Bill C-305 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add to the offence of mischief relating to religious property the act of mischief in relation to property that is used for educational purposes, for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events or as a residence for seniors.

[Glenn Gilmour]

I can't give you the government position on the bill at this time. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. However, I think I can maybe make some comments to help you in your considerations.

As I mentioned, subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, the sentencing provision, is very broad in scope. Even under the current law, without Bill C-305 coming into effect, if there was mischief committed against a space of some kind that the LGBTQ+ community were engaged with, that would be caught by the hate crime sentencing provision, assuming that the people who committed the vandalism were caught, charged, prosecuted, and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed the mischief with this hate motivation in their mind.

One question you might want to ask is the degree to which an expanded hate crime mischief offence would have consequences for the hate crime sentencing provision in the Criminal Code. As a general rule, criminal offences are designed to be very general in nature, to have very broad application in scope—for example, crimes such as assault, assault causing bodily harm, and the particular factors that go into play in deciding whether the sentence should be a relatively light one or a higher one are things that are taken into account at sentencing by the judge. Thus, in a sense, the expansion in Bill C-305 to include all other grounds or properties is a deviation from the standard way in which crimes are usually created, where you have a very broad crime and the factors are taken into account at sentencing.

Parliament can decide, of course, in its wisdom, what it wishes to do, but I think it's reasonable to ask what possible effects such a large expansion could have on the hate crime sentencing provision in the Criminal Code, which was the original provision set out in the Criminal Code to deal with hate crimes way back in 1995.

I hope that answers your question somewhat.

[Glenn Gilmour]

A part of it might be a bit of a history lesson for people around the table, but I thought I'd start with the discussion about the provision dealing with sentencing, subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

That was originally created in 1995 by the then-Liberal government under Jean Chrétien. I believe it was a campaign promise that had been made in the 1993 election. I thought I'd quote something that Allan Rock had said at that time. In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1994, he discussed the hate crime sentencing provision that was proposed in the bill at that time, which subsequently enacted 718.2(a)(i). He said:

Why is it there? I think all of us are aware of the appalling increase in recent years in the incidence of hate crimes in our society. Every party that ran in the last election expressed its concern about that phenomenon. I think we join together regardless of party stripe in agreeing that we cannot tolerate hate crimes in Canadian society. It's there because of certain commitments made by the government, of which I'm a member, during the election and since it. It's there because B'nai Brith, for example, has told the Department of Justice that there are now over forty organized hate groups in Canada actively at work every day of the week.

He went on to say:

When someone goes onto my property and spray-paints graffiti on the side of my house, that is a crime that should be dealt with accordingly. I am the victim. But if they walk into the grounds of a synagogue and spray-paint a swastika on the side of the wall, the attack is not only against that property and that owner; it's against the Jewish faith as a whole. Every member of the Jewish faith is intended to feel intimidated and more vulnerable because of it. That is what distinguishes crimes motivated by hate

—presumably from other regular crimes that are not so motivated.

I put that on the record to indicate that when the sentencing provision was enacted in 1995, it was because of a strong feeling that Canada needed to enact special legislation to deal with hate crimes and to more appropriately denounce the seriousness of those kinds of crime.

Therefore, you have 718.2(a)(i), which reads:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (i) evidence that the 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

You have a very strong sentencing provision in the Criminal Code that was originally created way back in 1995. The concerns for putting it in there, I think, very much mirror the sorts of concerns that have been expressed around the table by some of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee.

The next change that happened was the creation of section 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, the current hate crime of mischief directed against property “primarily used for religious worship”. It's motivated by hatred based on various criteria.

The reason for the limiting of that offence to the concept of protecting property primarily used for religious worship was that it was thought that that particular kind of mischief would create a chilling effect on those who wanted to practise their religion. Therefore, it was designed specifically to protect that kind of property and not any other kind of property, even though when the bill that the offence was part of—the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001—was being debated in Parliament. There were some organizations that came before the House of Commons and the Senate and argued that it should be expanded to include other kinds of property.

