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.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Perhaps I'll ask a question that's a little out of the bounds of this hearing focusing on BillC-305. I'm hoping I won't be ruled out of order.

Do you see any amendments to this bill or other amendments to the Criminal Code that would increase the effectiveness of enforcement?

[Richard Marceau]

I actually think that police forces are doing amazing work in Canada. We saw it in Ottawa. When the JCC and the synagogues and the mosques were attacked, police reacted vigorously. We were very grateful to them. If somebody thinks that Bill C-305 is a panacea and will solve any problem, that's not the case. It is one tool out of the toolbox. There's hate crime legislation; there is the SIP program that was put into place by the Conservatives, and renewed by the Liberal government; and we're very grateful to the government for that. It's a holistic, organic approach that is needed.

One thing that we mentioned in the whole debate over the elimination of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act under the previous Parliament is that if Parliament wanted to go in that direction, there was a necessity to make sure that crown prosecutors and attorneys general would bring prosecutions under, I think, it's sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code more often and more vigorously. We haven't seen that yet. There's space to have a debate on what to do and how to make sure that hate speech and hate crimes are fought vigorously in Canada, and Bill C-305 is but one element in the whole thing.

[Richard Marceau]

No. I actually like Michael's idea. It's one that I would seriously consider.

Otherwise, I am fine with the bill as is, with the caveat as I mentioned earlier: the LGBTQ buildings or community centres. Should they be in the same subsection with a subtitle of religious property, or should they be in another subsection? It's of no consequence to us. We believe that, as a community at risk, it should be protected.

I would mention one other thing. If we assume that Bill C-16 will be passed by the Senate this session, we should make sure that the wording of Bill C-305—which was passed by the House and is now being considered by the other place—is consistent with Bill C-16.

[Richard Marceau, General Counsel and Senior Political Advisor, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee members for inviting me. I'd also like to thank Chandra Arya, the member who brought forward Bill C-305, as well as all the members who supported it at second reading.

This legislation has been on the Jewish community's agenda for quite some time. Understandably, then, I would like to set the backdrop for Bill C-305. Though in no way do I want to take any credit away from Mr. Arya for sponsoring the bill. Quite the contrary.

Back when I was in your shoes and serving as my party's justice critic, the Jewish community approached me to have protective safeguards already available to houses and places of worship and cemeteries extended to community centres and schools belonging to the community.

They convinced me, so I put together a bill, which I was about to introduce when the 2006 election was called. I was defeated in the election, but Carole Freeman, a Bloc Québécois MP took up the charge and introduced the bill. After passing at second reading, Bill C-384 was referred to this committee. The 2008 election was then called, and Ms. Freeman lost her seat as well.

Between 2008 and 2011, a Liberal MP by the name of Marlene Jennings brought the bill back, this time as Bill C-451. It garnered widespread support from all parties, but Marlene, too, lost her seat in 2011.

During the 41st Parliament, Marc Garneau, now Minister of Transport, reincarnated the bill as Bill C-510, but it was too low on the priority list to ever see the light of day.

It's been 10 years since the bill first came about, and we are here today to study it. Finally, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The objective of the bill is fairly straightforward. It is to extend the protection already given to houses of worship and cemeteries to other buildings and structures used by communities at risk.

Our community, the Jewish community, has often been the target of vandalism. As Michael mentioned, Jewish Canadians are victimized by hate-motivated crime at a higher rate than any other identifiable group. StatsCan data shows that roughly three-quarters of these crimes fall under the legal category of mischief—broadly speaking the vandalism or destruction of property.

Vandalism of community centres and schools involves more than attacks on buildings. It reverberates throughout a community and throughout a city. It touches every member of a community, whether that person goes frequently to that place or not. That is why it must be seriously punished.

The bill extends the protection by defining the word “property” for the purposes of subsection 4.1 as being:

a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is primarily used for religious worship...

that is primarily used as an educational institution...

that is primarily used for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events—including a town hall, community centre, playground or arena—, or...

that is primarily used as a residence for seniors

I understand there are concerns about the bill's being too broad, more specifically about the groups afforded protection in subsection 4.1 and about which buildings would be covered. Let me tackle one at a time.

The fact is, the subsection is about mischief relating to religious property. I have heard concerns that extending it to cover buildings associated, for example, with the LGBTQ+ community would denature the subsection. We at CIJA have no problem extending protections to LGBTQ+ community buildings. Our longstanding advocacy in this area, including our deep involvement in support of C-16—previously C-279—brought forward by Mr. Randall Garrison, speaks for itself.

I don't think the principle of inclusion with regard to the LGBTQ+ community is at issue. The question may be whether these protections should be included in the same subsection, thus changing its nature, or whether they should be extended to LGBTQ+ community buildings in a different subsection. To the Jewish community, the how/which subsection matters less than the what, namely that these institutions be covered and better protected.

As for the issue of the bill's being too broad regarding which buildings would fall under this subsection, I disagree. What about, for example, a synagogue, a mosque, or a temple that rents space in a mall? Shouldn't those be protected? How about the social services agency of a community that rents space in an office building? Today the Jewish social services agencies from across Canada are on the Hill, meeting MPs and ministers to discuss the issues around disability. They would tell you, and rightly so, that they would like and need their offices to be covered.

