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.

Religious Freedom

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of 25 petitioners. They are drawing the attention of the House to Bill C-51, an amendment that was proposed to section 176 of the Criminal Code that would eliminate protection for members of the clergy and other religious leaders.

They specifically draw attention to private member's Bill C-305, which was passed unanimously in the House. In that particular section, extra protection was given to a building or structure primarily used for religious worship, including a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. They think the protections in section 176 should be maintained. They ask the House of Commons to abandon any attempt to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code and to stand up for the rights of all Canadians, including all those included in the charter. They also mention that the practice of religion should be done without fear of recrimination, violence, or disturbance.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)—Chapter 23.

Bill S-211, An Act respecting National Sickle Cell Awareness Day—Chapter 24.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)—Chapter 25.

Bill C-60, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain Acts and provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect—Chapter 26.

Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States—Chapter 27.

Bill C-277, An Act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada—Chapter 28.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018—Chapter 29.

Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation—Chapter 30.

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act—Chapter 31.

[Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to present to the members of this committee on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent for the Jewish Federations of Canada.

We are a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians affiliated through local federations across the country. We believe in Canada's foundational values of freedom, democracy, and equality, and are committed to working with government, Parliament, and all like-minded groups to ensure that Canada remains a country where we all enjoy equal protections and opportunities.

In March 2015, I appeared as a witness before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security as it studied Bill C-51. Our testimony began with a statement of fact, “Jews are consistently targeted by hate and bias-related crimes in Canada at a rate higher than any other identifiable group.” Those words are, unfortunately, as true today as they were then.

Statistics Canada recently released its report on 2016 hate crimes, and once again Jews were targeted more than any other religious minority, with 221 incidents. We must, however, keep this in perspective. Canada is a very safe place for identifiable groups and one of the greatest places in the world in which to live as a minority. However, we must also remain vigilant. A single hate crime is one too many.

Whether considering the attack 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. Jews are often primary targets for terrorist attacks throughout the world: Belgium, Argentina, France, India, Bulgaria, Israel, Denmark, the United States. Understandably, Jewish Canadians are not just concerned about what threats might meet them abroad, but what could happen here at home.

Public Safety Canada's “2016 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada” notes that Hezbollah, the listed terrorist entity widely believed to have carried out the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, has networks operating here in Canada. The notorious 2004 firebombing of a Jewish school in Montreal still looms large in our collective memory.

Our community, therefore, takes a keen interest in the government's approach to counterterrorism. We appreciate the opportunity we were afforded to engage in the consultations on Canada's national security framework, both before this committee and with the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I hope that our recommendations will prove helpful and constructive for the committee.

We'll speak on the expanded oversight for CSIS, but before going there let me just address a couple of considerations with respect to advocacy or promotion of terrorism offences in general.

In the context of the former Bill C-51, CIJA was supportive of measures to empower security officials to criminalize the advocacy and promotion of terrorism and seize terrorist propaganda. CIJA supported these measures as a means of denying those intent on inspiring, radicalizing, or recruiting Canadians to commit acts of terror the legal leeway to be clever but dangerous with their words.

Bill C-59 seeks to change the law's articulation of this offence from “advocating or promoting” to “counselling” a terrorism offence. This doesn't necessarily undermine the intended function of the provision. Justice Canada's background information on the advocacy and promotion offence states, “The offence is modelled on existing offences of counselling and the relevant jurisprudence. It extended the concept of counselling to cases where no specific terrorism offence is being counselled, but it is evident nonetheless that terrorism offences are being counselled.”

The same intended outcome seems to be achieved in Bill C-59, which adds the caveat that the counselling offence “may be committed...whether or not...the person counsels the commission of a specific terrorism offence.” If, as Minister Goodale indicated in his recent testimony before this committee, this change empowers authorities to enforce the law with greater impact, it would seem a reasonable shift. However, we believe there is an oversight in the proposed new language that could narrow the scope of the provision, weakening it substantially.

The existing offence applies to “Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general”. Swapping out the advocacy and promotion language, this should become something like “Every person who counsels the commission of a terrorism offence”, but it doesn't. Instead, Bill C-59 reads, “Every person who counsels another person to commit a terrorism offence”. With this wording, it appears that the offence could apply only to a specific individual counselling another specific individual.

When it comes to the offence of instructing a terrorist activity, the Criminal Code is explicit. The offence is committed whether or not the accused instructs a particular person to carry out the activity or even knows the identity of the person instructed to carry out the activity. The same standard should apply to the counselling offence. The change of “advocacy and promotion” to “counselling” also impacts on the definition of terrorism propaganda.

Bill C-59 would remove “advocacy and promotion of terrorism offences in general” from the definition, consistent with the change proposed for the counselling offence I've just discussed. However, the all-important caveat that a specific terrorism offence need not be counselled, which is included in the new counselling offence, is lacking here. This should be adjusted for the sake of consistency.

I'll turn to expanded oversight for CSIS.

In our testimony on Bill C-51, CIJA supported the expansion of CSIS's role and responsibilities to include disruption of potential terrorist attacks. While we believed the new mandate was justified, we maintained that enhanced oversight was required to prevent abuse. Just as Canadians stand to benefit from a more robust approach to counterterrorism that emphasizes prevention, we argued that a concurrent increase in the review of CSIS's activities would be beneficial.

Measures to enhance SIRC's ability to provide adequate review are long overdue and are all the more imperative with CSIS's expanded mandate. We supported the refinements to CSIS's expanded mandate that Bill C-59 would put in place and the establishment of a national security and intelligence review agency. Both should help to ensure greater balance in protecting the security and civil rights of Canadians.

In the context of Bill C-51, we proposed several concrete reforms to enhance oversight and accountability for CSIS. The new oversight agency will fulfill our first and perhaps most important recommendation's objective of enabling a review of security and intelligence activities across all government agencies and departments. However, we believe the following three recommendations regarding the structure and composition of the new agency would help ensure it is set up to be as impactful as possible.

First, the chair of the new agency should be someone with experience in intelligence and national security, and should occupy the position on a full-time basis to ensure consistent, professional leadership.

Unfortunately, Bill C-59 states, “The Chair and Vice-chair may be designated to hold office on a full-time or part-time basis”. The bill also states, “Every member of the Review Agency who is not designated as the Chair or Vice-chair holds office on a part-time basis”.

We suggest this be changed to provide the option of other members being brought on full time without requiring a legislative amendment. Given that the workload of the new agency is likely to be significantly greater than that of SIRC, this could conceivably require full-time engagement from all members.

Second, we recommend that the chair of the new agency be designated an officer of Parliament required to provide regular reports directly to Parliament. This mirrors the recommendation we made in the context of Bill C-51 with regard to the chair of SIRC.

The requirement enshrined in Bill C-59 that public reports from the new agency be tabled in Parliament is beneficial, but this reporting is still mediated through the Prime Minister and other ministers. Designating the chair of SIRC an officer of Parliament with a mandate for regular reporting directly to Parliament would send a clear signal that the work of the new agency is independent from the government of the day.

Third, we believe Parliament should have a greater voice in the appointment of members of the new agency.

We welcome the consultation provisions included in Bill C-59 but believe the appointments should also be subject to approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons. This small addition, which is already standard practice in the appointment of officers of Parliament, would further enhance the credibility of the appointments process.

Although this may be more appropriate for your colleagues at the finance committee, it's also important to stress that the national security and intelligence review agency will require the allocation of significant resources, both professional and financial, if it is to be given a chance to succeed in fulfilling its important mandate.

CIJA's testimony in 2015 concluded with a plea for committee members to support a private member's bill that sought to extend hate crime penalties beyond houses of worship to schools and community centres. That initiative failed but was revived in this Parliament in Bill C-305, which passed third reading in the Senate in October.

I am pleased to conclude my remarks today, Mr. Chair, with sincere thanks to each of you for coming together in unanimous support for Bill C-305, a clear example of how elected officials can work together and make a practical difference to protect Canadians.

I hope committee members will consider my remarks today in that same constructive spirit, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to join with you.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table today.

The first one is from 26 petitioners, regarding Bill C-51 and religious freedoms.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the potential removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code, which they say is the only section that protects faith leaders from malicious interference with funerals, rituals, and other assemblies of any faith. They also draws the attention of the House to Bill C-305, which was passed earlier in the year, and drawing some allusions to it.

The petitioners ask the government to abandon any attempt to repeal section 176 of the Criminal Code and to stand up for the rights of all Canadians to practise their religion without fear, recrimination, violence, or discrimination.

[Bruce Clemenger]

Let me go back to thought, belief, conscience, and so on. One could make the argument, I guess, that religious freedom could be protected under freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, assembly, and so on. But it's not. Religion was distinctively added, recognizing UN declarations and the charter.

We're saying that just as religion is distinctively identified as a guaranteed freedom it is also appropriate to have distinctive protection for religious worship, the expression of religious freedom in the Criminal Code.

To your second point about equality rights, consider subsections 176(2) and 176(3): “Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose”. It's the same thing with subsection 176(3), which actually broadens it. If you have a meeting that is race-based or focused on a specific distinctive race, of whatever category, it may well be included in this. Rather than taking away from the protection of religious freedom, the onus would be on including more explicit protection, if it's not already here. But I think it's probably already here.

It's the same with Bill C-305, which created an initial offence for mischief against religious institutions and schools but also had institutions for benevolent, social, or moral purposes. The same thing is actually captured there.

[Shimon Fogel]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We appreciate the opportunity to present to members of this committee on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agency of the Jewish Federations of Canada.

