was saying. Hatred is already considered an aggravating factor in sentencing, and places of worship are already protected. The New Democratic Party supports the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant's proposal because it broadens that protection. What remains to be seen is whether the Conservative Party, which is currently Canada's minority government, will vote in favour of or against this bill.

The only answer I was able to get from the member for Peace River was, “We will see”. That is not very reassuring. What we have seen up to now is not very reassuring for identifiable groups. Therefore, we will wait, because he told us we would see, but we will be keeping a very close eye on the Conservatives.

They say that one is judged not by one's words, but by one's actions. It is one thing to say that homophobic statements made years ago by a sitting member of Parliament no longer represent that member's thoughts, and that he is sorry. It is one thing to say that we have a neutral immigration policy when people are being deported to countries where they will be in real danger because in those counties, it is illegal to be homosexual. That is what the Conservative government is really doing, and I highly doubt it is mere coincidence.

Sometimes people ask me how things work here. I often tell them that the only thing I see that they do not see when they watch the debates on television is the behaviour of the members in the House. When the Conservatives have an opportunity to amend a long-standing Canadian policy in order to request clemency for Canadians sentenced to death in other countries, I watch their reactions in the House. They are handling these files in a way that will keep their political base happy. They know exactly what they are doing. The member for Peace River's sardonic smile says a lot about the Conservatives' real attitude.

All I am asking is that the Conservatives prove me wrong by voting. I hope that they will support Bill C-384, which, as I said, has the support of three of the four parties here. Today would be a very good day if we could agree on this. As the member said, we will see.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate my colleague for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant who is introducing her first bill. You know that I am very much in favour of private members' bills. I wish we had two hours of debate each day. When we introduce a private member's bill, we do so because of our personal convictions or, of course,—and often for both reasons—the interests that we wish to promote for our citizens.

I doubly congratulate the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who is making an important contribution that is cause for celebration to all those in this House—and there are many—interested in human rights.

I also appreciated the speech by my colleague for Outremont. It reminded me of when I was in this House, in 1996, and my colleague Svend Robinson, member for Burnaby at the time, introduced a bill that the Conservatives did not support. The Conservatives were the official opposition then.

My colleague Svend Robinson introduced a bill, referred to as the hate crimes bill, to amend s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the aggravating circumstances enabling a judge to impose a harsher sentence for individuals who engage in reprehensible conduct. At the time, sexual orientation was to be added. In major Canadian cities, including Montreal and Ottawa, gays had been beaten up just because they had a different sexual orientation.

Section 430, of course, and section 434.1 which covers places of worship, were added. We were at the juncture of two phenomena. The first was the protection of religious freedom guaranteed by the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter. The Supreme Court supported a subjective view of religious freedom. This means that it is not necessary to worship by adopting the practices of the religion to which one belongs; it is enough to profess a sincere and genuine expression of faith.

Today, the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant is taking it one step further not only by protecting religious freedom but also by protecting places of significance to identifiable communities. I will come back to that.

These places of special significance are, of course, educational institutions, daycare centres, colleges, universities, community centres, playgrounds, arenas and sports centres. The member was wise to broaden the protection, because these are all potential gathering places for various identifiable communities.

Even though Canada and Quebec have a long tradition of peace, respect and tolerance for all sorts of social, sociological and historical reasons, the fact is that, year after year, certain groups are singled out. Certain cultural communities are more likely to be targeted than others. In Montreal and other cities, synagogues have been set on fire. Certain cemeteries have been desecrated.

When a bill is as important as this one, all partisan considerations should be set aside. That is why I am concerned, shocked and disappointed that this government has not found a way to state clearly, during this first hour of debate, that it will support the bill. My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has suggested an amendment, and we are open to that. It does her credit that she is trying to improve the bill.

Under certain circumstances in Parliament, our opinion may not be final. We may want to hear witnesses and steer the debate in one direction or another. Personally, I feel it is extremely sensible to suggest that we also consider linguistic groups that may be targets of abuse or mischief.

I find it troubling that, on a human rights issue, a government, a group that is responsible for running the country, is not able to stand up in this House and state clearly that it will or will not support the bill for a given reason.

I cannot help noting that I have been a member of this House since 1993 and that there have been nine separate votes involving the homosexual community. With a very few exceptions, the Conservative members have voted against the rights of this community on nine separate occasions. I therefore cannot understand why they are keeping quiet and are unable to say whether or not they will support this measure, which recognizes that people are targets of abuse and mischief in public institutions and says that, as a society, we condemn that.