At a time when Sayyed al-Ghitaoui, an imam at Montreal's Al Andalous Islamic Center, who called for the destruction of the cursed Jews, imploring Allah to kill them one by one, and to make their children orphans and their women widows, has the support of his mosque; at a time when Igor Sadikov, a member of McGill University's student society sent out a tweet that read, “punch a [Z]ionist today”; at a time when—and this happened on February 6, 2017—someone hacked the attendance sheet of a children's swim team in Côte Saint-Luc, hosted by Google Docs, and filled it with murderous threats against the Jewish community, as well as several references to Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization, banned in Canada, that seeks the destruction of Israel;

At a time when six Muslim worshippers were so brutally gunned down while engaged in prayer, when a wave of hate vandalism hit many religious and community institutions in Ottawa, including the community centre where my sons work and the synagogue I am a member of, it is time to send a strong signal that anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh bigotry, and all other forms of hatred have no place in Canada, that schools and community centres are as central to minorities' lives as houses of worship or cemeteries, and that mischief against those buildings should be seriously punished.

I encourage all members of Parliament to continue to support Bill C-305 and to pass it without delay.

Thank you very much.

[Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer, B'nai Brith Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Established in

1875, B'nai Brith is Canada's most senior membership-based Jewish organization. Through its league for human rights, it is the premier advocate for Canada's grassroots Jewish community.

B'nai Brith operates a hotline to assist the victims of anti-Semitism and racism on a daily basis.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-305, whose aim is to close a gap in the Criminal Code by extending the legal protection from mischief afforded to houses of worship to a wide variety of other property critical to our community lives.

It is very hard to come by proper statistics in this matter, and the case law regarding how hate-motivated acts of mischief against religious sites are prosecuted is confusing. I will further elaborate on that shortly.

There is no question that this is a very well-intentioned bill, and it is indeed very heartening to see all-party support against the hate-fuelled bigotry that has been receiving more media attention over the last number of months. In fact, the backgrounds of the many diverse groups that have spoken in favour of this bill further reflects the multicultural nature of our great country.

Similarly, the Jewish community has always sought strong laws to protect all Canadians from all identifiable backgrounds from the purveyors of hatred. Although it may sound hard to believe, given our relatively small numbers in Canada, the Jewish community remains the most targeted community group of hate crimes in this country. StatsCan reported in 2013 that there were 181 hate-motivated crimes targeting the Jewish religion reported by police, or an estimated rate of 54.9 police-reported hate crimes per 100,000. By comparison, police reported 65 crimes motivated by hatred against the Muslim religion in 2013, representing an estimated rate of 6.2 hate crimes per 100,000.

Assuming that the Canadian Jewish population in 2013 was 350,000, and the Canadian Muslim population was approximately one million, taking the respective sizes of the two communities into account, Canadian Jews were approximately eight times more likely than Canadian Muslims to be the victims of a hate crime in that year.

B'nai Brith's annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents shows that anti-Semitism in Canada has remained relatively constant since 2011. With no active conflict occurring in Israel in 2015, 1,277 incidents were reported that year. Vandalism declined to a 15-year low in that year—we had 136 incidents reported—considerably off the five-year average.

Just yesterday in Toronto it was reported that units in a condo building, home to a large number of Jewish people, were the victims of anti-Semitism. Yellow Post-It Notes were slapped on some of their doors. Certain notes had pictures of Nazi swastikas, while others read, “No Jews”. Some of the residents also had their mezuzahs stolen. A mezuzah is affixed to the doorpost of every Jewish home and holds religious prayers from the Torah inside the case.

However, even with the amendments proposed by Bill C-305, the proposed subsection would not apply to this particular hate crime of mischief because a private condominium is not within the scope of the properties being considered for amendment. Jewish individuals are perhaps somewhat unique in this way, as the mezuzah is a year-round religious act of self-identification at their home. However, a strong argument can be made that a hate crime at one's home is even more traumatic to the victim than one in a communal setting.

Recently, B'nai Brith tried unsuccessfully to lay charges in another mischievous act of bias against our community. Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, or CJPME, had placed stickers promoting the boycott of Israel on items for sale in stores across Canada, a clear case of bias based on national origin. There have been to date no mischief charges laid, despite CJPME's actually filming themselves doing it, which is why we complained to police, since there was evidence in the video of the perpetrator. We wrote to the federal government in this matter and we are still awaiting an answer.

The police advised us that their hands were tied unless the store owners themselves were to complain, but that is not correct. Even though the store owner is the real victim in these instances, the entire Jewish community of Canada was victimized by these acts. Sadly, our community has been ignored in this case.

It is not enough for us to want justice to be done. Justice must be done, and justice must ultimately be seen to be done by all Canadians to retain high levels of societal support for our criminal justice system.

Generally speaking in Canada, the Criminal Code contains a number of different and long-standing offences to deal with the general topic of hate crime. It is a hate crime in Canada if an act is committed to intimidate, harm, or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The act has to be motivated by hate, and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force, or threat of physical force.

In February of 2016 B'nai Brith exposed an editorial in Al Forqan, an Arabic-language newspaper in Windsor, that described attacks against civilians in Israel as a sacred duty of jihad. No charges were laid.

B'nai Brith has spoken out against Alfred Schaefer for online videos in which he glorifies Adolf Hitler, describes Jewish people as parasites, and accuses them of conspiring to eliminate the European race. No charges were laid in Canada. Authorities in Germany recently laid charges against Schaefer after B'nai Brith alerted German officials. There are many other examples.

The mischief section of the Criminal Code covers hate-motivated mischief to religious property in subsection 430(4.1) by defining specific property as religious, and provides for a harsher sentence than mischief involving other property.

The proposed amendments add gender identity or sexual orientation to the motivation for bias in subsection 430(4.1). The proposed new subsection 430(4.101) also proposes adding further properties to the definition in the subsection, so if a similar act of hate is committed against any building primarily used as a university or college, day care centre, community centre, or a seniors' residence, the punishment provisions of section 430 would also apply.