We are a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians affiliated through local federations across the country. Like our sister organization, B'nai Brith, we are committed to working with government and all like-minded groups to ensure Canada remains a country where everyone enjoys equal opportunities and equal protections.

Canada is a tremendous country, particularly for members of minority groups. It is one of the most vibrantly diverse, inclusive, and respectful places in the world. However, hatred persists here in the margins of society. We must remain vigilant to ensure that hate does not gain a greater foothold and we must endeavour to push it ever further into the shadows.

Confronting hate is an all too familiar experience for Jewish Canadians. In report after report, Statistics Canada and police services across the country continue to confirm, as was noted just a moment ago, that Jews are the religious minority most targeted by hate-motivated crime, in both absolute numbers and on a per capita basis.

Nationally, there were 54 hate crimes targeting Jews per 100,000 individuals in 2015. While this number is relatively consistent with previous years, there was an increase in hate incidents targeting other minority communities, including the Muslim community. In fact, Muslims were the next most targeted group, with 15 incidents per 100,000 individuals.

Local numbers reinforce this. Let me give you some examples from the GTA, where the plurality of Jewish Canadians reside.

The Peel police service noted 23 incidents targeting Jews in 2016, which is a 155% increase over the nine incidents that occurred in 2015 and the highest increase in victimization of any identifiable group. Over that same period, there was a 92% reduction in hate crimes targeting Christians, from 13 to one, and a 54% reduction in those targeting Muslims, from 11 to five. Jews are around 0.2% of the population of Peel, but were targeted with 39% of all hate crimes. In the city of Toronto, the Jewish community is just 3.8% of the population, but was targeted in approximately 30% of hate crimes in 2016.

I mention these numbers not to showcase Jewish victimhood but to demonstrate the very real experience that our community has in grappling with the issues this committee is studying. At the same time, I want to note that percentages can sound alarming and misleading.

In York Region, anti-Jewish hate crimes decreased by more than 10%, while anti-Muslim hate crimes increased by more than 18% in 2016. This sounds significant until you look at the real numbers, which are a decrease from 19 to 17 incidents targeting Jews and an increase from 11 to 13 incidents targeting Muslims.

It's important that we not lose sight of the fact that on the whole, Canadians are incredibly welcoming, respectful, and accepting people and that hate crimes, though often jarring and sometimes horrifyingly tragic, are relatively infrequent occurrences. In Peel, 38,154 Criminal Code offences were reported in 2016. Of those, just 59, or 0.15%, were designated as hate-motivated. That said, one hate crime is too many.

Canada is a great place to be a minority. We believe the following constructive recommendations will help make it even better and we hope that each will be a point of consensus for this committee. I share with you four points.

Number one is improving data.

Currently, the collection and publication of hate crime and hate incident data varies widely by police department. I mentioned statistics from Peel, Toronto, and York Region, which are all readily available, but the reports from these three neighbouring jurisdictions each provide different information, so making direct comparisons is sometimes difficult. Other jurisdictions, such as Montreal, release no specific data regarding hate-motivated crime and which identifiable groups are being targeted. This practice has an impact on the national numbers compiled by Statistics Canada, leaving policy-makers, like each of you, with incomplete information.

This committee should recommend that the government establish uniform national guidelines and standards for the collection and handling of hate crime and hate incident data.

This step will help ensure that local, provincial, and national law enforcement consistently collect, catalogue, and publicize data regarding hate crimes and hate incidents. The more accurate and comprehensive the data available, the more appropriately efforts to counter hatred and bigotry in Canada can be calibrated to address the specific needs of the communities most impacted. Comprehensive empirical data is required to effectively diagnose the problems and prescribe the most appropriate solutions.

Number two is to define “hate”.

One can't effectively fight bigotry and hatred without precisely defining it. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism was achieved through multilateral consensus endorsed by governments around the world, including Canada's, to accomplish just that. Concrete examples set clear standards for what constitutes anti-Jewish sentiment and what is legitimate critical expression. Similar definitions should be established for other forms of hate, based on careful consideration, common sense, and consensus.

The term “Islamophobia” has been defined in multiple ways, some effective and some problematic. Unfortunately, it has become a lightning rod for controversy, distracting from other important issues at hand. While some use the term “Islamophobia” to concisely describe prejudice against Muslims, others have expanded it significantly further to include opposition to political ideologies. For example, this October's Islamic Heritage Month guidebook issued by the Toronto District School Board contained a definition of Islamophobia that included, ”dislike...towards Islamic politics or culture”.

This incident exposes significant problems associated with relying on ad hoc, inadequate definitions of Islamophobia. Muslims can be protected from hate without restricting critique of ideologies, especially those that are explicitly anti-Semitic. Recent examples of anti-Semitism on display at some mosques and Muslim organizations in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver have shown that extremism is a problem within parts of the Canadian Muslim community that must be addressed.

As Canadians counter hatred and protect individuals from discrimination, we must also maintain the freedom to debate and criticize ideas. Defining other forms of hate—including, but not limited to, Islamophobia—along lines similar to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is, we think, a good starting point. It would help law enforcement and others to identify hate incidents with greater accuracy and consistency and provide definitive guidance to Canadians about precisely where free speech turns into hate speech.

Next, when it comes to countering hate crimes, greater and more consistent enforcement of existing laws is needed. In many cases, hate crime prosecutions require the authorization of provincial Attorneys General. This can become highly politicized and can be a very difficult hurdle to overcome. Recently the Attorney General of Quebec decided not to lay charges in the case of an imam in Montreal who had called for the murder of Jews. On the charge of hate promotion, the statute of limitations had been exhausted.

In an era when statements can live on in perpetuity online, in this case on this particular mosque's YouTube channel, we believe the statute of limitations for hate promotion should be extended, and we encourage you to make that recommendation to the government.

Quebec's Attorney General also declined to pursue a second charge of genocide promotion. This decision sent a message that someone can call for the death of an entire group of people without consequence. We think that's the wrong message.

To address this situation, the federal government should establish a national training program for police and prosecutors to educate them about the dangers of hate speech and encourage them to enforce the existing Criminal Code hate speech provisions more consistently and more robustly.

Finally, federal government resources should be allocated to support the development of dedicated local police hate crime units. These units have been integrated into several police services across Canada and have constituted an unqualified success. Units specifically trained to investigate hate-motivated crime ensure that incidents are handled with particular sensitivity and understanding of the distinct nature of the crime and its impact on the victims, their families, and their communities.

Universalizing hate crime units would ensure that as many vulnerable Canadians as possible can benefit from these services that ensure the officers responding to hate incidents are the best equipped to do so.

Had this committee been conducting these hearings a year ago, I would have had an additional recommendation to share. Instead, Madam Chair, I would like to conclude with this.

I'd like to express our gratitude to members of this House for supporting Bill C-305and your colleague Chandra Arya for bringing it forward. CIJA has long advocated for these changes, which will expand penalties for hate crimes targeting infrastructure such as community centres of identifiable groups. As we speak, the bill has just passed its final vote in the House before becoming law.

Bill C-305 is a clear example, Madam Chairman, of how elected officials can work together in the spirit of consensus and common sense to make a practical difference in protecting vulnerable minorities. I'm hopeful that the committee members will similarly unite around the approach I have outlined here today.

Thank you.

Criminal Code

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be joining the debate on Bill C-51, this late in the night.

Before I go too far, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Durham, whom I am very pleased to be hearing from again today.

I was so pleased today to hear you, Mr. Speaker, mention in the House Yiddish for Pirates by Gary Barwin, who is one of my favourite authors.

Everybody in the House knows I am a big lover of Yiddish proverbs, and I have one also for this legislation. It speaks to our pinch points. Everyone knows where his or her shoes pinch. I will explain the pinch points I have in this legislation.

Many members on the Conservative side, including New Democratic members as well, have mentioned that they agree with the majority of the provisions in the bill having to do with increasing protection for victims of sexual assault. Nobody disagrees with it. It is a great idea. Clarifying the law is way overdue, but we do have pinch points.

There are proposed Criminal Code provisions that will be eliminated, and we simply disagree with that. Either we disagree or we think it is not in the right method. Abolishing laws in general, getting rid of Criminal Code statutes, and less government regulation is typically something I am all for. The less of it we have, the better. Not adding new laws to the statute books is a sign of restraint on the part of parliamentarians, and we would show greater restraint if we tabled more laws calling for the abolition of sections of different laws and reductions to the Criminal Code. That type of behaviour is laudable and it should be congratulated when it is practised in the House. Let us admit another thing too. This is an omnibus justice bill, and I have concerns about certain parts of it.

Why would we remove certain sections of the Criminal Code, like section 49? Why remove that part in the sesquicentennial of our country? That is Confederation, specifically, because Canada existed much before that. Is that not an odd provision to be eliminating during the 150th year of Confederation? The Crown is just as much a part of the history of Canada as the red ensign, the maple leaf, the Bill of Rights, Vimy, and countless other images and symbols we have in Canada. Section 49 only affects an incredibly small group of people, people who are intent on committing a malicious act against the Crown, in Her Majesty's presence of course.

As I said before, I completely support the amendments proposed in Bill C-51 to strengthen and protect the victims of sexual assault. They are timely and needed. As members heard from the Conservatives' justice critic, we are more than willing to expedite those portions to committee so they can be considered fully.

On removing the Criminal Code section on duelling, I have mixed feelings, not because I think duelling is right but simply because there is a long history in Canada of it being used as a deterrence tool. The last fatal duel in Canada was June 13, 1833, in Perth, between John Wilson and Robert Lyon, both law students. One was the son of a Scottish officer in the British army, the gentleman who passed away in this duel. John Wilson, who was acquitted of the crime, later was elected to the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada, became a Queen's Counsel, a QC, and was elected three times to that assembly. He was, of course, a Conservative.