We do not accept that people should be mistreated because of their race, sexual orientation or identifiable characteristic. In my opinion, this bill should not cause any controversy and we should be unanimously in favour of it. In my opinion, there are very few arguments that could convince us that this bill is not legally sound, since it is a bill that addresses human dignity. All hon. members who believe in human dignity and certain inalienable rights must stand up in this House and support this bill.

I repeat: I find it extremely embarrassing that the government has not found an opportunity to make a firm statement on this. I do not know if we have enough time left to hear from another speaker from the government side, but I hope this situation will be remedied.

I cannot help but note that this government has a mixed record on human rights. My colleague from Abitibi mentioned to us that this government refused to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is rather troubling that, despite the Erasmus-Dussault commission, and despite a number of extremely important bills on aboriginal rights, in major international forums like the United Nations, this government has not found a way to take a clear position.

I also want to commend the hon. member for seeking to increase the sentences and ensure that we take into account that, whether prosecution is summary or by indictment, the sentences will be increased, which will contribute to sending an even clearer message that hate-driven motivation and behaviour are not acceptable.

I see that I have only a minute left and I do not want to stop heaping praise upon the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who wants to add this building block to the edifice of human rights. The Bloc Québécois has always been an extremely enterprising architect when it comes to human rights. I cannot imagine any hon. member in this House who believes in human dignity and equality not supporting this bill. I could not look government members in the eye if, at the end of this debate, any of them do not support this bill. I dare not imagine such a situation. This is a chance for them to show that they believe in human rights. I hope they will take the opportunity being extended to them by the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

I wish my colleague all the best.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today on private member's Bill C-384, introduced by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by adding a new offence to the existing mischief provisions.

The Criminal Code mischief provisions state:

Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(a) destroys or damages property;

(b) renders it dangerous, inoperative, or ineffective;

(c) obstructs, interrupts, or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

The amendment would make it a specific offence, with increased penalties, when the mischief is committed against an educational or recreational institution, or any related object, that is used exclusively or principally by a group identifiable by its colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

The bill, specifically in lines 12 to 15 about sentencing, states: “being motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour”. When I read that, I know that some of the existing provisions in the Criminal Code about mischief allow action to be taken by the judge.

The new provision would apply when it could be proven that the act of mischief was motivated by prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

I understand the rationale behind the proposal. It seeks to send a clear message to Canadians that we do not tolerate acts motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred. I noted the examples pointed out by my hon. colleague from the Bloc, who talked about the schools and the things that were done in Outremont to the Jewish school and the library.

In particular, it seems that the intention of the bill is to send a message to potential hatemongers that we do not tolerate acts that are directed toward institutions in Canada that are used by what is defined in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code as an “identifiable group”, or in other words, a group identified by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

My question when I read the bill is about motivation and whether in existing law this is not covered. Does the judge not have the ability to define that aggravating factor when they look at the sentencing provisions?

As we heard in our throne speech last year:

Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom.

We are a diverse nation and our laws recognize and protect that diversity.

The report tabled by Statistics Canada earlier this month also reflects this diversity. The results of the 2006 census shows that the ethnocultural diversity of our population is growing and will continue to increase. In fact the census indicates that there are more than 200 different ethnic origins.

The 32 million people living in Canada make up a cultural, ethnic and linguistic mosaic that is found nowhere else in the world.

Canada welcomes many immigrants a year from all parts of the globe, who continue to choose Canada drawn by the quality of life and its reputation as an open, peaceful and caring society that welcomes newcomers and values diversity.

Canadians need to continue to respect and value one another regardless of their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As the member pointed out, unfortunately when there are differences among people, there is the possibility of conflict between them.

And when conflict leads to criminal behaviour, the criminal justice system must be able to respond appropriately.

As a nation, we will not tolerate hate-motivated acts that are based on a person's colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. We are making great efforts to be a nation where peace reigns. Canada was founded on the principles of peace, order and good government.

Canadians value this and a place where they can feel safe. Today, rightly, they worry about their safety and security. There is no greater responsibility for the government than to protect this right to safety and security.

Canadians can be proud of their country and its achievements. Working together, we have built a nation that is prosperous and safe, a place where people from around the world live in harmony.

I personally had some reservations about the wording and how effective the bill may be when under its provisions crimes are brought before the court. Will it really be effective, especially given that we all see in our ridings at all times the tremendous amount of general mischief against public buildings, private buildings and public and personal property today?

Having said that, I am sure that all members of the House will commit to continuing to work together to ensure that all Canadians have a justice system that reflects our values as a nation, including standing up for vulnerable communities.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford for 10 minutes. However, he will have only five minutes this evening. He would be wise to save his good arguments for the next time.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-384, which was introduced by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. This bill is innovative. Before this bill, it was a matter of only two locations: places of worship and cemeteries. With the passage of this bill, it will henceforth be prohibited to attack a school. Why? Because that is just as important.