B'nai Brith is one of the premier providers of affordable housing for seniors in Canada, so better than most, we certainly appreciate the thought behind this bill on behalf of our more than 1,000 residents. But these questions remain: what will the potential impact be in the real world from these proposed amendments, and how will it keep people more safe from targeted acts of hate?

Some of the confusion in the application of the law is likely the result of section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which encourages judges to consider whether the crime was motivated by hate of the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, etc. This section can be used to increase the sentencing provisions of general mischief.

Oddly, after an exhaustive search, we were able to find only a single case on Westlaw of anyone being convicted or sentenced under subsection 430(4.1), the existing religious property provision. In the case of Re Zehairi, the accused was convicted of uttering death threats and spray painting a number of churches under subsection 430(4.1). His trial was unreported, and he was found not guilty by reason of mental disorder.

There are also very few reported cases of mischief to property including aggravated factors as described in section 718.2. Some of those cases would not have access to the amended provision being considered by this committee, such as the case of R v. Mackenzie, in which the accused pled guilty to willful promotion of hatred and mischief after he spray-painted “Kill Muslims” and “Kill Syrians” in various areas of Calgary with large Muslim and Syrian populations. Paragraph 718.2(a)(1) was mentioned as an aggravating factor for the mischief offences in that case.

However, the confusion in terms of what charges are laid is illustrated well in the case of R v. Coleman, where the accused pled guilty to a variety of offences that took place in 2010, including spray-painting threatening messages on a mosque. He was convicted and sentenced for mischief with hate as an aggravating factor, but there was no charge under subsection 430(4.1) even though it clearly applied to the facts of that case.

Why aren't there more prosecutions of mischief to religious property on the record? There might be no instances of mischief to religious property in Canada. That would be wonderful, but I think we can all acknowledge this is not true. Perhaps local police forces and crown attorneys prosecuted under the general mischief section and used sentencing provisions as an aggravating factor because they believe perhaps it might be easier to obtain a conviction by not dealing with intent as an element of the offence.

It is very likely that there were guilty pleas made by accused, but we were unable to see this data because it is not recorded by any of the case law recording companies. Perhaps the number of incidents was low or accused persons were not caught or prosecuted. Perhaps police did not lay charges or evidence of hate bias was not put forward.

Another issue with the wording of this amendment is this. What does it mean to say that the impugned property has to be “primarily used for” in the various subsections? There are public schools that are used after hours by religious groups that rent out public space for, say, Sunday school programming. The public school is not primarily used for religious instruction, but certainly, if the amendments are to protect religious individuals and groups from hate, then why would it matter that a public school is not being primarily used by those individuals?

There are serious concerns about anti-Semitism and other forms of systemic racism in Canada. Canadians want to see charges and successful prosecutions when hate is a motivating bias in criminal acts towards identifiable minority groups. If this bill does not in actual fact increase the scope of the law to protect targeted communities from hate because subsection 430(4.1) as it currently exists is not being regularly used, then we must ask ourselves why we are considering these amendments. There may be very good reasons, and these amendments may, indeed, fill a true gap in the law, but it is not obvious from an analysis of the existing case law.

I do have some recommendations, but perhaps if there are questions later, I can get to those.

Thank you.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

It is a pleasure to be here with you to speak on Bill C-305. Thank you all for the unanimous support last week in the House.

Canada is an inclusive nation. We welcome people from all over the world, irrespective of race, religion, colour or creed, such that regardless of where you are from or who you are or what you believe, you'll be treated with respect in Canada. However, we are reminded every time we witness acts of hatred that Canada is not where we want it to be. Acts of hatred based on race, religion, sexual identity, and sexual expression have not subsided; in fact, they have been increasing.

We had certain dark episodes in our country: the Chinese head tax; the internment of Ukrainians, Japanese, and Italian Canadians during the First and Second World Wars; our turning away of boats of Jewish and Punjabi refugees; our own history of slavery; and “No Irish Need Apply”, and “We don't speak French here, so speak white”; and the discrimination faced by Greek and Portuguese Canadians in Toronto and other places. The same rhetoric that led to a “None is Too Many” immigration policy toward Jews in the thirties and forties is being used to raise fear against Muslims today.

There has been discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for a very long time. The Criminal Code once described gay men as “criminal sexual psychopaths” and “dangerous sexual offenders”. In the sixties we deployed the RCMP to investigate suspected homosexuals. This discrimination still exists in parts of Canadian society today.

While Bill C-305 will not solve every issue related to racism or discrimination, it will take an important small step in protecting the most vulnerable. There is hope, Mr. Chair. As Dr. Martin Luther King Junior said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. Moreover, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said, “For all our instructive moments of failure, the arc of Canadian history bends towards inclusion, towards liberty”.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend a subsection of the Criminal Code that deals with damage to property due to crime motivated by “hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin”. This bill proposes to expand this to include motivation by hate based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Also, currently the subsection is limited to places of worship, like churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and cemeteries. The proposed Bill C-305 seeks to expand this to include schools, day care centres, colleges or universities, community centres, seniors' residences, and cultural centres.

Under this criminal subsection, if a person is found guilty of an indictable offence, the prison term is up to 10 years. If a person is found guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction, the present term is up to 18 months. A few months back we had a series of hate crimes in Ottawa. Then, several religious leaders stated that to eliminate and eradicate these acts of hatred from our society, education and compassion were more important than the law and the consequent punishment. However, while I agree that education is the best long-term solution, I also believe that a strong law acts as a major deterrent. We have, as a society, combatted social issues like smoking and seatbelts through an effective combination of law and education.