There are also other provisions that covered those types of crimes, such as bodily harm, but it was also that extra prohibition on duelling and it was a big problem at the time. Nowadays, it is not so much. One of the members from Simcoe mentioned his views on duelling.

I understand the removal of section 143 of the Criminal Code, and I am surprised it is illegal. I see these types of ads all the time in my community, such as “Stolen bike, no questions asked, could you just return it to me”, or an open question about a lost cat, lost dog, or an RV is stolen. I have never known that this was an illegal act, that there was a prohibition on advertising the fact that someone would give a reward. Therefore, ending the prohibition on the use of such words in public advertising and offering a reward is probably very wise. It is eminently reasonable and wise for the House to do so.

The one I want to focus on, which has been the source of many questions I have asked in the House, is clause 14 on Criminal Code section 176, the prohibition against disrupting a religious service or interfering with a minister of a cult, a person who is in the service of others during a religious assembly of any sort.

I have serious concerns with removing this section. I have heard other members say we have other Criminal Code provisions that cover this. The difference is, section 176 gives extra protection. I will make a comparison in a bit between that and Bill C-305 because they are very much comparable.

Section 176 of the Criminal Code protects the clergy, and all those responsible for leading members of their faith in a service. Removing this particular provision is my pinch point in Bill C-51. It adds extra protection for individuals, serves as a deterrent, and protects religious services from disruption, including funerals. I am concerned what it could mean without this for those who are in the business of providing funeral services to others and the incentives therein.

I do not think anyone feels incented to disrupt a funeral. This type of provision serves as an additional deterrent. Subsections 176(1) and 176(2) also protect religious assemblies from wilful disturbance and interruptions. It does not talk about something accidental, it talks about something purposeful and wilful, when one is aiming to do something for the sole reason of disrupting a religious service. Most importantly, surprise.

As I mentioned before in a previous question, we went through the trouble in the House of passing a mischief improvement provision in Bill C-305, where we actually gave greater protection to property and communal spaces against vandalism motivated by hate. It was a very reasonable proposal as a private member's bill that was passed in this House. In that situation, we already had provisions to disincentivize and deter people from vandalising property. This was an additional charge on top of that which would be separate from it because we said communal spaces and crimes motivated by hate are special and deserve extra attention paid to them, and further punishment should one be found guilty of them.

We already have all those provisions on protecting property. The same idea in principle applies to section 176 of the Criminal Code that clause 14 proposes to eliminate; my pinch point in this piece of legislation.

We know there are other Criminal Code assault provisions to protect the person in the bill. There are provisions against interfering with persons and provisions preventing people from going into a sports match and disrupting it for the sole purpose of committing some type of mischief. I believe that clergy, Imams, leaders of any faith, deserve special protection. Why does the government not believe that as well?

Disrupting a sports match, an assembly for charity purposes, or a bingo game is mischief, most definitely. However, it is not the same as interfering with a religious service, not the same thing as interfering with persons who are leaders of a faith, and trying to look after members of their congregation, temple, mosque, or synagogue.

Just this week, Statistics Canada reported that there has been an uptick in certain hate crimes and crimes motivated against religions. Why would we then, two days later, consider Bill C-51, clause 14, which would eliminate that additional protection for leaders of a certain faith or religion who lead rituals, give services, and conduct funerals on behalf of community members?

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 just lays it out. Fundamental freedoms include: freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly.

Does section 176 not actually grant that extra protection for these freedoms to be practised in Canada? Why can we not have section 176 to assure ourselves that there will be an extra provision in the code to punish those who wilfully interfere with a leader of a faith conducting a service or a funeral?

I want to bring up one or two additional points. It was just this past May that an arsonist in Hamilton, who targeted a mosque, received 25 months in prison. Had the same person targeted the mosque during a service or had wilfully blocked assembly, section 176 could have been used in that particular case.

The last example is from my home province of Alberta. Father Gilbert Dasna was a Catholic priest who was murdered at his residence in St. Paul on May 11, 2014. Had Father Dasna survived and had there been an assembly at the local cathedral that had been disrupted by the gunman who murdered him, that person would have been eligible for an extra charge under section 176. Why is it so wrong to give individuals like Father Dansa extra protection from criminals?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech.

As I did before, I would like to bring the discussion back to section 176 of the Criminal Code. I will quote subparagraph 176(1)(b):

knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)...

The document then goes on to describe the specifics and what the Criminal Code is seeking to protect.

I agree with the member on the fact that the bill contains many sections and many notions related to sexual assault. As my colleague said, these are good ideas and good amendments to the Criminal Code.

However, I want to focus specifically on section 176. I would like the member to tell me whether he agrees with me. I do in fact think that we should offer members of the clergy additional protection, on top of what already exists in other sections of the Criminal Code.

As I mentioned earlier, we introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-305, which provides additional protection for property against vandalism motivated by hate.

I wonder if the member could expand on that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, earlier this session, and I think it was just a month ago, this Parliament passed Bill C-305, which actually increased penalties for vandalism motivated by hate of sacred property and property used by religious institutions. We already had provisions that covered it, but we felt that even more protection, a special protection, was needed from that particular crime.

I think that is the same point my colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville was trying to make, that section 176 offers an extra protection for members of the clergy and spiritual leaders. I would just like the member to expand on that. Could the member give us a further explanation on the comparison of Bill C-305 and the provision of Bill C-51 on—

[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 third reading stage of Bill C-305.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), be read the third time and passed.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague from Brampton South for her support throughout the process. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Mount Royal, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and all committee members who worked hard and delivered a bill that is more robust.

I am honoured to have received support from many religious and community organizations all across the country, organizations representing the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith, Sikhs, Hindus, and Christian faiths. They were all supportive. LGBTQ groups have also been a strong supporter, and it is my hope that this bill will soon become law and bring some peace of mind. In particular, I would like to recognize the support I received from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which worked hard to generate support from various stakeholders.

The consequences of hate crimes are considerable. A manual issued by the Attorney General of Ontario lists the impact of hate crimes on individuals, target groups, vulnerable minority groups, and the community as a whole. It says, on the impact on the community as a whole:

This, perhaps, is the greatest evil of hate crime. Hate crime can end up dividing people in society. In a multicultural society like Canada, where all groups are to live together in harmony and equality, hate crime is an anathema. Any occurrence of hate crime is a negation of the fundamental values of Canada.

Bill C-305 would codify the intent of this House into law. It would send a strong message to all Canadians that we stand united against hate crimes.

Once again, I would like to thank every member of the House who has, so far, unanimously supported this bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a privilege to stand in the House and to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the discussion that is already taking place in the House today because I believe this is a very timely issue and it is one that impacts Canadians as a whole.

The bill addresses a current injustice when it comes to sentencing for crimes that are motivated by hate in Canada. Currently, if an individual is convicted of mischief, which is a fancy word for vandalism, against a place of worship, the maximum penalty for that is 10 years. However, if the same individual were to vandalize a religious school, or a religious recreational centre or a religious day care, the punishment for that same crime would only be two years in prison.

This is the exact same crime and it is motivated by hatred for an identifiable group, but the penalty is dramatically different.

Canada is a religiously plural and multicultural society. It allows its citizens to live out their lives according to their conscience, their beliefs, their values, yet throughout its history, Canada has experienced a regrettable number of anti-Semitic and racist acts of vandalism.

The recent and tragic events that took place in Quebec City not too long ago with the Muslim community and then in Toronto with the Jewish community remind us of the severe impact the manifestation of hate can have on the lives of Canadians.

Fundamental human rights and freedoms are infringed upon when hateful acts interfere with the ability of those of diverse faiths, origins and political affiliations to live out their convictions according to need. While race, ethnicity, and religion remain the most common motivators for hate-based crimes, Statistics Canada indicates that such acts of mischief are not limited to these groups. Hate crimes have also been directed toward those of different sexual orientation, those of a different political belief, or those perhaps with a mental or physical disability.

In a country that values both tolerance and respect, the fact that only those crimes which are carried out on religious property are indictable under section 430 of our Criminal Code is unacceptable.

Hate crimes affect a broad range of Canadian citizens, not just those within these religious organizations. A church community may meet in an old movie theatre, or it might even choose a recreational centre or a school. Therefore, it is possible then that hate crimes or vandalism, mischief, could then be committed against these properties.

Parents may also choose to send their children to a day care that is religious in nature because of their beliefs and values. At present, these properties do not benefit from the same protections under the Criminal Code. This is why I support the amendment brought forward today.

To fight to protect religious freedoms is a fight that we in our capacity as parliamentarians have the duty to address and to promote. While the damage of vandalism is generally minimal, the impact hate motivated crimes have on the targeted population is often absolutely devastating.

In 2014, over half of the hate crimes committed in Canada fell into what was known as the mischief category. This was 523 of the 1,170 crimes that were committed. That is a huge number. It is clear this legislation applies to the majority of hate crimes that take place within our country. Who are the targets of these attacks?

In Toronto, incidents of hate motivated crimes increased by 8% in 2016 alone. That is a significant change. Within that, Jews are the single most targeted group for the 12th year in a row. The Toronto Police Service 2016 Annual Hate Bias Crime Statistical Report also revealed that Muslims were the target of hate crimes at about half the rate that Jews were, so making up a significant portion of that population being discriminated against.

I find this very concerning. It is again the reason why I am standing in support of this legislation going forward.