When children go to school in the morning and see their school covered with hateful graffiti, that enters into their subconscious minds and stays with them. It is all well and good to tell these youngsters that people should not do such things, but it can by psychologically disturbing for them.

Even teachers are shocked by this when they arrive for work in the morning or when they see this near a day care centre. They must also take their children to the day care centre and see graffiti on the way. Their children will ask them questions, wondering why there are hate messages and why someone would write that on a school, or anywhere for that matter. These questions will be asked.

I want to share a story. At one point in my life, I was a union representative. A worker once came to me to say that he would like to be able to finish high school. He had worked hard and completed three years of high school in the evenings. Having a job and going to school is very hard work, but it is something that someone who wants to succeed must really make an effort to do.

One Friday, this person went to his supervisor to ask for an afternoon off because he had to take two exams to finish high school, and the diploma would help him move to a new position or a new job. In fact, all companies require a diploma. His supervisor asked him why he wanted to get his high school diploma and if he did not like his current job. The employee replied that he would like to improve his life and earn a decent income to raise his family. The supervisor pointed out that he was black, and that blacks were meant to work in factories and not to hold senior positions, such as supervisors. He did not grant permission, and the worker had to find another way to take his exams and get his high school diploma. The supervisor did not think it was worthwhile to get the diploma because a black person was not meant to hold a senior position.

A grievance was filed against this supervisor, and I do think the employee won.

This bill also includes colleges, universities, community centres and playgrounds. Is it not bad enough that, in the summer, when children go to the playground they go to every day, they see graffiti saying that society should get rid of all blacks—or any community—that nobody should see them and that children should not play with them? That is not what we want to teach our children. We teach them that they have to be kind to one another, that every person is different, and that we have to accept those differences.

What message is graffiti like that sending to children? It might bother them and, as they grow up, they will begin to think that there is a colour difference, a difference they can exploit. I do not see why we should tolerate such things.

My colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant is on the right track. This is perfect timing for this bill. All parties in the House of Commons, the NDP and the Liberals, agree. Recently, the champions of law and order proposed a new bill to curb auto theft. What is more important, auto theft or hate crimes against people? People are much more important.

I see that my time is up, but I know I will be able to continue next time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and Bill C-384 is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When we return to the study of this bill, the member for Shefford will have five minutes to complete his remarks.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of pregnant woman).

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am tabling the bill is many of us felt that Bill C-484, while it did attempt to accomplish certain things in protecting pregnant women from assault or abuse, left too many unanswered questions and too many doors were left open.

For those of us who are pro-choice, but did not want to go down that road, I have created a simple bill, which would provide judges with the ability to increase the penalties for those who would knowingly assault or abuse a pregnant woman.

I have had this tested to see whether it would open the door to recriminalization of abortion, and it will not. I have had it tested to see whether it would have any censure against the women herself, should she choose to have an abortion, and that will not be the case. In fact, it plugs all the holes left by Bill C-484.

I invite members, who felt as awkward as I did in not supporting Bill C-484, to look at this as a very helpful option to assist pregnant women, should they be attacked by those who are knowingly aware they are pregnant.

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

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we were debating Bill C-384, the hon. member for Shefford had five minutes left to complete his speech. He now has the floor.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again here today on the subject of Bill C-384 introduced by my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

It is important to reflect carefully on this bill. I spoke about it nearly a month ago. Since then, we have had time to reflect on it. Personally, since I knew I would be speaking to it again a few weeks later, I took the time to think about other arguments to try to convince the members of this House to vote in favour of Bill C-384.

First of all, I still wonder why it took until 2008 for Bill C-384 to be introduced. Why did it take so long? Why did no one think about this issue before and try to establish measures to deal with people who write graffiti on schools and other locations? It is now being proposed that these institutions be covered by the legislation.

It is important that all members of the House of Commons take the time to read the bill. By doing so, they will be able to get a complete picture, without having any anti-Semitic ideas or other notions. That is important.

Indeed, people from various communities have legitimately asked to be able to keep their premises clean, whether they be places of prayer or schools. Furthermore, they have asked to be able to preserve their culture without being stared at inappropriately by people who could resort to all kinds of ploys to mock their way of thinking or expressing themselves.

Previously, only two types of institutions were covered: places of worship and cemeteries. Now, many others are also included. I mentioned schools, but this would also include daycare centres, colleges, universities, community centres, playgrounds, sports centres and any other place occupied by identifiable groups. It is important to protect them. Bill C-384, introduced by my colleague, is so very important.