At this point I would like to quote Dr. Martin Luther King on the interaction between positive law, morality, and culture. He said:

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.... It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless....

So, while the law may not change the hearts of men, it does change the habits of men, and when you change the habits of men, pretty soon their attitudes and hearts will be changed. Hence, there is a need for strong legislation to grapple constantly with the problems we face. It is very important that we have strong and robust laws for hate crimes. Again, I agree that education is important, but I am equally confident that good law is also required.

Bill C-305 takes a strong step to making our neighbourhoods and communities safer places to live. Think of the strong message we will be sending to all Canadians that it will not just be a select group of people, but all of the people of Canada, who can feel safer knowing that this Parliament has taken concrete and strong measures to protect them.

There are some alarming statistics I would like to share with you today. As per a Statistics Canada report released in 2015, 51% of the police-reported hate crimes were motivated by hatred of race or ethnicity, 28% were motivated by religion, and 16% by sexual orientation. It is easy to forget that hate-based mischief does not only affect the targeted group or individuals, but also the community as a whole.

There was a recent study by the Department of Justice on understanding the community impact of hate crimes. It stated, “The commission of a hate crime is against not only the individual but the entire community.” It quoted David Matas that, “People live in community. Rights are exercised in community.” It further stated:

With victims of hate crime, it is important to consider that the impact on the community is particularly devastating, as hate crimes are “message crimes in that the perpetrator is sending a message to the members of a certain group that they are despised, devalued, or unwelcome in a particular neighbourhood, community, school, or workplace”....

The data also showed that after a hate crime incident, many people experience increased levels of fear for their personal safety and the safety of their family. As a result, many community members took measures to protect themselves and their families, especially members of the targeted ethnic identity community.

We need to take appropriate measures to ensure that our neighbourhoods are safe places to live, that every Canadian has the right to feel safe, to live their life in the absence of fear or threat. Let us remember that Canada is a nation strengthened by its multiculturalism and shared values of openness, compassion, and equality, so that people are not subject to hate and discrimination, but feel welcome. This bill may not solve every issue, but it can attempt to bring solace to those targeted by hate crimes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. It is up to you to decide what to do next. I expect some friendly amendments and also some resistance from the government. You're all well qualified, and I'm happy that this bill is in your good hands.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Of course, it's always great to have Ted Falk here, even though he's a regular.

In any case, today we are beginning our study of Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), sponsored by Chandra Arya, who is here with us today.

Welcome, Mr. Arya. Thank you so much for coming.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-305 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Noah Shack]

I'm going to take the opportunity afforded by your kind comment about our working with other groups to plug Bill C-305 again. I know that we have been working hard to mobilize, and I think we had 20 other groups across all faiths mobilize, in support of it. It's actually a good example of what we can accomplish beyond ourselves when we all come together.

In terms of the security training and programs of that sort, certainly focused in the GTA but nationally as well, we provide audits to Jewish community institutions. We go in and have some experts on staff give advice to the institution about how they can better secure the premises, whether it's putting bulletproof film on the windows or suggesting what types of infrastructure they may need to be putting in place, or how to apply for SIP grants and things like that. That has been tremendously impactful.

In addition, we train lay people, groups of volunteers, at these institutions, whether it's synagogues or community centres, about how to approach security and how to respond when there's an incident, so that there's an understanding of what to do and who to call when something happens, and so there's a coordinated approach that's based on best practices from law enforcement.

[Noah Shack, Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you, Chair and honourable committee members, for having me. Hopefully you'll be able to squeeze out quickly everything I have to offer.

I'm pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada, which represents about 150,000 Jewish Canadians affiliated coast to coast through their local federations.

According to Statistics Canada, Jewish Canadians are targeted by hate- and bias-motivated crime at a rate higher than for any other identifiable group. The ancient toxic hatred of Jews is not unique to our country and is rightly constrained to the margins of liberal democratic societies like ours. Alarmingly, though, anti-Semitism continues to manifest in brutal acts of terrorism, often inspired by warped Islamist ideology.

Jewish communities represent a primary target for terrorist violence all over the world. Attacks against Jews have taken place in Israel, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, and the United States, with innocent men, women, and children murdered in their homes, places of worship, and community centres. As an at-risk community, we have a major stake in Canada's approach to preserving national security generally and in counterterrorism in particular. There's significant fear within our community, not only of Jewish Canadians being harmed in attacks abroad, but also that such attacks are possible or even likely here in Canada.

The memory of the 2004 firebombing of a Jewish school in Montreal looms large, compounded by threats made by the would-be VIA Rail bombers regarding Jewish targets, and the call by al Shabaab, a listed terrorist entity, for an attack on Jewish-owned businesses in North America, which included a call against the West Edmonton Mall.

Additionally, Public Safety Canada's 2016 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada notes that Hezbollah, the listed entity widely believed to be responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, has networks operating here.

We're encouraged that the current government and its predecessors have consistently taken significant steps to protect Canadians from terrorist violence, and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute our perspective and hope it will be helpful in continuing the development of a national security framework that keeps Canadians safe at home and abroad.

Many terrorist attacks, like the one that claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo here in 2014, are inspired by the messages of terrorist groups but are not necessarily the result of direct calls for specific actions. The Criminal Code provision allowing for the seizure of terrorist propaganda addresses this, contributing to broader efforts to counter radicalization and prevent terrorist recruitment here in Canada.

The al Shabaab video that I referenced is relevant here. Were something like this to be posted online in Canada tomorrow, a judge could order that Canadian Internet service providers remove it, limiting the scope of its impact. Critics of this provision have raised concerns about the possible breadth of what might be considered terrorist propaganda and whether this provision would cause the censorship of offensive ideas that aren't directly linked to violence. Our community is deeply committed to promoting civil liberty and free expression for all Canadians, but neither can be absolute in a liberal, democratic society.