Jews make up only 3.8% and Muslims only 8.2% of Toronto's entire population, but these two communities were the victims of more than half of all the hate crimes committed within the city. Across the country, the statistics generally fall into a similar pattern. We see the same thing when we look from one city to the next.

In addition, with members of the Jewish community being the target of most attacks, we also see significant attacks that are brought against Muslims, those who are black, the LGBTQ community, and those with disabilities. These numbers are horrifying. I would argue as well that they are not just horrifying but, together, they are an attack on our identity as Canadians.

Our Canadian identity is based on the idea of many peoples joining together toward a common purpose. Hate crimes against an identifiable group, often minority groups, attack this central principle of unity on which so much of Canada is built.

These crimes are intended to make a community of people feel excluded from being Canadian. Therefore, in order to protect the many diverse communities spread across our vast and beautiful country, we must take action. We must increase the protection that is available to those who find themselves victim to these hate crimes. To do any less would betray Canada's history, the history that we have fought for with respect to having a common and shared identity.

Given the recent history in the House and the political games the government has played with the Islamophobia motion as of late, I would like to speak to the difference between protecting freedom of speech and supporting the bill before us today.

One of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy in Canada is freedom of speech. Our constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our Criminal Code give the maximum latitude when it comes to freedom of speech. The only limits that can be placed on free speech, according to the Criminal Code, is if the speech wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group, or where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the public peace. In other words, unless people are focusing their hate on one group, to the point of encouraging violence against it, they have not actually broken the law.

However, even within this provision there is an exemption for criticism of religion. The Criminal Code states that a person is not guilty of hate speech if “in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text...”

Our law is very clear. Debating the merits of one's religion is not in fact hate speech. However, focusing hate on an ethnic group and encouraging people to attack it clearly is. This is the distinction: words versus actions.

I fully support the bill going forward, because whether someone has a difference of opinion on religious grounds, there is no justification whatsoever for physically attacking a person or a property that belongs to a person who holds differing beliefs. Canada was founded on the idea that we are rational human beings and that our differences of opinion actually strengthen democracy rather than hinder it. We believe the testing of our beliefs and our values by the diverse traditions of the people who make up Canada ensures the preservation of our democracy. This is why it is so alarming to see the limits being placed on free speech on university campuses across our country right now.

Furthermore, it is why the Liberals' poorly-defined Islamophobia motion was so incredibly misguided. Their motion could take away the freedom of Canadians to debate the merits of religious ideas, about which I am very concerned.

As an alternative to Motion No. 103, the Conservatives put forward a well-balanced and inclusive motion that focused on condemning acts of systemic racism against all religious communities and not just one. Given the Liberals' love for the charter, one would expect them to understand the difference between religious ideas and religious communities.

The bill before the House right now, Bill C-305, closes a gap that currently exists within our Criminal Code. I believe it is absolutely necessary for the Canadian public going forward. Hate crimes are absolutely disgusting. They go against our shared identity as Canadians. Increasing the possible sentences for those who commit such crimes is entirely worthy of the House. These provisions will continue to protect the freedom of speech that Canadians currently enjoy, and they will enhance religious freedoms by providing a stronger disincentive to commit hate crimes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief) as reported back to the House of Commons with amendments.

I want to begin by commending the sponsor of the bill, my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean. I also want to take a moment to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for their dedicated work. I also want to commend the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for all of his passionate advocacy over the years for the LGBTQQ community, and in particular for the transgender community, without which I do not believe we would be at this historical moment.

Allow me first to set the bill in the context of recent past events. As has been mentioned recently in the House, in January of this year, six people were murdered in a Quebec City mosque, an event that shocked and appalled the nation. In Ottawa there has been a troubling spike in the incidents of hate graffiti on synagogues over the past several months. Such incidents should cause us as legislators to consider how we wish to confront and prevent the commission of hate crimes in our society.

Bill C-305 is an important response to strengthen the ability of the criminal law to adequately denounce and deter hate crimes. It proposes to expand the scope of the current hate-motivated mischief offence now found in subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code. That provision, entitled “Mischief relating to religious property”, currently prohibits mischief committed against buildings or structures primarily used for a religious purpose, such as a church, mosque, synagogue, or cemetery. The offence must be committed out of hatred, prejudice, or bias based on religion, race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.

The current provision carries a maximum punishment of 10 years of imprisonment when prosecuted by indictment and a maximum penalty of 18 months in jail when prosecuted by way of a summary conviction.

The Criminal Code presently has a sentencing provision to address hate crimes. Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the code requires a judge to take into consideration as an aggravating factor for any crime whether the crime was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hatred. This is based on a non-exhaustive list of criteria, including religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, mental or physical disability, sex, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.

Some may argue that given these existing provisions, there is no need to expand the offence of hate-motivated mischief any further, since what is not caught by current subsection 430(4.1) would be addressed at the sentencing stage when the judge must take into consideration whether the offence was motivated by hatred. However, I believe this is an overly narrow interpretation of the law as it stands, and we have an opportunity as legislators to address this.

I acknowledge that judges may rely on the existing sentencing provisions to account for hateful motivation, but I believe that by expanding the actual offence of hate-motivated mischief, we have an opportunity to send a strong message of condemnation to those who would commit such crimes.

Denunciation of this type of offence is not merely symbolic. Hate-motivated mischief carries a heavier maximum penalty on summary conviction than the general offence. In addition, by showing leadership on this troubling issue, we stand to raise public awareness in a real and impactful way.

As a result, while some may perceive a redundancy, others will recognize the benefit of providing a broader range of tools to our police, prosecutors, and other criminal justice professionals and, I would add, justice for victims of this particular type of crime.

I will now address the specific changes proposed in Bill C-305 as well as the amendments passed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As I noted earlier, the existing offence under subsection 430(4.1) of the code applies only to mischief committed against religious property. While this is one category of property that deserves special recognition, I believe that a broader diversity of Canadians stand to benefit from an expanded application of this section.

Bill C-305 addresses this issue head-on by amending the current hate-motivated mischief offence in two ways. First, the bill proposes to include new buildings or parts of buildings primarily used as educational institutions, including a school, day care centre, or college or university; used for administrative, social, cultural, or sports events or activities, including a town hall, community centre, playground, or arena; or used as a seniors residence.

Upon passage of this bill, therefore, vandalism committed against a Jewish or Muslim community centre would be caught by the expanded hate crime mischief offence and not just vandalism committed against a synagogue or a mosque.

I should note that a major concern for our government was expressed during the debate at second reading. The concern was that the definition of property that it proposed to add to the current offence was overly broad. The list of new properties caught by the bill appeared to be much broader than we believe was intended. For instance, the bill would have likely covered privately owned sports stadiums, as well as any buildings used for social purposes. In other words, it would have covered buildings that have no real connection to groups that are historically targeted by hate-based mischief. As a result, the government felt this aspect of the bill reached too far.

I am pleased to say that this issue was addressed by the standing committee during its study of the bill. Specifically, amendments passed by the committee require a building or space to be “primarily used” by one of the groups protected by the bill. This helps maintain a rational connection between the hateful motivation and the building that is subject to the mischief.

The amendment will help to ensure that subsection 430(4.1) does not accidentally capture instances of mischief committed against property that is not actually connected with one of the protected groups.

The bill proposes to expand the list of “identifiable groups” that are covered by the mischief provision of the Criminal Code to make it more consistent with the groups set out in the section on hate propaganda offences.

The definition of “identifiable groups” for hate propaganda offences covers not only groups that are identifiable by colour, race, religion, and national or ethnic origin—the motivations currently set out for hate-based mischief—but also those identifiable by age, sex, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability.

Bill C-305 seeks to eliminate that inconsistency by establishing a list of motivations for hate-based mischief that is similar to that set out in the definition of “identifiable groups” under the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code. In other words, the motivations of age, sex, sexual orientation, and mental and physical disability would be added as motivations for hate-based mischief as soon as the bill is passed.

It is important to note that Bill C-305 proposes adding another item to the list of motivations for hate-based mischief that depends on the passage of Bill C-16 by both the House and the other place.

My colleagues may recall that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, proposes adding gender identity and gender expression to the definition of “identifiable groups” for hate propaganda offences.

My colleagues will also recall that, although Bill C-305, as introduced at first reading, proposed adding gender identity to the list of motivations for hate-based mischief, gender identity was not addressed in the bill. The sponsor of the bill recognized that this was an oversight. The amendments proposed by the standing committee corrected that omission.

As a result, once Bill C-16 comes into force, an act of mischief committed against property primarily used by a group identifiable on the basis of its gender identity where the mischief was motivated by hatred based on gender identity would be caught by this expanded offence.

To summarize, Bill C-305 would expand the current hate crime of mischief to clearly denounce additional types of mischief motivated by hatred against certain historically marginalized groups. It would therefore provide additional tools to our criminal justice system to protect Canadians from hate-motivated crime.

I would once again like to thank the sponsor for his outstanding advocacy on this issue, as well as the standing committee for its excellent work on Bill C-305. I sincerely hope that the hon. members of this House continue to support Bill C-305 in order to more fully protect the diversity of communities in our Canadian society.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to speak in favour of Bill C-305. I would like to echo that thanks to the member for Nepean for bringing this forward.

In the current climate in North America and around the world, where there has been a promotion of hatred against all kinds of groups, a promotion of hatred that has often led to violence, this is a very important expansion of protections in Canada. I do not normally support amending the Criminal Code piece by piece, but the urgency of the situation we are in right now means that we should do this as quickly as we can, so I am very pleased to see this moving forward.