We claim to be a host country and to want to welcome all these groups. However, there is no protection for these identifiable places I have just mentioned. This bill will provide adequate protection for these places under the Criminal Code. Thus, these groups will be able to practice their religion or carry out their activities in recreation centres without having to hide or be identified with one group or another. In this way we prevent them from being discredited by either saying or writing anything.

We assume that the members of this House will do everything it takes to make this bill a piece of legislation allowing these people to go about their usual activities.

Although we are discussing bill C-384, I would like to digress for a moment.

My party asked for an emergency debate on the price of gasoline. I would like parliamentarians to be aware of the escalating cost of gasoline. The Bloc Québécois should be allowed this emergency debate so that we can have a straightforward and honest discussion. Voters would realize that some members of this House are not keen to discuss the price of gasoline, to propose measures to curtail increases, to keep oil companies in line and to regulate prices to a greater extent.

Good luck to the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant with her bill and may it be passed and become law.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution), that was introduced by the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

At the outset I would like to tell the House that I wholeheartedly support the purpose of this bill and the reasons obviously that would have motivated the member for introducing such important legislation. I believe the great majority of Canadians welcome people who come from different countries, different cultures, different races and different religions. I know that we as Canadians also believe that those who arrive in Canada with different backgrounds enrich Canadian life and our culture.

Unfortunately, there is also a small minority of Canadians who do not welcome these newcomers and even oppose their presence in Canada and sometimes do so in a violent manner. The opposition to a group's presence in Canada could be expressed by writing offensive words, or perhaps damaging buildings where members from these groups are likely to go either to meet or receive services.

Damaging a building is indeed a criminal act already. It is an act that is covered by the offence of mischief which is found in subsection 430(1) of our current Criminal Code. The sentence for those found guilty of mischief under the current law varies with the mode of prosecution, that is, whether the offence is prosecuted by summary conviction or by the process of indictment.

The sentence of mischief prosecuted by indictment also varies depending on the value of property against which the mischief has been committed. Mischief is prohibited in all cases, however, regardless of the motivation. However, what is important is that when an offence of mischief is motivated by bias, prejudice, hatred based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin, language, religion, sexual orientation or any other factor, the motivation becomes an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

If the acts covered by Bill C-384 are already covered by the current provisions of the Criminal Code then one would somehow question why we would want to create a new offence. I have that answer.

I believe that two purposes would be served by enacting Bill C-384. First, the creation of a specific offence will draw attention to the actions that the offence prohibits. It will state clearly that the violent expression of hatred against a minority group is a criminal offence with all of the consequences for those who are found guilty. Second, the bill will increase the penalty for the offence. We know that in most cases mischief is prosecuted by way of summary conviction. Under the current law a person convicted of mischief against one of the buildings listed in Bill C-384, for example, when prosecuted by summary conviction is currently only subject to a maximum penalty of 6 months. Bill C-384 would increase this penalty up to 18 months.

Under the current law, if the Crown wants to request a penalty of more than 6 months, it must proceed by way of indictment. Bill C-384 will allow the Crown to request a penalty of up to 18 months without having to resort to the more complex procedure of indictment. Bill C-384 also has a practical effect when the offence is prosecuted by indictment.

The current law provides for a higher maximum sentence when the value of the property against which the mischief is committed is over $5,000. Currently, where the value of the property is $5,000 or less, the maximum penalty is only 2 years. It is 10 years when the value of the property is over $5,000.

Bill C-384 would eliminate the distinction based on the value of the property. Hate crimes know no value of property. The higher maximum of 10 years would apply regardless of the value of the property against which the mischief is committed. As a result, the maximum penalty would be increased from 2 years to 10 years for mischief against property of $5,000 or less.

As I indicated earlier, I do support this bill. However, I believe the bill would benefit from some technical improvements. I think it would be beneficial to clarify the language of the bill and ensure that it is consistent with the provisions currently set out in the Criminal Code.

As a member of the justice committee, I look forward to seeing Bill C-384 get to committee where it can benefit from study and technical amendments that may be necessary, but will not affect the scope and purpose of the bill. I believe all members of this House will want to work together toward the improvement of this bill which has support from all parties in this House.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

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.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-384 introduced by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. This bill was awaited by minority communities. It includes additional sanctions and further protects people from identifiable groups. This bill creates a new offence to clearly prohibit heinous acts committed against property used by minority groups. I have some examples.

In June 2007, the Jewish community feared they were dealing with an anti-Semitic pyromaniac after a third fire in two weeks was reported at a camp for a Hasidic Jewish community in Val-David.

Again in June 2007, a building at a camp belonging to the Jewish community went up in flames in Val-David, in the Laurentians.