While the seizure of terrorist propaganda places limits on acceptable speech, it is in our view a legitimate restriction, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, that strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of speech on the one hand and the right to life and security of the person on the other.

This provision is complemented by the criminalization of advocacy or promotion of terrorism offences in general. Critics have argued that previously existing provisions outlawing incitement were sufficient and that this one is too broad. However, terrorist recruiters are often sophisticated in their approach. They can take note of the law's limitations and adjust their approach accordingly so that while still instigating terrorist activity, their statements are general enough to remain beyond the reach of the law.

A founding member of al Qaeda-turned-MI5 double agent, Aimen Dean, recounted to the BBC his experience working around U.K. incitement laws with regard to terrorism. He was free to give theological justification for attacks and to promote al Qaeda's actions through those theological justifications without violating the law. He noted, and I quote, “You can't specifically urge someone to go. You can't specifically call for an attack.... You have to be clever about how you phrase your words.”

This provision denies those seeking to radicalize or recruit Canadians the legal leeway to be clever, but dangerous, with their words.

The call by al Shabaab for attacks on Jewish-owned businesses was deemed by the RCMP to be a very general comment, not a specific threat. That's what they said. Criminalizing general calls for terrorist violence makes it more difficult for individuals or groups to inspire attacks against Canadians in this way.

CIJA looks forward to the establishment of the Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-radicalization Coordinator, which I understand will happen soon. This is an important initiative, and if given the resources and mandate necessary to succeed, it will constitute an essential component of Canada's national security framework. In order to maximize the impact of this institution and ensure its success, it's imperative that this office be given a mandate not just to de-radicalize those who are already on the path to violent extremism but also to prevent those vulnerable to radicalization from being seized in its grip. By countering hate, we can help disrupt the radicalization process at its starting point. In this respect, Jews are often a canary in the coal mine.

Retired Major-General Ed Fitch led the Canadian Forces red team in simulating terrorist attacks against the Vancouver Olympics to test the vulnerabilities and the security plan that was being put in place. He recently noted in The Hill Times that:

Security services in Europe recognize that Islamist attacks against the general population have been foreshadowed by similar acts of terror against Jewish targets, including a Jewish museum in Belgium, a synagogue in Denmark, and a Jewish school and kosher supermarket in France—all in the past few years.

Here in Canada the security establishment must continue working closely with the Jewish community to monitor anti-Semitic extremism as an early warning sign in identifying those prone to radicalization.

The city of Berlin is implementing a pilot program now along these lines. It's funded by the German federal government and it focuses on the role of teachers in identifying anti-Semitism specifically as one of the precursors to radicalization, and training these teachers to intervene and steer vulnerable youth away from this dangerous path.

Whether we are considering the attacks on a synagogue in Jerusalem, a gay nightclub in Orlando, an African-American church in Charleston, or a mosque in Quebec City, extreme hate continues to precipitate extreme violence. Canada's counter-radicalization efforts should specifically address hatred directed toward Jewish Canadians, black Canadians, LGBTQ Canadians, Muslim Canadians, women, or any other identifiable group as a potential foundation for violent extremism.

Spray-painted hate messages, rocks thrown through windows, and other hate-motivated destruction of property could also be indicators of radicalization or precursors for more serious violent crime down the road. Under current law, hate- or bias-motivated mischief targeting a religious institution such as a synagogue is a specific offence with specific and serious penalties. However, this designation doesn't extend to other institutions such as schools or community centres, which are similarly targeted all too often.

Bill C-305, which I hope you will all be supporting this evening at second reading, would close that gap in the Criminal Code, extending the penalties in place for targeting places of worship to other communal facilities as well. We urge all parties to ensure the swift passage of this bill through committee and third reading to make it law.

It is exceedingly important that government also help vulnerable communities to prevent attacks from taking place, or at the very least, to minimize the danger they pose. The federal security infrastructure program, or SIP, assists those at risk of hate-motivated crime to improve security infrastructure, sending a clear signal that those targeted by hate don't have to shoulder the burden alone.

The nature of the threats and the cost of security measures have changed significantly since the SIP was first launched in 2008, as have the needs and number of at-risk groups. While synagogues are disproportionately targeted and impacted by hate crimes, Sikh temples, Islamic mosques, Hindu temples, and Christian churches have all been targeted as well.

According to Statistics Canada, an average of three hate crimes take place every day in this country, ranging from racist graffiti to more serious vandalism to arson to assault and, in some cases, more extreme acts of violence.

Security infrastructure is required to protect at-risk community institutions from an array of threats. Jewish community centres, schools, and synagogues are increasingly concerned about active-shooter scenarios, similar to the terrorist attacks that we've seen take such a horrific toll elsewhere.

CIJA welcomed the recent steps taken by the Minister of Public Safety to modernize the SIP. In particular, support for internal security measures and access controls will have a really meaningful impact on the safety and well-being of vulnerable groups. At the same time, we've encouraged the government to consider a number of additional improvements to SIP that would further enhance its effectiveness, which I would be happy to discuss in the round of questions.

I think that I'm probably at around 10 minutes now, so I'll stop here. I'd be happy to speak further about any of the things I've raised so far, including those recommendations about bolstering the SIP, in addition to our position on CSIS's expanded role and proper oversight.