I'd like to correct what appears to be a misconception that occurred in the testimony given the other day by Mr. Arya. There was a question asked about a house of worship being vandalized and the maximum punishment of 10 years in jail for that. If a Jewish community said it had been vandalized, the maximum punishment would be two years in jail. In case there is any misconception, that is incorrect. The way that the general mischief offence works in the Criminal Code is that it can either be prosecuted by way of indictment with a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail, or simply by way of summary conviction, which is a maximum of two years in jail.

The way the choice is made whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction depends not on the value of the damage to the property, but on the value of the property itself. Under the general mischief offence, if I were to vandalize a home, on the assumption that most homes these days cost more than $5,000 or less, it would be the general mischief offence that would apply, which has a maximum of 10 years in jail. That is the same penalty that is proposed in the private member's bill C-305. It's also the same penalty that currently exists for the hate crime mischief offence.

I also want to briefly mention that there had been mention of some statistics published in recent years of hate crimes that have been committed. According to my analysis of the testimony, the most recent statistics quoted for the committee were those from the year 2013. In fact, last year there was a table published by Statistics Canada that gave hate crime statistics for the year 2014. It was just a table; it was not in the form of a regular report with analysis. According to those tables, in the year 2014, the total police-reported hate crimes—and these are reports that are made by the police to Statistics Canada—was 1,295. Of those, in terms of the violations of the criminal law that occurred, the total of all violations to the criminal law that the police categorized as hate crimes was 1,170. Of those, 523 were mischief, and mischief in relation to religious property motivated by hate was a total of 89.

I just wanted to bring those particular issues to the attention of the committee.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll switch back to the bill at hand, Bill C-305. I think Mr. McKinnon's line of questioning perfectly encapsulates the struggle this committee is having.

A previous witness made mention that he'd like to see this bill both broadened and to become more specific at the same time, if that makes sense to you. One of the issues that have been raised in the specific language of this bill is that proposed paragraphs (a) through (d) use the phrase “primarily used”.

I wanted to receive your feedback. Say, there is a building that is not primarily used by an identifiable group, but hosts a regularly scheduled meeting by them once a month. It's also a building that's used for other activities. Would you like to see the language in this bill amended to try to capture that as well? Is that something you'd be supportive of? I want to get your feedback, because we're trying to find a way forward with this legislation.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Gardee.

In your testimony, you mentioned the importance of Bill C-305. You mentioned sacred spaces, including buildings. I wonder if you had anything in mind other than buildings—things like parks or open spaces?

[Ihsaan Gardee]

Thank you very much for that question.

As I mentioned in my closing statement, we are calling on all parties to support Bill C-305.

In terms of suggested amendments or improvements, I would encourage the committee to make sure that it hears from a variety of stakeholders, including legal specialists and others, to make sure that the language used in making changes to our criminal law is consistent with our charter values and Constitution.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much for your testimony.

You certainly talked a great deal about a range of issues that are important to the Muslim-Canadian community, but I want to focus on what we're here to discuss, which is Bill C-305.

You touched a little on Bill C-305, but I wasn't clear whether you support it in its present form or have any suggestions of potential amendments to deal with some of the issues you touched on.

[Ihsaan Gardee, Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to offer the committee our organization's perspective on Bill C-305.

Briefly, the NCCM is an independent, non-partisan, and non-profit grassroots Canadian Muslim advocacy organization. Our mandate is to protect human rights and civil liberties, challenge discrimination and Islamophobia, build mutual understanding between Canadians, and promote the public interests of Canadian Muslim communities. For over 16 years we have strived to achieve this mission through our work in community education and outreach, media engagement, anti-discrimination action, public advocacy, and coalition building. The NCCM has participated in major public inquiries, appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on issues of national importance, and provided advice to security agencies on engaging communities and promoting safety.

Today, I'd like to offer the NCCM's broad observations on the importance of Bill C-305 and speak from the context of our organization's constituents, that is, Canadian Muslims who have experienced hate crimes against community institutions.