As people know, there are only two very basic things here. The bill says that places that are included in the law against hate-motivated damage should be expanded to include things we would all agree on. Very few Canadians would say we should not protect day cares, schools, and universities. Why would we not protect all those groups that are listed as protected groups under the hate crimes legislation? I think, in many ways, it was an oversight, over time, that this mischief provision was not updated as other laws changed.

Of particular concern to me, as an advocate for the inclusion of transgender rights, is that the original version of the bill actually was not consistent with Bill C-16, so I am very pleased to see that it has come back with a coordinating amendment. I am confident that Bill C-16 will pass through the Senate, even though it has taken an inordinate amount of time for that to happen. The legislation to add gender identity and gender expression to the human rights code and the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code first passed this House in 2011. Here we are, six years later, still waiting for the Senate to add those important protections. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that the bill has that coordinating amendment.

When the bill finally moves in the Senate, and my understanding is that hearings are going to commence tomorrow at the Senate committee, we will look forward to this coming back, I hope, before the House rises and therefore in time for what is known colloquially as the Pride season. It will give some additional thing to celebrate at that time.

I hope this bill will also be expedited in the Senate, if we can get it there, and that it will deal with this one quickly as well.

There are some people, mostly younger than me, who would be surprised to know that the original version of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not include protection for sexual orientation, let alone gender identity and gender expression. As I have said before, I was not a supporter of the charter at that time, because there was a debate about the inclusion of my own rights in that charter. A decision was made by Parliament at that time, unfortunately, to exclude sexual orientation. At that time, there was not even a debate about gender identity and gender expression. We have come a long way, and I am here today to salute that progress and to salute the committee for making sure that this progress is reflected in this bill.

It is an unfortunate fact in Canada that hate crimes that result in violence are most often directed at first nations people and transgender people. These are the two groups with the very highest rates of hate-motivated violence, so the bill would be of assistance in helping protect the community places where we would expect to find first nations people and transgender people in a safe place. It would help enhance that safety, which is so important.

I wish it were not true, but I know from the Victoria Native Friendship Centre, which is in my riding, that hate crimes, hate-motivated violence, and even hate graffiti often appear at their community centre. That is a great surprise to me. I do not think of my riding as one where hatred is that strong and where people are that disrespectful of other members of the community, especially the Native Friendship Centre, which is a centre where people who are trying to better their lives go. It focuses on adult education and employment programs. It is a very positive place in all those ways, so it is particularly upsetting when I see those attacks on a place like that.

While we originally started with churches that often do that positive work in our community, it is very appropriate that we expand it to these other places that often make such a positive contribution in all of our communities.

I thought a bit about what I was going to say tonight, and I was not going to go to the obvious place when we talk about the promotion of hatred, which is south of the border. I have to say, however, that in this connection there is an unfortunate spillover into this country. People talk to me about their fears and concerns. They talk to me about things which are not problems in the community which I represent. There are things that they see and hear coming from the United States, and this often has motivated people to be fearful, for instance, currently of refugees.

I had the privilege of meeting earlier today with a coalition of groups that support gay and lesbian transgender refugees from around the world. We talked about the group that has crossed irregularly into Canada. Anecdotal evidence tells us that around 40% of those who have crossed irregularly between the borders are from the LGBT community. Why are they doing that? The Conservative Party has taken a strong stance against the illegality of those crossings, but I argue strongly, as many others do, that under international law those are not illegal crossings. These people are fleeing violence and hatred in the United States. Talking to them about their experiences, especially those who are people of colour, they tell us they have become fearful of living there, and they see Canada as a place where they can find safe refuge.

This legislation illustrates the best of what is Canadian, and why people are attracted to come to this country. They want to find a safe haven. They want to be able to integrate into Canadian society, and make a contribution which will allow them to support themselves and their families. I was pleased to sit down at this meeting today and talk about those kinds of successes.

The Liberals quite rightly raised the goal of having 25,000 Syrians come to this country. In my riding, what was most impressive was how people with no particular connection to Syria stepped forward. They were not Muslims necessarily, and they were not from the Middle East. They did not have any particular reason to step forward, but as Canadians they felt that they should do their part. Many were from families that had immigrated to Canada, some of them from refugee families in previous generations, Hungarians and other people who had fled their homeland. It was so encouraging to see those people step forward and sponsor refugees. When the deadline elapsed saying they were no longer sponsors, there were no examples in my community where those ties that had been built under that refugee sponsorship program were broken.

There is some disappointment among those sponsors and with those in the community who see refugees as threats, and as bringing terrorism into the country. These refugees are fleeing terrorism and extremism, and they have come to Canada because, as the bill says, we are a tolerant country. Canada is a country which will not tolerate hatred and violence focused on religious, racial, sexual orientation, or gender identity grounds.

This is one of those cases where Canada has made progress, but we are not done. We have more to do. If the impact of this legislation is to expand those safe spaces for doing that positive work in our communities, then it has done a great thing. Without the member for Nepean bringing this legislation forward, we would have missed an opportunity to build a better and more inclusive Canada.

I look forward to this legislation making its way to a final vote here in the House and going to the Senate. I was asked, in relation to Bill C-16, to explain to a reporter how things get through the Senate. I said that, unfortunately, I cannot do that, and I am not sure there is anyone who can do that right now because there is a bit of chaos in the Senate over rules and how things proceed.

However, I am going to launch that plea again tonight, that when this legislation gets to the Senate that it be treated in a fashion that expedites its passage, so that we can have this in place as soon as possible, and give yet another symbol of what an inclusive country this is, and how we will stand up for people's rights and make them safe everywhere in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-305. I want to again take the opportunity to acknowledge my friend from Nepean for his hard work and his leadership in moving this legislation.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend section 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, which relates to mischief against religious property. Section 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for an individual to commit an act of mischief motivated by hate targeted at a place of worship such as a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple.

In addition to section 430(4.1), there is also a section of the Criminal Code that deals with mischief targeted toward general property. The reason section 430(4.1) was added to the Criminal Code to deal specifically with acts of mischief motivated by hate targeted at religious property was in recognition of the fact that such acts of mischief were different than acts of mischief to general property.

Take, for example, someone who sprays graffiti on the back wall of a restaurant. In such a case, the victim is the owner of the restaurant. Take the example of someone who sprays hateful graffiti on the back wall of a mosque or synagogue. That is an act that targets an entire community. It affects an entire community and it victimizes an entire community.

Bill C-305 would amend section 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code by expanding the categories of properties to not only include places of worship, but to include the likes of schools, community centres, and seniors residences. The expansion of these categories recognizes that mischief motivated by hate and targeted to people of a religious faith or a religious group often do not just take place at places of worship, but take place at religious schools, or religious community centres or religious seniors facilities. We have seen many examples of hate crimes that have been perpetrated against schools and community centres.

We saw a few years back the horrific fire bombing of the United Talmud Torah School in Montreal. More recent in Ottawa a string of mischief incidents were motivated by hate, which targeted a mosque and two synagogues, but also targeted a Jewish learning centre as well as the Ottawa Muslim Association.

Bill C-305 is good legislation. Its objective is laudable. It was why I was proud to speak in strong support of the bill at second reading. It is why I am proud to speak in strong support of Bill C-305 at this stage of the legislative process.

Bill C-305, upon passing the House at second reading, was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member. As a member of that committee, I had an opportunity to study the bill in some detail.

Upon studying the bill, listening to the witnesses, and reviewing the evidence that was presented to the committee, I, along with the majority of the members of the justice committee, believed that in some respects Bill C-305, as originally drafted, was overly broad, inasmuch as it would apply not only to religious schools, religious community centres, and religious seniors residences but to all schools, all community centres, and all seniors residences. In my view, that would not be consistent with the purpose of section 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, which was added to the Criminal Code in recognition of the fact that mischief motivated by hate targeted at religious property was a crime that was different, that was unique from mischief that targeted general property.

At the same time as finding that perhaps it was overly broad in some respects, I, along with the majority of the members of the justice committee, could not really see any logic as to why the section applied in cases of mischief targeted toward religious property but did not encompass similar acts of hate targeted at property associated with other identifiable groups. After all, when one commits mischief motivated by hate on a religious community centre, an ethnic community centre, or an LGBTQ youth centre, such acts of mischief are acts that target entire communities, affect entire communities, and victimize entire communities.

On that basis, the justice committee brought forward a few amendments to Bill C-305. As a result, Bill C-305, as amended, is, in some respects, narrowed inasmuch as it no longer applies to any school, senior centre, or community centre. However, at the same time, section 430(4.1) is expanded to encompass not just acts of mischief targeted at religious property but mischief targeted at property associated with any identifiable group, “identifiable group” being already defined in the Criminal Code.

I believe Bill C-305 would help send a strong message that hate crimes against any identifiable group would not be tolerated and that the perpetrators of such egregious crimes would be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Once again, I thank the member for Nepean for his hard work and leadership, and I urge the passage of Bill C-305.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the current subsection of the Criminal Code, vandalism against the Jewish Community Centre is not covered.

Under Bill C-305, with the amendments that have been passed by the Standing Committee on Justice, vandalism against the Jewish Community Centre would be covered.

That was a major focus of this bill, to expand the definition of property to beyond places of worship. The current subsection in the Criminal Code is limited to places of worship only, but with this new bill it would be expanded to include schools, community centres, cultural centres, and those used mainly by these identifiable groups.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-305 proposes to amend a subsection of the Criminal Code which deals with hate crimes against religious property. With the proposed amendments passed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that subsection would include hate crimes against religious properties and other buildings as well. The existing motivations have been expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has proposed amendments which I humbly accept. It is my understanding that the government will support the amendments to Bill C-305 that were passed as the proposed changes are consistent with our government's stated commitment to diversity and inclusion. The amendments would protect additional groups and ensure consistency with other provisions of the Criminal Code, and address over-breadth.