Thank you very much.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise once again to speak to Bill C-305. I do so with a very heavy heart in light of the recent horrific attack at a mosque in Quebec City. It pains me to see such a hate-motivated act taken against our fellow Canadians. Hate such as this has absolutely no place in Canada. Bill C-305 is one of the small steps we can take to eliminate hate-motivated crimes in Canada.

I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties for their interest and contribution to this debate.

I would like to quote Martin Niemöller, the prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He stated:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Bill C-305 would recognize that hate motivated by bias based on gender identity and sexual orientation would carry the same weight as crimes committed against religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The bill would expand it to include schools, day care centres, colleges or universities, community centres, seniors' residences, and cultural centres. The impact felt by victims of hate crimes cannot be limited to just places of worship.

The public properties proposed to be included have either all been subject to hate crime or are vulnerable to being a target of hate crime. Whether it is places of worship or other property, the negative impact of hate crimes on the community remains the same. Also, under this criminal subsection, if a person is found guilty of an offence, there are stiff prison terms. While I agree education is the best long-term solution, I also believe a strong law and punishment act as major deterrents.

At this point, I would like to quote Dr. Martin Luther King on the interaction between positive law, morality, and culture. He stated:

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me...So while the law may not change the hearts of men, it does change the habits of men. And when you change the habits of men, pretty soon the attitudes and the hearts will be changed. And so there is a need for strong legislation constantly to grapple with the problems we face.

It is very important that we have a strong and robust law for hate crimes. Again, I agree education is important, but I am equally confident that good law is also required.

It is heartening to note the near-unanimous support I have received from all sections of society. I would like to recognize and thank the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for its ongoing support and its efforts to mobilize other stakeholders.

Bill C-305 takes a strong step to making our neighbourhoods and communities safer places to live. Think of the strong message we would be sending to all Canadians: that not select people but all people of Canada can feel safer knowing that Parliament has taken concrete and strong measures to protect them. I ask my fellow members support this important bill.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), and even more pleased that I will be seconding the bill that my colleague, the member for Nepean, has put forward. I have had the pleasure of working with my colleague in the past, through parliamentary friendship groups and discussing a number of other issues. I have seconded the bill for many other reasons as well though. The bill is a strong response to hateful acts, like the tragic shooting in a Quebec City mosque this past weekend.

As a mother of three, my children were taught that Canada is a country of multiculturalism and acceptance. Multiculturalism and religious freedoms are core parts of Canadian identity, although there are those who have a different world view.

Multiculturalism and pluralism are still challenged today. There are those who believe they can scare people into falling backward into the past. I know that at this time some leadership candidates for the Conservative Party are promoting ideas that would only divide Canadians. I have long been proud that multiculturalism has stood in the face of that view. It has been part of our national fabric for decades.

Multiculturalism is why people move to Canada. It is a country of harmony where people can freely start new lives and raise families. It is at the core of what attracts people from other countries to want to build a life here in Canada. In my riding of Brampton South, my office often gets calls from people all over the world asking us how they can move to Canada.

While countries in other parts of the world try to shut down their borders to Syrian refugees, Canada has opened its borders and homes to let them in, and we worried about how fast we could take them in. Never forget that our inclusive, remarkable country today was only possible because of immigrants. Canada is the nation of multiculturalism. It is not just a country of tolerance, but a country of acceptance. Acceptance is important, where those of different faiths, cultures, and ethnicities can coexist with one another without any fear of discrimination.

The acts we have seen recently do not make a difference, despite how the offenders hope they might. These acts do not reflect the Canada that Canadians know and love. Some of the recent heinous acts we have seen in various communities have been committed by youth, under the age of 18. I am baffled to see that there are people, particularly youth, that are getting the message that it is okay to promote messages of hate and racism at synagogues, mosques, and schools. I do not want my children to live in a world where they cannot feel safe in their country because of their cultural and religious background.

I want to tell a quick story about one of my volunteers, who is also a constituent of my riding. Stephanie identifies herself as a Canadian of Chinese Vietnamese descent. As a child, she was a target of bullying and racism among her peers in day care and elementary school, simply because she was the only student who did not look like them. She hated going to school because she felt that she was not safe, at a place where she should feel safe. She told me it all started to turn around when their class had a day where they learned about each other's cultures and really grasped multiculturalism. Over time, most of her peers started to treat her better. There are always a few outliers who do not change.

Bill C-305 understands that we need to be conscious and respectful, and to defend our brothers and sisters of different ethnicities, religions, and various backgrounds.

People are not born racist or hateful. It is taught, and people can unlearn it as well. I come back to it because these recent acts in the region sadden me, hearing that messages of hate are being spread in a country where people should be free to be who they are away from intolerance, bias, and hatred. Hate speech and hate-motivated mischief is the line between our right to freedom of speech and unfiltered hatred.

This should not be tolerated in Canada. These acts have used the symbols of hateful regimes of the past to scare people. In Canada, such a great, welcoming, open, free country, our citizens should not walk in fear in our communities.

It causes fear in communities such as my own, and it means that parents have to explain to their children very difficult things about what is going on. Kids are told sometimes to be vigilant for people who might want to hurt them just because of their identity and how they pray. We have seen this hate before, and we must work together to combat it. This is why this bill would take the next step, in focusing on the next issue.

Bill C-305 expands the definition of mischief to also include other places as well, particularly buildings established by a religious community, which were previously not included. This would ensure the equal protections and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. These are the principles—particularly freedom of religion and protection of that freedom by the government—echoed within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We need to firmly state the message that hate crimes such as ones in the vein and spirit of what we have recently seen in Quebec City will not be tolerated in Canada.