I'll start with the importance of sacred spaces. Sacred spaces are places that people look toward for inner peace and to re-establish a connection with their concept of the divine, with their community, and with the larger fellowship of humanity. Whether these are manifested as formal buildings such as churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, or gurdwaras, what makes them special is not simply their location, history, holiness, or physical beauty, but their centrality in the hearts, minds, and cosmology of the people in whom they inspire such awe and reverence. Unfortunately, we must recognize and confront the reality that there are those who would seek to attack, violate, and desecrate these and other places with criminal or hateful intent. It is NCCM's position that there can be no valid reason to justify these types of acts. We stand united with all Canadians of conscience, unequivocally condemning such acts in the strongest possible terms.

As part of its commitment to the very Canadian principles of acceptance, respect, and inclusivity that helped shape the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and which are echoed within Islamic ethics, NCCM will continue to highlight bigoted and Islamophobic actions. We further pledge to continue to reach out and support other faith communities that similarly find themselves and their community institutions the targets of hate.

In terms of the application of Bill C-305 to religious structures and places of gathering, we believe that Bill C-305 helps address the very important issue of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation, and protects the values that are integral to Canadian identity. It would protect not only places of worship but also places of gathering where inclusivity should be championed, such as schools, universities, day care centres, and seniors homes. Furthermore, Bill C-305 would provide a form of deterrence for those considering perpetuating crimes motivated by these biases. This deterrence would further help to promote greater inclusivity and acceptance for all Canadians.

In terms of the relevance and importance of the troubling rise in anti-Muslim incidents, at the NCCM we've seen a significant rise in both our human rights case load, which includes alleged hate crimes and incidents, and cases of alleged discrimination. Most recently, just yesterday in fact, a report came out about a high school in London, Ontario, that was tagged with Islamophobic and anti-LGBTQ hate messages.

The number of alleged hate incidents and hate crimes alone, when tabulated, also indicate a troubling and concerning trend. Statistics Canada's most recent hate crime data from 2014 shows more than a doubling of hate crimes perpetrated against Muslims over a three-year period. This represents the most significant increase against any religious group in Canada.

The national hate crime data available through StatsCanada is only published two years after hate crime occurrences. The most recently published report is from 2014. To help address this gap in timing between when this data is available and when these occurrences happen, the NCCM keeps and maintains a dynamic online hate crimes and incidents map, which includes the geographical location and brief description of alleged incidents.

According to a 2016 Environics research poll, one in three Canadian Muslims reported experiencing discrimination or unfair treatment in the past five years; 62% of Canadian Muslims are worried about discrimination.

It is also critical to note that up to two-thirds of hate crimes are unreported, according to Statistics Canada's general social survey on victimization. NCCM has found that community members and institutional representatives are often reluctant to report incidents for a variety of reasons, including, for example, fear of further marginalization, fear of retaliation, and feelings that the reporting won't make a difference. Justice Canada says that hate crimes are one of the most underreported crimes in the country.

In terms of politics and extremism, we must also give thought to what are the social or political contexts that can contribute to an increase in hate crimes. Aside from legislation, it is equally important for us to give some time to thinking about what is and should be where we invest our time, energy, and resources to have the greatest possible impact in trying to, at best, avert what we are seeing in the United States and other places—namely, populist appeals to nativist sentiments—and, at the very least, to find ways to mitigate the impact of this phenomenon.

While the temptation might be there to smugly criticize what has happened in the U.S. and elsewhere and the vulgar politics and rhetoric that has targeted numerous groups, including most recently the executive order banning people from seven Muslim majority countries, we should also remember that the public discourse surrounding Muslims in Canada has also been at times quite negative. While many in Canada have objected to nativist and identity politics, to be clear, no one is saying that we shouldn't have a robust, even passionate debate about how we best manage our growing diversity, nor that we should not be vigilant about and vociferously defend our cherished rights to free expression.

At the same time, however, the worry here is that the ongoing problematic political discourse that uses inflammatory messaging and platforms could be used as a rallying cry for those who fear anything that is different or unfamiliar. Right now what is most unfamiliar and different, I would respectfully argue, are Muslims and Islam. In the last few months, Canada has witnessed an increase in xenophobic and racist attacks, culminating in the horrific tragedy in Quebec City. This is the first time, to our knowledge, that a terrorist act of this kind has been perpetrated against a house of worship in Canada.