In April 2007, a small bomb exploded in front of the Ben Weider Jewish community centre.

In April 2004, an arsonist set fire to the library at the United Talmud Torah elementary school in Saint-Laurent.

In September 2006, an arsonist set fire to the Abraar Muslim school in Ottawa.

Anti-Semitic acts and acts against identifiable groups do exist and occur frequently. The bill introduced by my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant specifically prohibits acts of mischief against schools, daycare centres, colleges or any other place used by identifiable groups. This is an addition to the current legislation.

I must point out that this bill is already receiving support from minority groups in Quebec and Canada as well as, and this is saying something, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons and hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the New Democratic Party justice critic and hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and a number of other colleagues, namely the members of the Bloc Québécois, who will vote en masse in favour of this bill.

I was listening to our colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. I think they will vote in favour of the bill, but first they have to find a few little things wrong with it. I imagine they will discuss them with my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant and all come to an agreement to provide an additional tool to protect our ethnic groups.

We therefore hope that this bill will move through all the approval stages so that the rights of minority groups, which have too often suffered assaults against their gathering places, will finally be recognized. It is vital that such a legislative amendment be passed, in order to preserve the safety and dignity of the groups targeted by this bill by imposing harsher penalties for this type of offence. Moreover, we must recognize the need to protect these groups. We must therefore vote for this bill.

The bill also addresses a widespread concern in society. The number of anti-Semitic acts perpetrated in the past seven years clearly shows that the current protection is not broad enough. The fire bombings of two schools that I mentioned earlier were not covered by the existing Criminal Code provisions concerning mischief. An attack against this sort of institution traumatizes not only the people who live in the area, but also the surrounding community.

It is serious when communal facilities other than places of worship and cemeteries are targeted, and when places where there are children are targeted, it is even worse. Such acts must be stopped.

We could talk about the gay community. We could also talk about Muslims, who regularly face this sort of problem. The gay community in particular is regularly the target of slurs and aggressive behaviour. Even in 2008, it is not true that homosexuals are accepted socially. Unfortunately, they still suffer a great deal of prejudice.

I am certain that the content of the amendment to the bill proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant will bring us a step closer to respecting everyone's rights.

Earlier, I mentioned the Muslim community. That community is regularly the target of violent acts. Of course, such acts are committed by a minority of people, but they still heighten tensions within society. Hon. members will recall that in January 2007, a Muslim school in Montreal was horribly vandalized.

That is why everyone must vote for the Bloc Québécois bill. In that way, we will send a clear message that such acts are and will always be unacceptable.

We have to strengthen the law so that all minority groups can live in peace within Quebec society and Canadian society without fearing intimidating threats and violence. There will always be people who do not mean well. These people are everywhere, and they often attack places used by minority groups out of spite.

That race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation should motivate such mischief is unacceptable. We have to make it possible for everyone to live in peace and use spaces without being subjected to such threats. The message has to be clear, and for it to be clear, we need to vote in favour of Bill C-384.

I would also like to emphasize that, in my opinion, this bill will make it clear that any mischief against places used by any particular group will be prosecuted. There is no ambiguity there. I would therefore ask all members of this House to support this bill so that we can all reiterate that there is zero tolerance for this kind of violence.

We Quebeckers live in an inclusive society. Canadian society is also inclusive, but it accepts multiculturalism. In Quebec, they are Quebeckers. If they come to Quebec, they are Quebeckers. And we want to protect them. We want them to know that they are welcome, that they will be safe with us, that they can eat, work and live decently. Bill C-384 is proof of that.

I hope that the House will pass this bill. If my Liberal and Conservative party colleagues find something they do not agree with, I invite them to talk to my colleague about it. She will explain what it is all about. I also encourage them to ask their colleagues to support this extremely important bill.

I see that the member for Laval—Les Îles is here.

There are many cultural communities in her riding, so she understands the importance of this bill. I invite her to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to private member's Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief against educational or other institution).

I am especially pleased to indicate my support for the objective of the bill, which ensures the criminal law fully denounces criminal acts motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred.

I do want to take a moment to congratulate the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for introducing the bill and for making the effort, under private members' business, to bring forward a serious and substantive topic.

I also take this opportunity to thank her for her work on the justice committee, particularly for her help with my private member's bill on identity theft and pretexting. I thought her colleagues in her party did good work in terms of the bill, working it through the private member's process. I hope I give the same consideration to her that she gave to me during that process.

Again, I appreciated her work on the justice committee with respect to the private member's bill on identity theft, which I am pleased to say is now in the Senate, having been adopted unanimously by the House.