I am honoured to have received support from many religious and community organizations all across the country. Organizations representing the Jewish faith, the Islam faith, Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians have overwhelmingly supported Bill C-305. LGBTQ2 groups have also been strong supporters of this bill. It is my hope that this bill and, optimistically, soon a law can bring some peace of mind by acting as a strong deterrent against these acts of hatred.

Hate crimes happen in small towns and large cities. They involve everything from simple graffiti to brutal murders. They may be called hate crimes, bias crimes, civil rights crimes, or ethnic intimidation. All these crimes are committed because of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or against other recognized groups.

Canada is an inclusive nation. We welcome people from all over the world, irrespective of race, religion, colour, or creed. Regardless of where people are from, what nationality they are, or what they believe, they will be treated with respect in Canada.

Although bigotry may be as old as humanity itself, the term “hate crime” is a new one, as is the idea of special treatment of these offences. The term “hate crime” came into common use during the 1980s, but the term is often used retrospectively in order to describe events which occurred prior to that era. From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by both individuals and governments long before the term was commonly used.

We had certain dark episodes in our country: the Chinese head tax; the internment of Ukrainian, Japanese, and Italian Canadians during the First and the Second World Wars; our turning away boats of Jewish and Punjabi refugees; our own history of slavery; “No Irish need apply”; “We don't speak French here, so speak white”; 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 1930s and 1940s is being used to raise fears 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 1960s, we deployed the RCMP to investigate suspected homosexuals. This discrimination still exists in Canadian society today.

While Bill C-305 would not solve every issue related to racism and discrimination, it would take important small steps in protecting those most vulnerable, strengthening the Criminal Code, and acting as a strong deterrent.

In my speech today, I will refer to an excerpt from the book Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies, by Phyllis Gerstenfeld. She writes that the birth of hate crimes in the United States was in 1977 when a neo-Nazi group called the National Socialist Party of America wished to hold a demonstration in front of the village hall in Skokie, Illinois, which had a huge, large Jewish population, many of whom were Holocaust survivors. One organization that paid special attention to this was the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, a group that combats anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry. Alarmed by increasing anti-Semitism and frustrated with existing federal and state laws, it drafted a model ethnic intimidation statute in 1981.

Together with allies, such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, it began lobbying states to pass the statute. When it was passed, the model statute contained four provisions. The first of these is institutional vandalism, aimed primarily at people who targeted cemeteries, community centres, and places of worship. Bill C-305 would also deal with this provision, with proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.

Hate-based mischief can have a long lasting impact on the community. A recent study by the Department of Justice stated that the commission of a hate crime is against not only the individual but the entire community. It quoted David Matas who said that people live in community, their Rights are exercised in community. The study 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”.

As well, it is important to consider that the impact on the individual victim may result in the victim rejecting the aspect of themselves that was the target of the attack or associating a core part of their identity with fear, loss, and vulnerability.

Since introducing this bill eight months ago, there have been a considerable number of high profile hate-related incidents. Right here in Ottawa, hate-based motivated acts were committed against synagogues, a Jewish community centre, a rabbi's private home, mosques, and a church. Then there was the horrific shooting at a mosque in Quebec. Whenever these things happen, it is important for each and every one of us to stand up united to condemn these acts.

The intent of the bill is consistent with our commitment to ensure equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, in keeping with the charter. It is also consistent with a clear message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canada. Bill C-305 would take a strong step in making our neighbourhoods and communities a safer place to live. Think of the strong message we would be sending to all Canadians that not only select people but all people in Canada can feel safer knowing that Parliament has taken concrete and strong measures to protect them.

Once again, I would like to thank all members for their continued support of Bill C-305.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

moved that Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking all members of this House. They unanimously supported this bill at second reading. Bill C-305 seeks to amend a subsection of the Criminal Code which deals with damages to property due to crime motivated by hate based on religion, race, colour, and national or ethnic origin. The bill proposes to expand this to include motivation by hate based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

In its present form, subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code creates an offence for hate-motivated mischief relating to religious property. Bill C-305 proposes to amend this section by expanding the scope of buildings to which this subsection applies. The proposed amendments add hate-motivated mischief directed at a building primarily used as an educational institution or for administrative, social, cultural, or sports events, or as a residence for seniors. These are in addition to the places of worship, such as temples, mosques, synagogues, and churches. The unanimous support for this bill, as received today, sends a strong message to all Canadians that we stand united against hate crimes.

Bill C-305 would expand the scope of motivating grounds on which the offence may be based. The current law only provides protection for crimes motivated by hate based on religion, race, colour, and national or ethnic origin. The proposed amendments would add the grounds of hate, sex, sexual orientation, and mental or physical disability.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has proposed amendments—

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

Out of respect for the witness testimony, I think that the “primarily used” subsection is problematic. I go back to that example. If it's a business, a bar, or some kind of a building that's not listed within the definitions of Bill C-305 but is clearly identified with an identifiable group—they congregate there—it's known as an ally, and it's targeted specifically for that reason.

Are you saying it's more important to protect the building, or is our intention here to target the crime that's taking place? To me, it's the action, because it's targeting a building that is associated with a group. Whether it's a school or a business, the crime took place, the action took place because people knew it was associated with the LGBTQ community, or with a Jewish group, or with a Muslim group. That, for me, is the crux of the issue in this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

I should have pointed out earlier that NDP-4 would cancel out LIB-2, because LIB-2 is amending the same lines. I just note that NDP-4, if adopted, no longer ties to a building used by an “identifiable group”, because it goes back to the wording of Bill C-305, unless it's amended. I'm just pointing that out.

Are there any comments on that side?

Mr. Fraser.

[Glenn Gilmour]

This would propose to add the concepts of age, sex, or mental or physical disability to what had been proposed originally in Bill C-305. It makes no reference to the concept of gender identity, but for a particular reason. This amendment would make the hate-motivating criteria in Bill C-305 consistent with the current hate-motivating criteria in the present definition of “identifiable group” for the hate propaganda offences in the Criminal Code.

All of these criteria are found in the hate sentencing provision of the Criminal Code as well. It would ensure that the list of factors is updated to reflect the hate-motivating factors that occur in the definition of “identifiable group” for the Criminal Code.

As has been mentioned, in Bill C-16, which is currently before the Senate, we propose to add the concepts of “gender identity” and “gender expression” both to the definition of “identifiable group” and to the hate crime sentencing provision in the Criminal Code.

I believe mention has been made of a motion for a coordinating amendment to ensure consistency, so that at all times the list of hate-motivated criteria for this expanded hate crime mischief offence—if that is the choice of the committee—would be identical with the list of hate-motivated criteria for the definition of “identifiable group”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Just to clarify, Mr. Gilmour, in Bill C-305 as proposed, and in the various amendments, we're not talking only about the building itself, but we're referring to portions thereof of a building. So if a portion thereof were primarily used, that would also.... Even if the rest of the building were used for something different, if you had a shopping centre and one portion was a church and it was primarily the church, that would also be covered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to convene this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I am pleased to welcome you all here today.

Today we will do our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

I will be going through the amendments in the order they were received by line, so we're basically going to start from the top of the bill. We'll move down by line and then, if there are conflicting lines, I will give you guys the one that was received first and then let you know which ones are not receivable afterwards if we adopt the first amendment.

(On clause 1)

Our first amendment is NDP-1. If NDP-1 is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved as both amend the same lines. Basically, if NDP-1 is adopted, it would knock off Conservative-1.

I will let Mr. MacGregor put forward his amendment.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Glenn Gilmour]

I have a couple of comments.

I'll just reiterate that even under the current law, without Bill C-305, those sorts of incidents could be caught by the sentencing provision in subparagraph 718.2(a)(i).

If the desire of parliamentarians is to expand the scope of the bill so that temporary use rather than long-term or primary use of a building for, say, an LGBTQ community would be caught by its scope, then it would seem to me that one would have to change the “primarily used by” provisions. It's broader in scope. Let's say you're going to a bar and mischief is committed against the bar because there are members of the gay community inside that bar. If you were to ask me, in the way this bill is currently worded, I don't see it, by my reading of it, covering that kind of activity.

As I mentioned, it would be covered by the hate crime sentencing provision under the general mischief offence because, presumably, a bar would be worth more than $5,000.

[Glenn Gilmour]

My reply to that would be, I suppose, in part related to Bill C-16,, the bill currently before the Senate on expanding not only the definition of “identifiable group” but that would also amend the hate crime sentencing provision in the Criminal Code to add both gender identity and gender expression to that provision. In that sense, the hate crime sentencing provision, once Bill C-16 is passed, would reflect current thinking by Parliament on the need to protect groups that had not been specifically singled out for protection before.

The other part I would mention is that Bill C-305 only focuses on mischief committed against various groups when that is motivated by hatred. It does nothing to focus on violence against persons when that violence is motivated by hatred based on various criteria, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The way the current law works is that, for those kinds of incidents, say assault or assault causing bodily harm, the sentencing provision in the Criminal Code, in 718.2(a)(i), is used to adequately denounce and punish such conduct, not Bill C-305.

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

Thank you.

Going into the actual wording of Bill C-305, if you look at proposed subsection 430(4.101), paragraphs (a) through to (d), we had witnesses talk about the use of the phrase “primarily used”. Is the use of that terminology going to be problematic in excluding certain types of property, or do you think it would be best for us to modify that wording to make it more encompassing?