Canadian Muslim communities have been deeply frightened and they have been deeply shaken. A recent study at California State University's Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism shows that political rhetoric can influence behaviour and may actually have been a factor in the rising number of hate crimes reported in 2015 against American Muslims, coinciding with the rise of Donald Trump. In other words, what our elected representatives say or don't say matters. We at NCCM have noted a similar pattern that whenever Islam or Muslims are subjected to unfair and negative discourse in the media and elsewhere, there is an increase in the number of reports of hate crimes and incidents. Ultimately, words matter. We saw this recognized by Quebec politicians and officials of all backgrounds in the aftermath of the terror attack on the Islamic cultural centre of Quebec.

At the end of January of this year, the results of a recent analysis of Canada's online behaviour, commissioned by CBC's Marketplace, suggested a 600% jump in the past year in how often Canadians use language online that is racist, Islamophobic, sexist, or otherwise intolerant. That's a dramatic increase in the number of people feeling comfortable making these comments.

The media marketing company Cision scanned social media, blogs, and comment threads between November 2015 and November 2016 for slurs and intolerant phrases such as “ban Muslims”, “Sieg Heil”, or “white genocide”. They found that terms related to white supremacy jumped 300%, while terms related to Islamophobia increased 200%. What this suggests is that those who promote intolerant and bigoted views feel more emboldened, and maybe that's at least in part due to the larger racist sentiments that are coming out of the United States and elsewhere.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has recognized that “Anti-Muslim discrimination is a leading form of contemporary creed-based discrimination in Ontario. Stereotypes of Muslims as a threat to Canadian security and Canadian values and ways of life have been particularly pronounced...”.

Those worrying trends are confirmed in a December 8 poll from Forum Research that found that four in ten Canadian adults expressed some level of bias or unfavourable feelings against identifiable racial groups, and the one group most likely to be the target is Muslim. After Muslims, the groups most likely to suffer bias in ascending order are first nations, south Asians, Asians, people of the Jewish faith and, finally, black Canadians.

Another recent poll from December by Abacus Data had similar findings, including that a large majority of Canadians, 79%, say that there is some or a lot of discrimination towards Muslims in Canada, and two-thirds say the same thing about discrimination towards indigenous people.

While the majority of Islamophobic sentiment can be attributed to a lack of knowledge or fear of the unknown, it should also be clear that there is also an entire, extremely well-funded and organized Islamophobia industry whose sole purpose is to vilify, marginalize, and target Muslims here in Canada, in the U.S., and around the world.

In the U.S. alone, over $40 million was spent to perpetuate stereotypes and to spread misinformation about Islam and Muslims between 2001 and 2009, according to a report entitled “Fear, Inc.” by the Center for American Progress. More recent studies indicate that number is now over $200 million. This means our struggle to stand up for the human rights and freedoms of Muslim communities is harder when there are real efforts to poison minds about their presence.

In conclusion, about a month ago I was in New York City attending a United Nations high-level forum on combatting anti-Muslim discrimination and Islamophobia convened by the permanent missions of Canada, the United States, the OIC, and the European Union.

At this meeting, a three-pronged approach was identified to tackle this growing phenomenon, which in no particular order includes the following.

First, civil society coalitions, both traditional and unorthodox, are needed to help build and protect societal resilience against prejudice and intolerance. An example of this would be one coalition called “Shoulder-to-Shoulder”, which has 32 non-Muslim organizations standing up for Muslims in the U.S.; and recently, a joint Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, or the MJAC, which was formed between the American Jewish Committee and the Islamic Society of North America.

Second, positive narratives are needed to promote the importance of pluralism and inclusion and the important role played by media in framing social understanding of Muslims and minority groups in general. An African proverb says, “Until the lion has his or her own storyteller, the hunter will always have the best part of the story.”

The NCCM has been very active in both of these areas. In the question and answer session, I will be happy to give you some concrete examples of programs and resources that the NCCM has developed along with its partners.

The final area that was discussed was the role of government policy and programs to combat Islamophobia and all forms of systemic discrimination and racism. While we cannot legislate tolerance, we need government to take the lead in examining, studying, and then developing and creating policies to explicitly combat Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination, and to build on existing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs that take into consideration our growing country's changing demographics. Muslims are experiencing increased targeting now. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

The safety, well-being, and sense of belonging of any faith or minority community are linked to their ability to participate in their communities and institutions. For this reason we are calling on all parties to support Bill C-305.