These institutions, gathering places, and places of worship that we would protect in this bill are the fundamental backbone places in each of our communities. In each of our ridings, we can point to places that make a real difference in bringing together our various communities: a park where communities gather, like Chinguacousy Park in my community; an educational institution like Sheridan College in my riding; or any number of landmarks we can point to.

We need to stand up for those groups who are being discriminated against and the culture of fear overall. In a world where many live in fear, Canada can be a beacon. This government stands up against that fear and that approach. This optimistic spirit drives our ministers and our Prime Minister to be more open. We cannot stand idly by. This is our opportunity to stand up and speak out. We are not making false choices like pitting safety and free speech against one another; we are making a choice where everyone wins.

I am glad to see support from around this House so far on this bill. I would like to commend all the groups who were involved in working on this bill. For years, the discussion around safe space has been happening, and this bill would make a real step forward on this. This bill has been supported by a number of important groups, and I want to take a moment to recognize them:

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs; the World Sikh Organization of Canada; Coalition for Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations; Canada India Foundation; Canadian Rabbinic Caucus; Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada; Baha'i Community Canada; Multicultural Council for Ontario Seniors; Ukrainian Canadian Congress; Ghanaian Canadian Association of Ontario; Presbyterian Church in Canada; Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada; Armenian National Committee of Canada; Canadian Polish Congress; Jamaican Canadian Association; Reconciliation Canada; Anglican Diocese of New Westminster; Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver; Vivekananda Vedanta Society of British Columbia; Temple Sholom, B.C.; International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Vancouver; and Akali Singh Sikh Society, Vancouver.

This bill speaks up in favour of those whom some would want to silence. This bill is something I think this Parliament should be very proud to pass into law. Again, I want to commend the author of this bill on his work to advance this discussion. Together, we can make a real difference for Canadians by voting for this. I encourage all my colleagues to think of those places in their community that they want to protect when they cast their ballot on Bill C-305. I know I will when I stand and vote yea on this bill.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everybody has alluded to the tragic terrorist event that happened in Quebec City just days ago. I hope that you and all of my colleagues in the chamber will allow me this opportunity to mention the names of those people who are no longer with us: Khaled Belkacemi, Azzedine Soufiane, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, Ibrahima Barry, and Mamadou Tanou Barry.

It is also important to note that five of these six men were fathers. According to the research, which I hope is accurate, and we have done all we can to find that out, 15 children have now been left without fathers. Therefore, it is poignant that we are debating this bill tonight.

Out the outset of my remarks on Bill C-305, I would like to remind the House of the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that”.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend the section of the Criminal Code that applies to hate crimes. As we debate the merits of this bill, we should bear in mind that the antidote for hate is not merely legislation. Indeed, it is love. However, as members of Parliament, we cannot legislate that citizens love one another, although as leaders we often have the opportunity to encourage our constituents to be tolerant, accepting, and compassionate. Furthermore, it is our responsibility to ensure that the legal framework is in place so that those who commit acts motivated by hate are held to proper account.

Last weekend we marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day as we remembered the six million Jews who died in what the Jewish people call the Shoah. I was reminded of my recent visit to Israel, where I toured Yad Vashem, the museum of the Holocaust. If we were to go there, we would enter a building that shows the timeline of anti-Semitism, how it grew, how it became socially acceptable, and how that paved the way to allow the Nazis to take over Germany and to come up with what they called the “final solution”.

As we look back at this time in our collective history, it is clear that any kind of racism, when allowed to brew, when allowed to fester, when allowed to grow, can turn into these kinds of atrocities that all of us despise and all of us would condemn. It is incumbent upon us to enact legislation that would help extinguish hate before it metastasizes into a more virulent form, which is what this bill seeks to address.

In the wake of the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, misinformed individuals firebombed the Hindu Samaj temple located in my riding, a temple meant for worship and prayer. This destructive act was meant to send a message of hate to Muslims, although it actually hurt the innocent Hindu community that gathers there. This is the type of act we should seek to avert before it happens by teaching and demonstrating tolerance while ensuring that measures in the Criminal Code are in place that could target the early signs of this type of behaviour.

Before I delve into the details of the bill before us, I would like to offer one further reflection.

I have been afforded the opportunity to serve as a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights for almost 11 years. This role has opened my eyes to what hate looks like unchecked when taken to its extreme. Hate has ravaged lives in the Middle East, South America, Africa, and virtually every corner of the globe. It has taken the form of genocide, sexual slavery, torture, kidnapping, and other horrific acts. In Canada, hate does not often take these extreme forms, but these tragic events abroad should also serve as a stark reminder that hate must not be allowed to take root. In fact, it must be given no oxygen whatsoever in the public square.

With these reflections in mind, I would like to thank the member for Nepean for bringing this bill forward. He has identified a gap in our statutes respecting hate crimes and has proposed Bill C-305 in response.

Presently, the Criminal Code provides for a penalty of up to 10 years for mischief related to religious property based on bias or prejudice against a certain race, religion, or some other identifiable group. In legal terms, “mischief” broadly refers to destroying, disfiguring, or damaging property or rendering property dangerous or of no use. In plain language, houses of worship are legally protected from damage or disfiguring brought about by hate.

In contrast, if a similar act of hate is committed against a university, a day care centre, a community centre, or a seniors' residence, charges would be laid under the general mischief section of the Criminal Code, but would only carry a sentence of up to two years.

Bill C-305 seeks to close this gap by extending the legal protection afforded to houses of worship to a wide variety of other property critical to our community lives.

It is my view that the Criminal Code should be consistent and tough as it relates to hate crimes. If a person inflicts damage upon a building to propagate a message of hate, such offenders should bear the weight of our criminal justice system, wherever it is.