A large part of the story from this committee so far has been about the language in this and whether we need to broaden it while being more specific. If you can help direct us to the goal line, that would be much appreciated.

[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?

[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.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the effort made by my colleague, who just advanced the clock in the House. I am very pleased that you heard the right time when he said it because it was a praiseworthy effort and it was very kind of him to speak to all of us in the House in French.

I am usually very happy to rise in the House to speak to different bills, whether they are government or private members' bills, as is the case this evening with the member for Nepean's Bill C-305. I will be very clear. I am unhappy to rise today not because of the substance of the bill, but because we have to pass a bill such as this one.

Sunday's tragic events in Quebec remind us that it is important to protect everyone living in this country from hate crimes. It is our role as parliamentarians to take action, as the member for Nepean is doing, so that we can intervene when such crimes occur.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend section 430 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the commission of mischief motivated by hate toward a group and targeting a religious property, be it a church, synagogue, temple or cemetery. Bill C-305 goes further, proposing to expand the scope of section 430 of the Criminal Code to include other types of property such as schools, other educational institutions, cultural or sports centres, seniors’ residences and other institutions.

As has been said, the bill could not be more welcome. It aims to fill a gap in section 430 of the Criminal Code. The fact is that, if a person motivated by hate against a particular group commits mischief against a religious property such as a place of worship, that person could be charged, prosecuted, and found guilty under section 430 of the Criminal Code. If the person is convicted he or she could be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

On the other hand, if that same person, being motivated by the same hate against the same group, should commit the same mischief, but against a school, a recreational facility, or a residence for seniors, that person could not be charged under section 430 of the Criminal Code and would not be liable to a maximum prison term of 10 years. That person would probably be prosecuted under the general mischief provisions of the Criminal Code, and be liable to a maximum sentence of two years.

Later in my speech I will describe one very specific case where the person was not given a prison term for an act of hatred such as this. The sad fact is that certain hate crimes are committed on a regular basis. According to Statistics Canada, nearly 1,300 hate crimes were reported in 2014. These were just the crimes that were reported. Statistics Canada informs us that the vast majority of hate crimes are not reported. People would rather not report them. They would rather not draw attention to this sort of crimes, not make them public knowledge, not deal with them, with the result that the intolerable is tolerated, to the point that acts that are even more violent are unfortunately committed. In 60% of cases, the crimes reported involved mischief.

I would like to read some excerpts from an article published on l'Actualité's website on January 31 following the tragic events in Quebec City. The title of the article is “Hate Crimes Targeting Religion on the Rise in Quebec”.

The article says:

...since Sunday, the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization and the Montreal police service have been receiving more calls than usual. Quebec's public safety ministry logged 93 hate crimes against all religions in 2014 compared to just 70 in 2010. Many of the crimes were mischief, which includes vandalism. The ministry was able to provide details about crimes against Muslims, but only for the past two years. It began keeping track of details about religion-related hate crimes in 2013 and reported that there were 20 hate crimes against Muslims that year. In 2014, that number increased by 15 to 35. According to Montreal police, hate crimes linked to religion are also on the rise. The police logged 55 in 2016 compared to 24 in 2013...

The article does not specify which religions were targeted, but I do not think that is what the debate is about. Whether they target a religion or a group, all such actions are totally unacceptable today. As I said, while many crimes or wrongdoings may not have been reported to police, not all wrongdoings that were reported led to criminal convictions.

The Montreal police service also indicated that it had received a number of calls early in the week from people denouncing hateful or Islamophobic comments on social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Some of those comments were even criminal in nature, including threats for example.

The good news is that since Sunday, people are paying more attention. People are reporting those comments; they are no longer tolerating them. Whether on Twitter or Facebook, on a church or a school, such comments should never be tolerated.

During that same period, the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence reported 14 hate incidents—targeting, for example, ethnic origin or sexual orientation—and 16 cases of Islamophobia, for a total of 30 cases. Of that number, only half were reported to police. Many people do not report hate crimes. “They are uncomfortable or nervous”, regrets the centre's director.

In Sherbrooke, in 2014, a local man committed hateful acts against a mosque and a store that sells halal products. He got a $500 fine for putting up signs that said, “no to Islam and yes to the charter”. He was referring to the Quebec government's proposed charter of values under then premier Pauline Marois. Worse yet, bullet holes were found in the windows of a grocery store owned by a Muslim in Sherbrooke. The individual was given a $500 fine and two years' probation.

More attention should have been paid to those incidents. They are indicative of a deep malaise and serious societal dysfunction. Those are things that needs to be addressed. Each of these incidents is important because we need to prevent them from escalating into a tragedy like the one that occurred on Sunday in Quebec City.

I rarely do this, but I would like to quote one of my colleagues opposite. The comments he made this week touched every member of the House. I would like to share the words of the member for Louis-Hébert with my constituents in Mégantic—L'Érable. His remarks were so eloquent that I will quote him directly. He said:

Today, I also want to ask their forgiveness, forgiveness for watching while, over the past few years, they were ostracized and stigmatized, while fear, mistrust, and hatred took root in the hearts of my fellow human beings. I did my best to do something about it, but I ask their forgiveness for not doing enough. Words have consequences, but so does silence.

I commend my colleague from Louis-Hébert for those remarks. As members of Parliament, we need to take note of what he said. Silence has consequences. As parliamentarians, failure to act in these situations also has consequences.

I am very pleased with the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Nepean because it breaks that silence. It helps us, as parliamentarians, do what we can to put an end to the hateful acts that are occurring in our country.

Bill C-305 adds to what we, as parliamentarians, can do to counter hate crimes. That is why I want to commend my colleague and tell him that I fully support this bill.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding mischief. I want to thank the member for Nepean for bringing this bill forward.

Bill C-305 would make small but significant changes to the way we handle hate-motivated crimes against communal spaces. There are many things we can do to stand up to discrimination and make our communities safer for all of us. This bill is one good step in that direction, so I hope we can all work together to see it debated, improved, and passed into law.

Canada is thought of, at home and abroad, as an inclusive nation, a place that welcomes all people, regardless of culture, language, or religion, with equality and respect. It is a country where diversity is not just accepted but celebrated. We strive to make Canada a nation free from racial intolerance and xenophobia, but recent events remind us that we still have more work to do.

Here in Ottawa, right here in the nation's capital, we have seen mosques, synagogues, and a Jewish community centre vandalized. We have seen discrimination in communities right across Canada, and in Quebec City this weekend, we saw where hatred can lead.

In Canada, racial and ethnic discrimination motivates about half of all police-reported hate crimes. Another quarter of these crimes are driven by prejudice towards religion, and that number, sadly, is rising. In just the last three years, hate crimes against Muslim Canadians have more than doubled. These statistics should not cause us to despair. They should call us to action.

Bill C-305 would expand the protection we give to communal spaces against vandalism driven by hate and discrimination. As it stands, the crime of mischief in our Criminal Code is punishable by up to two years' imprisonment, but where that mischief is motivated by “bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin”, it becomes punishable by up to 10 years behind bars. This is only the case, however, when the crime is committed against religious property. It does not apply to other community spaces.

Bill C-305 would extend these legal protections to more communal places, including daycare centres, seniors' homes, schools, town halls, and sports arenas, granting them the same protected status as places of religion.

Let us be clear. This is not just some arcane criminal law question. It is about our values. It is about supporting Canadians' right to live without fear of discrimination and to enjoy spaces free from hateful vandalism. It is about making it clear that hate-fuelled vandalism is a hate crime, regardless of where it is committed.

A second benefit of Bill C-305 is that it would expand the list of discriminatory motives for hate crimes to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation”.

Ten years ago, New Democrats pioneered legislation calling for the inclusion of gender identity as a prohibited basis for discrimination under federal human rights law. I want to acknowledge the incredible hard work and dedication of my colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who advanced the cause this far. I want to thank all members from all parties who have joined that cause along the way. Because of the efforts and advocacy of thousands of Canadians, that cause succeeded in passing Bill C-16 recently, which is a milestone in Canada's commitment to inclusion and protection for all.

However, as it stands, the wording of Bill C-305 before us today is inconsistent with Bill C-16 in that it includes gender identity but does not include gender expression. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and consistency, I would propose that both be included and protected by this bill.

We know that one in six hate crimes in Canada is motivated by discrimination toward sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. These are not the most common hate crimes, but they are the most likely to be violent.

I believe an amendment at committee to mirror the language used in Bill C-16 and change “gender identity” to “gender identity or expression” would strengthen the bill and affirm our policy of zero tolerance for transphobic discrimination.

These and other amendments can be considered at committee. However, I want to thank, again, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean for opening the door for much-needed conversation on hate crimes in Canada.

Better laws can counteract these offences. However, changing laws is obviously not enough. We need to teach empathy in our schools, tolerance in our workplaces, and openness and inclusivity in our community centres and spaces. We have a responsibility, now more than ever, to stand up to discrimination. The roots of prejudice are in lack of understanding, and that is within our power to change.

We know that Canada is not immune to the disturbing trends we see south of the border and across Europe. We have seen how playing with the fire of fear and division can spark violence. However, we have also seen acts of great strength. We have seen citizens speaking up for their friends, for their colleagues, or for complete strangers, refusing to let differences divide them. Now is the time when we must look to that strength and reaffirm our commitment to building a safe, resilient, and welcoming Canada for all.

We know what happens when we fail to stand up to those who seek to divide us.