Subject to your questions, those are my submissions.

Thank you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'll get you to add to that, Mr. Wilson, but there's a quick thing I wanted to get in before Mr. Wells closes his testimony.

For Bill C-305, if we can find a way to throw in those amendments to identify businesses or any kind of gathering place, do you think that would make it a more worthwhile bill, one that is still worth pursuing, despite the need for defining hate crimes more generally?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate both of your testimonies today. Thank you for coming to Ottawa to give them.

Professor Wells, I was really glad to hear your testimony when you were talking about the piecemeal approach to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a vast piece of federal legislation. It clocks in, I think, at over 1,300 pages. Every time I review it, I find myself jumping around from section to section, because there can be sections separated by 500 pages that deal with the same area.

I know the intention behind Bill C-305 is a very noble one, but you raised some concerns in your testimony about whether these very specific definitions are going to leave some spaces out. Section 718.2 allows a judge to impose harsher penalties if a crime is motivated by hatred, based on a few characteristics. I note that as this is currently written, gender identity and expression are not included.

Would it be a better way to go to put it in, to make it a bit broader and make a judge more able to interpret it? When you were testifying about this specific section, you raised the prospect of whether businesses that are easily identifiable would be excluded. Neighbourhoods in Vancouver and Toronto are not covered in this legislation, but they are identified as places where the trans community hangs out to feel safe; they are their community.

What are some of your thoughts on that?

[Mickey Wilson, Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for having us here to discuss this important bill.

I want to begin by saying that I don't usually spend my time parsing out bills and exploring in depth that kind of work in building policy. I work in a community centre. I've spent 30 years of my life working in the LGBT queer and trans communities, volunteering for community-based organizations, and now as a paid employee, the executive director of the Pride Centre of Edmonton.

Our agency serves approximately 5,000 unique individuals every year, and in our outreach program we provide education to the larger community, to more people than that every year. We deliver our programs to government, not-for-profits, schools, churches, seniors centres, businesses in the broader community, and places of all kinds.

It's also important to know that I am a retired clergyperson, so I have a deep understanding of the connection between faith and the LGBTQ community, and the social construct of faith and its importance in the life of all communities. In my 20 years of active ministry, I served only two congregations. One was in the inner city of Edmonton, which was made up largely of homeless people, mostly indigenous. The second congregation was queer and trans and we met in other spaces that we shared. Most of the time that I was in those congregations, we did not use traditional worship space. We rented ad hoc, we met by the grace of others, and certainly we occupied spaces that would not necessarily be described in this bill.

As part of my volunteer work, I was fortunate to work with the board of Egale Canada, and for five years I was the chair of their national trans committee. During that time, the Egale study “Every Class in Every School” was undertaken, and it was released in 2011. It was the first study of its kind and exposed astounding statistics related to harassment, violence, and the perceived lack of safety. In addition, the study found that Caucasian youth, both LGBT and non-LBGT, experienced significantly less physical violence and harassment—8% compared to 13% of aboriginal students and 15% of youth of colour. This is significant because there is an aggregate effect, or a kind of double whammy that they experience. They are at risk not only because of their gender or sexual orientation but also because of their ethnicity.

In 2014 the Trans PULSE study on trans people in Ontario found even more alarming statistics related to trans and non-binary people. But significantly, the research showed that the experience of discrimination can result in exclusion from social spaces, unemployment, avoidance of health care, and poor mental health. The study also revealed the impact of intersecting oppressions such as one's trans identity, gender, and being part of a racialized community, and it produces the same aggregate effect.

Although physical assault and violence are not what's being addressed in Bill C-305, the experience of hate-motivated mischief is likely to have the same aggregate effect, where multiple categories of identity intersect. Research also indicates that LGBTQ people worry more about being victims of discrimination than do others, and research shows that in fact we anticipate it in our lives, often on a daily basis. The resulting minority stress has a collective impact that is particularly noticeable when there is an incident of violence, harassment, or mischief.