For this reason, Bill C-305 is deserving of our support at second reading in order to send it to committee where it should receive due consideration, including a robust inquiry of witnesses and a thorough examination to ensure that any unintended consequences are avoided.

This work should also be done in a timely fashion in light of the recent events. The horrific attack at the mosque in Quebec City this past weekend is the latest example that hate still plagues our nation. On Monday, many members of the House gathered by the centennial flame in honour of the victims and to stand in solidarity with the Muslim community. These events should serve as a reminder to us as legislators that we ought to re-double our efforts to root out hate.

Additionally, at the end of 2016 in Ottawa, three synagogues, a mosque, and a church were spray-painted with racist graffiti.

I have every confidence that these actions and others like them are being met with the vigilance of our law enforcement officials. Meanwhile, we must ensure the law responds to these acts appropriately, no matter where they take place, be it a university campus, a high school, or seniors' home. This bill would give our police forces the tools they need to combat hate in all of its forms, everywhere.

Indeed, if we support Bill C-305, we will send the message that hate will not be tolerated in Canada. I look forward to supporting the bill when it comes up for a vote.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to join in the second reading debate of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mischief, which was introduced in the House on September 27 by the member for Nepean.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Nepean for bringing this important issue before the chamber to give this Parliament an opportunity to speak to it.

I also want to thank and commend the member for Victoria and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for their remarks, which were very timely and appropriate as well.

We have been tragically reminded of the impact that hate in all of its manifestations can have on our society. The horrific attack on the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec on Sunday night, the hate-inspired acts of terror which occurred that evening taking six of our fellow citizens' lives, injuring so many, and tragically traumatizing a community and a nation must deepen our resolve to confront and prevent hate in all of its manifestations.

In my experience, the issue of hate does not immediately manifest itself in acts of terror and murder, but far more often is expressed in acts of mischief. Our failure as a society to confront and deal appropriately with these acts, to denounce them in our strongest forms, and to resolve them through appropriate serious consequence can have the effect of encouraging them through complacency. We are reminded of the importance of dealing with this issue.

As parliamentarians I believe we could all agree that hate crimes in all of their forms cannot be tolerated in our country. They are a fundamental attack on our values and our principles and on each and every one of our citizens. A crime of hate against any Canadian citizen is a crime of hate against all Canadian citizens.

Our charter of rights and freedoms guarantees that everyone in Canada has a right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and our government is committed to protecting that right. The amendments proposed by this bill would strengthen the message that hate crime will not be tolerated in Canada.

I would now like to turn briefly to where the current law stands in Canada. Currently, there is a specific hate crime of mischief committed against property primarily used for religious worship which is found in subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, mischief relating to religious property. It is a hate crime because the offence is only committed when such mischief is committed out of bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin. The maximum punishment for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment. Subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code was enacted as part of the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, which was also known at that time as Bill C-36.

Today, hate crime is restricted to property that is primarily used for religious worship, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, and also includes cemeteries. However, during the committee hearings on Bill C-36, some witnesses, while approving of the creation of a specific hate crime of mischief, argued that the crime should be broader in scope, and if I may, I will cite some examples.

David Matas, lead counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, in his testimony at that time, argued that sex should be added to the list of hate motivations and also that the crime should be expanded to cover schools, organizational buildings, and cemeteries.

As well, on November 6, 2001, before the same committee, Mr. Ed Morgan, who was at that time chair of the Ontario region of the Canadian Jewish Congress, testified that all religious property should be protected by the hate crime mischief offence. He said:

Not just sanctuaries, not just synagogues or churches, but all religious structures, religious centres, religious schools, religious community centres, cemeteries—which are a particular target for hate crimes and desecration—ought to be covered as well.

He also argued at that time, and again I quote from his testimony:

...the grounds of group identification ought to be expanded to include, for example, hate crimes against groups identified by sexual orientation or gender. Gay-bashing is a hate crime, as would be an attack on a women's centre, every bit as much as on a religious community centre.

As a result, subsection 430(4.1) was amended by the House of Commons committee to add cemeteries to the list of properties primarily used for religious worship, but not the other kinds of properties that had been cited in the testimony, such as schools or community centres.

As well, a proposed amendment to add sex as a ground of hate motivation was rejected at that time, because it was seen as not relating logically back to the purpose of the hate crime mischief offence, which was to protect places of religious worship, unlike other hate motivations of race, colour, religion, or ethnic or national origin.

Bill C-305 proposes to add to this mischief offence additional kinds of property. These are buildings or structures used for educational purposes, for administrative, social, cultural, or sports activities or events, or as residences for seniors. As well, the list of hate-motivating criteria would be expanded by adding two new ones: sexual orientation and gender identity.

I wholeheartedly support the principles behind the bill that our criminal law should clearly denounce all hate-motivated mischief. However, it does bring forward some questions about the potentially broad scope of the proposed crimes in this section, which were previously discussed during the first hour of second reading by my colleague and the member for Charlottetown.

The private member's bill in its current form could potentially capture numerous unintended buildings and spaces such as sports arenas or coffee shops. These buildings or structures are currently protected by the general offence of mischief. Additionally, in order to ensure consistency with the existing hate speech provisions in the Criminal Code as well as those amendments proposed under Bill C-16, gender identity, which is currently before the Senate, we need to look more closely at this proposed legislation.

Therefore, the government will support Bill C-305 with a view to amendments to address the potential overbreadth and consistency with other provisions of the Criminal Code. We believe that Bill C-305 should receive second reading and be sent to committee for further study.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the member for Nepean for his commitment in bringing this matter forward. It is a timely piece of legislation. It is work that demands our closest attention.