Bill C-384 proposes to amend the Criminal Code by adding a new offence to the existing mischief provisions. The amendment would make it a specific offence, with increased penalties, when the mischief is committed against an educational or recreational property, institution or object associated with an institution that is used exclusively or principally by a group identified by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.

The proposed bill unequivocally states that Canadians need to continue to respect and value one another. We have heard from previous speakers about the importance of that principle in terms of the very foundation of Canada. It is one of the reasons why this is the most wonderful country in the world to live.

In a country as ethnoculturally diverse as ours, we know there will be occasions, unfortunately, when intolerant or hateful actions will tragically occur. When intolerant actions constitute criminal behaviour, the criminal justice system must be able to fully respond to those situations.

Hate crimes are unique. Such crimes target victims because of a core characteristic of their identity which cannot be altered and therefore harm not only the individual, but also the group with which the individual is identified and the whole of Canadian society.

When, for example, a Muslim school is vandalized and hateful graffiti is written across its walls, the entire Muslim community is harmed. The hurt spreads beyond just the neighbourhood in which the school is located. Many Muslim Canadians across the country may feel affronted by the attack.

The House may very well recall the situations with respect to attacks that happened at the United Talmud Torah elementary school in Montreal in 2004. Members may also remember the early Saturday morning fire bomb attack on an Orthodox Jewish school in 2006. These are only a couple of examples.

Unfortunately, in my home city of Edmonton there have been incidents against educational institutions and houses of worship, which I know are outside the parameter of the bill. These are situations in which there is an attack of hatred, and it affects the entire community. With news as it spreads today, it goes across the country and affects the whole of Canada and even around the world because of the way news is propagated these days. It is incumbent upon us as a government and as parliamentarians to act fully against these actions.

The government believes the message being sent by this bill will let affected communities know that we understand and that we want to do something to help. We are pleased that the bill has support from representatives of various communities, including the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the black community and aboriginal communities. I understand the gay and lesbian community is supportive of the bill as well.

It is true that Canada already has in place an effective regime of legislative protections against hate crime applying to property. All property is already protected by the general offence of mischief found in section 430 of the Criminal Code. Additionally, any criminal offence that can be proven to be motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor, could be subject to the sentencing provisions already found in section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, which would require such motivation an aggravating factor to be considered at sentencing.

However, I support Bill C-384 as it will send a message of deterrence to potential hate-mongers and, in conjunction with other initiatives, confirms the government's opposition to such intolerance.

The bill differs from the current Criminal Code provisions in three main areas. First, Bill C-384 incorporates the concept of hate motivation as part of the crime rather than as an aggravating factor to consider when opposing a sentence.

Second, it specifies that the act of mischief must be perpetrated against property that is used exclusively or principally by members of a certain group.

Finally, it imposes longer maximum sentences for summary convictions, 18 months versus 6 months, and for indictable offences of property less than $5,000 it would increase to 10 years from 2 years.

Bill C-384 provides an opportunity for all four political parties to stand together and provide leadership in Canada against mischief that is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate against certain groups.

I am very proud to be a part of a government that is dealing with such a complex issue. Certainly there is much more we can all do as individuals and as communities to combat racism in our country and our communities, but I hope all members will commit to continuing to work together to ensure all Canadians have a justice system that reflects our values as a nation.

I will conclude by again congratulating the member opposite, the member of the Bloc Québécois, who I did get to meet, as I mentioned before, when I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-299. She was very effective at the justice committee in terms of posing questions and understanding the intent of the bill that I wanted and helpful in proposing amendments to improve that legislation. I certainly give her the same respect and I share her concerns with respect to attacks on institutions and her desire to prevent such attacks in the future. I commend her for bringing this legislation forward.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must first say that it is with humility that I speak today in support of Bill C-384, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to mischief against an educational or other institution. In our pluralistic and increasingly global society, where people of different ethnicities, cultures and races can eat, play and share space—sometimes getting married, thank goodness—sometimes acts of mischief are committed against institutions and symbols associated with a given ethnocultural community.

That is why, as I support Bill C-384—because I think it is important to create laws and other preventive measures that protect our cultural and other institutions—I believe that we should also put mechanisms in place to instill in children, from a young age, respect for public and private property, no matter who owns it. I will come back to that point later on.

I will not dwell on the criminal acts that caused my Bloc Québécois colleague to introduce this bill, because other members from all of the parties have listed these crimes in detail.

In my own constituency of Laval—Les Îles, pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic graffiti was painted on the walls of a synagogue.

However, we are not just talking about the Jewish community. All of the minority communities in Canada are affected, or risk being affected, by this scourge.

I had an opportunity in 2007 to listen to people in my riding and in many communities across Canada tell their stories about violence against places of worship when the Liberal task force on cultural communities at risk travelled the country.