In the past five years I've seen “fag” and “homo” sprayed on a vehicle in my neighbourhood, notes posted on windows and doors using slurs about all kinds of people, vehicles burned, and windows broken. They were my windows. The other side of that coin is the impact of acknowledging the reality of our vulnerability and our value as citizens.

The inclusion of rights and the validation of LGBTQ identities at legislative levels empowers and strengthens queer and trans people, both individually and collectively. I've seen this in my life over and over again, from the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969, which is when I was just coming out, to the amendment of the Human Rights Act in my home province of Alberta to include gender identity and gender expression in December of 2015.

In reading Bill C-305, I am uncertain exactly which buildings and which contexts this amendment might address, or perhaps should address. I know that hate-based mischief has the same result regardless of where it happens, whether it is in a religious setting, a community centre, a women's organization, a community group of indigenous folk or people of colour, a gathering place for queer and trans people, or posted on the door of a senior's room in a seniors' facility.

This kind of legislation sends strong messages. To those who enact legislation against hate-motivated mischief as a society, it says we reject this kind of action. It may not stop the action, but it says it's not okay, that it is unacceptable. To the vulnerable, the message is much stronger: it's that we matter, and that's really the most important thing of all.

Thank you for your time today.

[Dr. Kristopher Wells]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

And to our colleagues who presented before, it's great to see the solidarity between communities talking about such an important issue of hate and bias in our country.

I believe that the proposed amendments to Bill C-305 are important to the preservation and protection of Canada's increasingly diverse, multicultural, and pluralistic identities, especially as we increasingly express and make visible our diverse identities and values directly through our public institutions.

As emphasized by member of Parliament Randall Garrison, I believe Bill C-305 should not only include sexual orientation and gender identity, but also gender expression, as prohibited grounds for the offence of mischief, which aligns with the current changes proposed by Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, which includes both gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Transgender individuals experience some of the highest rates of violence, discrimination, and prejudice in our society. Unfortunately, in Canada we have no way for law enforcement to track, charge, or specifically prosecute hate or discrimination that is motivated by gender identity or gender expression. Trans lives matter and are worthy of protection. This critical absence must be addressed.

It is vitally important to recognize and protect the LGBTQ community in similar ways as other cultural, racialized, or visible minority communities that are vulnerable to hate, prejudice, and discrimination because of an identifiable characteristic of a person. Much discrimination against LGBTQ people is based on their gender expression and the assumptions that are made as to what it means to be stereotypically male, female, or to be perceived as neither.

It has been said that homophobia and transphobia are one of the most powerful weapons of sexism, misogyny, and privilege in our society. LGBTQ individuals are often considered to be invisible minorities because they may not reveal their true identities unless they feel safe. This is why the LGBTQ community organizations, like pride or rainbow centres, and growing cultural celebrations, such as pride festivals, and specific LGBTQ-identified neighbourhoods or enclaves are all critically important safe spaces. These safe spaces are often visibly marked with rainbow flags to indicate inclusion, acceptance, and support. Indeed, it was a remarkable historic moment to witness the rainbow pride flag raised over Parliament Hill last June. This was a strong and visible signal to the world that Canada supports our LGBTQ communities both at home and abroad.

The challenge of the proposed amendments in Bill C-305 will be in establishing clear definitions as to what is meant by administrative, social, cultural, or sports activities or events. For example, many hate crimes and incidents happen in specific LGBTQ-identified neighbourhoods and at community or social events. Places like Church Street in Toronto, Davie Street in Vancouver, and Saint Catherine Street in Montreal all represent clearly identified and civically supported LGBTQ neighbourhoods.

Would these areas receive the same protection that is proposed by Bill C-305? I believe clarity is needed to ensure that these and other important community gathering places, such as pride festivals, which can draw tens of thousands, or in the case of Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver's pride festivals, hundreds of thousands of people.

Sadly, these celebrations of diversity also make them prime targets for hate and extremism. While mischief or crimes to property are one of the most common forms of hate crimes in Canada, most hate crimes against the LGBTQ community are not to property, but directly target individuals in the form of physical and sexual assaults and murder. Indeed, recent hate crime statistics indicate that of all the reported hate crimes committed in Canada, those targeting the LGBTQ community are among the most violent in nature and require serious medical attention. It's not one stab wound, but 40, as these individuals are not seen as persons, but as objects to be destroyed.

Sadly, only one in 10 hate crimes is ever reported to law enforcement. By attacking vulnerable individuals, most hate crimes are designed to instill fear and terror into entire communities. They strike at the very heart of what we believe an inclusive democracy should be, which is to live one's life openly, without threat or fear.

The proposed amendments to Bill C-305 raise several further questions. Will commercial spaces, such as LGBTQ-identified businesses, be protected under the legislation? Places like bars and nightclubs have been important and historic spaces of refuge and resistance for the LGBTQ community. In some cases they were the only safe spaces that existed in many communities.

Our modern pride movement is said to have emanated out of the police raids at the Stonewall Inn, an infamous bar in New York City. And now thanks to one of the final acts of president Obama, it has been recognized as the first national LGBTQ monument in the United States. Stonewall marked the beginning of a newfound source of community identity and activism. Those fateful riots in June of 1969 are the reason why many pride festivals are held around the world today.

The recent Pulse nightclub tragedy in Orlando, which took the lives of 49 innocent people and wounded 53 others, occurred in a gay-identified nightclub. This is another very recent and tragic example of the extreme hate and violence still directed at the LGBT community. There have been more than 25 documented directed attacks on LGBTQ-identified spaces, where people came to find community and love, but where they were met with hate and death.

Perhaps rather than the piecemeal amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, all of which are well intended to address hate and prejudice, it's time for a different and more comprehensive approach. In Canada, law enforcement agencies still do not have a common operational definition of hate crimes, which causes challenges in police investigations, reporting, and the accurate collection of important national data. This is why there should be a specific hate crime section and universal definition included in the Criminal Code of Canada.

For example, a possible uniform definition might be this: A hate crime is an offence committed against a person or property, which is motivated in whole or in part to harm or instill hatred towards an identifiable group based on real or perceived race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.

The addition of a specific hate crime section in the Criminal Code of Canada, which could be in similar form to the current section on terrorism, section 83.01, and the education and application of this new hate crime section by police agencies and justice officials would ensure that Canada's diverse communities understand that our government not only advocates and supports peaceful co-existence between communities, but it also enforces the full extent of the law against hate-mongers and extremist groups whose goal is to attack diversity and difference and tear away at Canada's very social fabric.

While the proposed amendments to section 430 are important, hate is not only a crime against property. Rather it disproportionately impacts people, many of whom are the most vulnerable in our society. We must do more to protect and support our most vulnerable and marginalized communities. One look around the world shows us that hate and extremism are on the rise. The question is this. What will be our response to this growing threat? As we recently and tragically witnessed, Canada is not immune.

We must do more to protect our diverse communities. We must do more to give law enforcement the appropriate tools to adequately investigate, track, and prosecute hate-motivated crimes, regardless of whether they attack property or persons. It's time for us to have a much broader conversation about hate and extremism in Canada.

I hope this private member's bill will do just that.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

[Richard Marceau]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

First of all, it's hard for me to believe that you started in elected politics 29 years ago. I very much appreciate your support for BillC-305 and the previous iterations of the bill. I am not in any way naive in thinking that we're going to stop hate crime with this or any piece of legislation. I can tell you, however, that yes, there are bad people. These people should be punished and we should use every deterrent that we can.

Very generally speaking, Canadians are good people. We saw it when there was that horrible attack in Quebec City. The swell of support for our Muslim brothers and sisters in Canada was overwhelming and amazing to see. When we saw attacks on the Jewish community centre and synagogues here in Ottawa, everybody went on that Saturday to the synagogue Machzikei Hadas to support. We had local politicians there; municipal, federal, and provincial ones; and members of every community were there. When the United Church was vandalized a few months earlier, the following Saturday members of every denomination were there to support that church. There is lots of good in Canada. I'm finishing on that.

So let's build on this, and let's not forget that despite having to deal with ugly stuff, we have lots of good in this country.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Thank you very much.