What is surprising is how determined these communities are to rebuild. Although they are disappointed, there is very little anger, and they have come to accept that hate crimes are a fact of life, regardless of where in the world a person lives. I say this because that is what struck me at these meetings. It is no doubt a result of the increasing number of violent attacks in the world, including the horror of September 11.

Our task force learned that acts of vandalism have increased since September 11. The 2007 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents shows that acts of vandalism increased by 11.4%, an increase of 15.8% for the year. To put this in perspective, I would like to read the comments of two witnesses, as reported in the July 12, 2007, edition of Laval News.

When Arthur Levy, of the Jewish community, spoke about his synagogue in my riding of Laval—Les Îles, he said:

However, to prevent vandalism, we can’t keep our doors locked; we have people coming in and out of the building throughout the day. To turn ourselves into a fortress defeats the purpose of who we are.

When Jeevat Jot Singh, a member of the Sikh community, spoke about his Sikh temple, he explained that cutting off cultural communities only leads to cultural ghettoization. He said:

Increasing security around our premises is not the way to go, it only leads to closing ourselves off to the rest of the community.

Finally, members of the Muslim community told the task force that the media also had a hand in the negative image of Muslims. They stated:

Very often, what we’ve seen is that ‘mediacized’ events have a direct impact on heinous hate crimes.

Mourad Ghazali told this to the task force:

However, when the opportunity arises to show Muslims in a positive manner, the media is usually indifferent.

Nabiha El-Wafai, assistant principal of Les jeunes musulmans canadiens school in Saint-Laurent, explained that she organized an open house event after an individual broke windows at the school last January; others have already mentioned this unfortunate incident.

She said that she invited the media—to promote awareness of the Muslim community within the Quebec and Canadian community—but almost no one attended. She added that the media are quick to respond when it comes to writing articles on negative events, but when it is something positive, no one comes to see what is going on, and that encourages ignorance.

In a pluralistic democracy, such as Canada, we cannot afford and we should not accept having citizens live in fear, resigned to the fact their communities could become cultural ghettos through forced insulation of themselves and their families. This is not what integration is about, not in the province of Quebec or in Vancouver, or anywhere else in the country. We are building one society where groups of various ethnic, religious or political backgrounds will live in harmony and respect each other's cultural traditions and symbols while being proud of their Canadian identity and heritage through their Canadian born children.

While this legislation calls for harsher measures, such as increased prison stays and even stiffer fines for those who deface public and private property, my concern is that this will not solve the problems of ongoing hatred against identifiable groups that result in acts of violence against these groups and their institutions, regardless of what they may be.

May I remind the House that in Canada we have not witnessed an end to violence against women or to their inequality, nor have we witnessed an end to murders. When we look at the profile of those people who commit crimes, we see poverty, deprivation and the lack of available services for drug rehabilitation. We should note that the government has cancelled its financial support for safe injection sites in Vancouver, even though it has been shown that these sites have contributed to the decrease in the virus that causes AIDS and that there has been an increase in the number of people seeking help for their drug dependencies.

One may wonder what Vancouver's crime rate has to do with crime rates against minorities. It is because these people will attack anything that is a symbol of governance, institutions, organizations and groups that appear to be succeeding or thriving in some way. Sometimes hate based on race may not be the underlying motive but poverty and anger against the very institutions that are supposed to educate, protect and care for our citizens.

I would like to suggest, as this bill is discussed in committee, that amendments be made to reflect not just increased sentences but measures that will educate those who cause misery in the lives of identifiable groups.

In Brazil, for example, its 1998 environmental crime legislation, the so-called restricting rights penalties, says that alternative penalties must be at their disposal instead of prison sentences. Judges now have this tool at their disposal to deal both with the culprit and the environmental damage they have caused. For example, a guilty person could be made to do community service, other unpaid work in parks, public gardens or other protected areas, or made to repay the institutions they have victimized. If it was a business person, they could see their rights restricted through exclusion of contracts or other tax incentives. These are among several of the alternatives to imprisonment.

In the case of Canada, we could see the individual carrying out community work for the institutions that have been affected; being educated about the customs and traditions of the affected groups and even participating in their daily lives; and, they could be obliged to make restitution and participate in the rebuilding and renovating of the destroyed properties. In this way, creating multiple close contacts between an individual and the group the person has wronged is the equivalent to building bridges, understanding and respecting cultures.

I support the intent of this bill. I hope we can get the bill into committee as soon as possible for further study.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of Bill C-384. We as a party, and I as an individual member of the House, support the rationale behind Bill C-384, which is that Canadians will not tolerate acts motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred.

Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, proposes to amend the Criminal Code by adding a new offence to the existing mischief provisions.

The proposed amendment would make it a specific offence with increased penalties when the mischief is committed against an educational or recreational property, institution or object associated with an institution that is used exclusively or principally by a group identified by colour, race, religion or national or ethnic origin, as well as sexual orientation. The new provision would apply if it could be established that the perpetrator's mischievous act was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.

When such a hateful event does occur, we need to ensure we have all the tools in place so that our criminal justice system responds in the way that is most appropriate to the circumstances. It is important to have strong Criminal Code provisions. Bill C-384 would add to the existing provisions and respond to harms that affect the foundations of our Canadian society.

As Canada becomes an increasingly diverse population, with peoples arriving here from around the world, it is incredibly important that we maintain the civic traditions our society is based on. I note that over the last number of years Statistics Canada has released data which establishes that one in six Canadians is an identifiable minority and shows that the number is going to increase in the coming decades, such that we could quite quickly see a country where one in four, and possibly even one in three, will be an identifiable visible minority.

In the context of a country that is rapidly changing and whose demographics are rapidly changing due to our high rates of immigration, it is incredibly important that we preserve the traditions on which this country and our society are based.

A key element of that tradition is ensuring that new Canadians integrate into Canadian society and that they integrate economically and socially. That certainly is one part of the equation, but the other part of the equation is ensuring that Canadians as individuals are protected under the law, that they are treated as citizens who are equal to every other citizen in the land, whether their families have been here for hundreds and hundreds of years or whether they have recently arrived.

I think the bill strengthens that second part of our society, the second part of the foundation of our society, which is to ensure that acts of intolerance and hatred perpetrated toward educational institutions and identifiable objects that these groups have erected simply will not be tolerated in this country. I think this bill will send a clear message to that effect and will also equip the criminal justice system with the tools it needs to ensure greater protection of minority groups.

It is incredibly important for all parties to work together in the House to take a unified stand against this sort of intolerance in Canada. I can commit to the House, as do the rest of the members of my party, the Conservative Party, that we will work together to ensure that all Canadians have a justice system that reflects our values as a nation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There being no further debate, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant has five minutes for her right to reply.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have introduced Bill C-384. I would like to thank all of my colleagues, especially those from the Bloc Québécois, including the members for Terrebonne—Blainville, Shefford and Hochelaga, as well as all of the members who spoke in support of this bill in this House.

I particularly appreciated the speeches from the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Outremont. Their comments showed me that they understood the goal and the importance of my bill. That is why, once again, I want to sincerely thank all of the members who spoke about this bill in this House.

That said, I would like to remind the House that Bill C-384 would amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence and clearly prohibit any hate-motivated mischief against an identifiable group at an educational institution. As I mentioned in my last speech, more and more violent acts are being committed at schools, educational institutions and community centres.

These events often make the news and are decried by the affected communities. In response to their requests, it seemed necessary to me to create an additional offence to deal specifically with mischief in relation to certain categories of buildings used or occupied by these identifiable groups.

Bill C-384 is a first attempt at responding to the need for protection of these communities. That is why I carefully noted my colleagues' suggestions made in the speeches we just heard. I am referring to the suggestion by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to have the bill include hate crimes committed against official language minorities as well the proposal made this evening by my Liberal colleagues to expand the groups covered by including those listed in section 718.2. These ideas should be studied in committee and my colleagues can be assured of my complete cooperation in this regard.

In listening to my colleagues, I am reassured that visible minorities can count on the unwavering support not only of the Bloc Québécois but also of the members of other parties for the legislative progress of Bill C-384 .

As I was saying, this bill is not the result of isolated incidents. It is the result of a clear request from visible groups to meet a specific need—the protection of educational institutions. It would afford these institutions the same protection against hate crimes extended to religious institutions.

A number of communities have already expressed their deep gratitude for this bill. I thank them for their support. I am talking about the aboriginal people of Maniwaki, whose cultural centre was the target of racist and anti-French graffiti; the Black Coalition, which represents a community greatly affected by hate crimes; Muslims, who had a school targeted by hate crimes in 2007; homosexuals, who are still victims of acts of malice; and so on. Many other groups have supported this bill.

They are an eloquent example of why Bill C-384 is necessary and how it speaks to a wide range of communities in Quebec and Canada. I repeat that they will always be heard by the Bloc Québécois members, because my party has often been a staunch promoter and defender of human rights.

In short, Bill C-384 is a step forward; it is unequivocal proof that we as parliamentarians are concerned about human rights. Even if there is a great tradition of peace, respect and tolerance in our communities, together we can take concrete action to fully protect human dignity.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)