Twenty-nine years ago, I was elected to North York city council, and the first committee I was put on was the North York race relations committee. Everywhere in my progress in elected office, until here, we've talked a lot about race relations, we've talked about hate, and we've talked about these things. I supported your motion, Mr. Marceau, in 2006, and Ms. Freeman's, Ms. Jenning's, and Mr. Garneau's. As such, I'm sad to see that we're dealing with this issue today when we have already tried to deal with it so many other times. Clearly, you have to close every loophole and do everything you can to possibly.... One is to educate people, to talk about what respect is, and all of those reasons.

I can only wonder what kind of world we would live in if.... I know that, for the last 29 years, there have been a lot of people in our country working on these issues, sensitizing each other to the needs, and so on, of other communities, whether it's in response to a school that gets vandalized by hate crimes or any building, period. I think some folks have a built-up hatred in them, and it won't matter if it's a mosque, or a temple, or a synagogue; they'll just find a place to plaster their terrible message.

Anything we can be doing to bring in enforcement and things to make people pay attention.... We've got to send out that much more positive message to the world, which is a much more respectful one. There are those people who just don't get it, because they have their own malice, so I think having C-305, if it closes the loophole and tightens it up every little bit more, is one more thing that needs to be done.

I just found it odd that I end with the committee today, and you're dealing with this issue. It makes me sad that in our country we're still having to deal with that kind of anti-Semitism. North York is my city, and we're still dealing with it. It takes each and every one of us to push back. Bill C-305 is another little step in closing any opportunities and sending that message that this kind of stuff is not acceptable.

We'll put all the support we can behind the police department, because it's a very difficult issue for them to be able to get enough evidence to actually lay charges. I think we need to do that.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I appreciate the committee's co-operation, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, let me pick up on two comments that were made by my colleagues, Mr. Bittle and Ms. Khalid. I do think it's poignant that you're here today, especially given some of the issues that we have been debating today and will continue to debate in the coming weeks around religious discrimination and the need to call it for what it is. I want to commend Ms. Khalid for bringing her motion.

Let me take a moment, as well, to say that the incident of anti-Semitism in North York hits very close to home, Mr. Mostyn. You know that my riding is very close to that neighbourhood and I work very closely with the community there. I was quite alarmed and disturbed to see that incident. Hopefully, the authorities will be able to pursue their investigation vigorously.

The government's position is generally supportive of the objectives of this bill and it's precisely because of the reasons that I just articulated. The original intent of subsection 430(4.1) was to identify mischief relating to religious property. That subsection expressly articulates a number of building structures where, if the mischief occurs, it would attract a stiffer sentencing regime.

My colleague, Mr. Chandra's, private member's bill, Bill C-305, would seek to expand both the grounds, as well as the categories of buildings and structures, that would attract this stiffer sentencing regime.

In general, the government supports those objectives. Where we would offer some additional comment for the purposes of the committee's deliberations is related to the categories of secular buildings to which this sentencing regime would apply.

If one goes back and reflects on the original intent of Parliament around subsection 4.1, there was a focus on religious property. That is not to say that there aren't other categories of buildings and structures that are used for other purposes. I think Monsieur Marceau provided some testimony regarding, for example, the JCC community centre that is not used primarily for religious purposes, but where there should be an appropriately stiff sentence following conviction, if it were targeted for mischief or hate speech.

Our response to this is that, certainly, under subsection 718.2, a trial judge or sentencing judge could consider, as an aggravating factor, the cultural and other identities that should attract additional protection and denunciation in the context of that particular phase of the trial process. Assuming that the categories of buildings remain focused on those buildings used primarily for religious purposes, it doesn't rule out that a sentencing judge could use their discretion to sentence someone appropriately and more stiffly in the JCC hypothetical case that you provided.

The other thing that I would point out, Mr. Chair, is that I appreciate Mr. Mostyn's comments regarding the attempt to clarify what should be the appropriate threshold for triggering the stiffer sentencing regime under Bill C-305. I also appreciate his suggestion that we move from using “primarily used for” to “substantially” or “regularly used”. My only comment is that I think that on reflection, “substantially” or “regularly” might be even more subjective than “primarily used for”. I think that as the committee reflects on where these amendments should land, hopefully that evidence will be helpful.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Even though a judge, when sentencing, can take into account those aggravating factors to increase the sentence, do you still feel that Bill C-305 is necessary in closing some loopholes that exist?