This week, six Canadians were murdered in a mosque, targeted because of their faith. That act of violence shook our country and triggered an outpouring of support for our Muslim friends and neighbours, as Canadians gathered in vigils across the country to remember the victims. However, we cannot ignore that the hatred that led to a gunman in a mosque in Sainte-Foy, Quebec, is not so different from what drives a teenager to spray a swastika on a door in Ottawa or a commuter to hurl racial slurs on a streetcar in Toronto.

It is critical, now more than ever, that we condemn, not only these acts, but also the divisive rhetoric that inspires them.

At a time when so many are fearful, we can lead by example. We can do more to protect the diversity we are so quick to call our greatest strength.

Every individual in Canada has the right to live without fear of persecution. This bill would be one more step to ensuring that right is protected. I urge every parliamentarian to commit to that cause and support the bill.

The House resumed from November 22, 2016 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.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is a nation that is proud of its multiculturalism. We thrive when we all grow together. As the Prime Minister has always said, we are strong, not in spite of our differences, but because of them.

However, Canada is not immune to the issue of hate crimes. It is an issue that affects us from coast to coast to coast. As the country continues to become more diverse, hate crimes against individuals and groups are an ongoing issue.

The most common form of hate crime is that of mischief, damage to property, most often in a form of vandalism. These cowardly acts, targeted at people and groups in our neighbourhoods, are hurtful, not only to their intended targets, but to our communities as a whole.

It is for this reason that the member for Nepean proposed Bill C-305. This bill seeks to amend section 430 (4.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada that to date only includes places of worship such as churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques as protected places against hate crimes.

In its current form, Bill C-305 seeks to expand this to include schools, day care centres, colleges or universities, community centres, and playgrounds.

The LGBTQ community is one of the most targeted groups when it comes to hate crimes. While Parliament has previously passed legislation to protect these groups, section 430 (4.1) currently does not recognize hate-based mischief against one's sexual orientation or gender identity. The current law only recognizes bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.

Bill C-305 seeks to include these two groups. It is the sponsor's hope that with the passage of Bill C-305, our neighbourhoods will be a safer place for the LGBTQ community.

I believe the bill is very important for making progress in fighting hatred and hate crimes, and I really congratulate the member for Nepean for his hard work on this, for bringing this forward. When we look at the results of the bill, we see a wide number of stakeholders have come out in support of this. We have heard from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the World Sikh Organization, the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations, the Canada-Indian Foundation, the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, and so on and so forth. This is a wide breadth of support for a very important bill to address hate.

Where I grew up in rural Quebec, there used to be signs on places that said, “No dogs, no Jews”. Hatred is a real thing. It is a thing that has to be fought. It has to be fought against and protected from. I think this is a really nice step and I really encourage the member for Nepean to go forward with this, and I am looking forward to the second hour of debate.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today to contribute to this important debate on Bill C-305, which aims to amend the section in the Criminal Code dealing with mischief. Currently, there are four specific offences listed as hate propaganda offences or hate crimes in the Criminal Code of Canada. There is advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred, willful promotion of hatred, and fourth is mischief motivated by hate in relation to religious property.

The proposal before us today intends to strengthen the penalties and the convictions for hate crimes that target property. Damage to property is the most common form of hate crime. These crimes can range from graffiti to the complete destruction of a building through fire. Sadly, we know that the main targets for this type of crime are schools, places of worship, community and cultural centres, seniors homes, and even memorials. Places of worship, as I mentioned earlier, are already covered by existing legislation, but we need to close the gap and address the realities of hate crime. This is why the bill proposes to include, along with religious property, day cares, schools, community centres, seniors residences, and playgrounds.

The statistics are startling. One half of police-reported hate crimes are based on race or ethnicity. Another quarter are based on religion. Sixteen per cent are based on people's sexual orientation. Sixty per cent of these hate crimes are non-violent mischief targeted at property. This proposed bill would help police and the courts by giving them a stronger tool to crack down on this type of criminal activity in our communities.

I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say that there is no place in Canada for hate. We are a peaceful and compassionate society as a whole, but that can never be taken for granted. We have a societal duty every day to defend the country and the way of life we have taken so long to build and defend. At the same time, we have to recognize that we are not perfect as a society. Things that were tolerated in the past are no longer tolerated as we have become more enlightened. As little as a generation ago, it was common to have the LGBTQ community targeted. As a society, we have taken a stand to say this is not what we want in Canada. We now have an intolerance for those who target people based on whom they love. We have an intolerance for those who target our indigenous communities, but we can still do more.

Another part of this proposed legislation seeks to broaden the definition of mischief as it relates to those acts motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Sadly, a sizable portion of the population still hates others simply because of the colour of their skin, the nature of their worship, or the gender of the person whom they love.

I am not naive. I know that passing legislation such as this would not fix the backward thinking and prejudices of folks like them. However, it would allow us to deal with bad apples within our community. Hateful actions hurt more than just those they target. They affect the entire community. They divide communities. They foster mistrust among neighbours and make us all feel a little less safe and less secure. These criminals are misguided. They think that their criminal actions will only hurt those whom they hate. However, they often make victims of those they purport to protect in the community.

I will digress for a moment to make a general comment about hate. The recent American election seems to have raised the issue of hate speech again. I will not go on about this, but I will say that hate is not limited to any one political stripe or any one nation. I have seen it from both ends and in the middle. As a society, we can do better here in Canada. Hate for fellow citizens is alive and well in all ridings, including my own.

I receive thousands of responses from constituents on a regular basis, as we all do in this House. I am saddened by the very small but consistent number of hateful responses I receive.

These comments are occasionally targeted at me, but usually at others in our community. These venomous and toxic comments are targeted at others, based on their skin, their god, their sexual orientation, their political affiliation, or anything that makes them different from the writer. These spreaders of hate know their comments are not welcome in the community, though. They never provide their names. They hide, cowardly, in their anonymity.

I simply mention this because folks ought to know that their other opinions rarely count for anything in my books, when accompanied by their hateful comments. If they have something constructive and valuable to say, it is best said intelligently, without all the hate.

This is not the first time that this legislation has come before the House. I applaud those who tried to bring these issues forward in the past and did not give up.

Societal change does not happen overnight. Change is a difficult concept for some and a dream for others. I do not doubt for a second that every single person here has been the target of hate, at some point. When members were the target of hate, it resulted in a lasting memory. It left a deep emotional scar, I am sure. It made them mad. People need to take these memories and the emotions they created and channel that energy into fighting hate in all its forms.

This legislation could be a valuable tool to our law enforcement in dealing with hate crimes in our communities. It would make it easier to get convictions and deal with this problem.

Before I close, I want to encourage all Canadians to challenge hate at the source. If we have friends, family members, or co-workers who engage in this type of thing, we should take a moment to let them know that they do not speak for us.

People may be amazed to find that many of these spreaders of hate are incredibly insecure and when they find out that they are alone in their thinking, it can provoke perhaps a moment of personal reflection and perhaps even change. Our silence in situations like this is taken by them as tacit approval of their behaviour. Our silence is seen as agreement with their thinking. We should not let them speak for us.

Recently, we commemorated Remembrance Day.

Tens of thousands of Canadians fought hate. They gave their lives to put down those who sought to reshape human existence through hate. They gave their future so that we could have one. There could be no greater dishonour to their memory and their sacrifices than for us to give up on the fight against hate.

Yes, we have the freedom to speak our mind in Canada, but that freedom was found in the fight against hate. Let us not forget that.

I am reminded, in cases like this, of a certain saying, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”.

I and many others in this House are supporting this proposed legislation because we want to be part of the solution when it comes to fighting hate in our communities.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak about private member's bill, Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

Bill C-305 seeks to broaden the provision of the Criminal Code on mischief that constitutes a hate crime in relation to buildings or structures that are primarily used for religious worship by adding other types of buildings or structures.

To help situate the Bill C-305 within the criminal justice system, I intend to do three things in my remarks. First, I will provide an outline of how the current criminal law addresses cases of mischief that are hate motivated. Second, I will provide recent statistics of mischief that is hate motivated. Third, I will briefly outline how Bill C-305 proposes to expand the existing hate crime of mischief committed against property primarily used for religious worship, including some concerns with this approach.

First, let me address what the Criminal Code currently does to prevent hate mischief including hate-motivated mischief. Section 430 of the Criminal Code includes a general offence of mischief, which carries penalties ranging from up to two years imprisonment, where the value of the property that has been vandalized does not exceed $5,000 in value; up to 10 years imprisonment, where the value of the property that has been vandalized exceeds $5,000; and up to life imprisonment, where the mischief causes actual danger to life.

The variations in punishment for this offence depend on the value of the property that has been vandalized, not on the cost of the damage done to the property. For example, minor damage of a few hundred dollars done to a property that exceeds $5,000 in value, such as a house, could result in a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment, not a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment.

For the general offence of mischief, like for all criminal acts, there is a sentencing provision for hate crimes. In fact, subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code indicates that, during sentencing, the courts must take into account any aggravating circumstances, including whether the offence was motivated by prejudice or hate based on a non-exhaustive list of motives, such as race, colour, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

There is also a specific hate crime of mischief relating to religious property. Subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code specifically prohibits mischief directed against a building or a structure that is primarily used for religious worship—such as a church, mosque, or synagogue—an object associated with religious worship, or a cemetery. For a person to be convicted of this offence, the mischief must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment on indictment. Enacted in late 2001 by the Anti-terrorism Act, this offence was designed to prevent the chilling effect that some mischief could have on the worshippers of a particular religion.

Now let me move on to what we know about the incidence of hate-motivated crime in Canada and, in particular, hate-motivated mischief. The uniform crime reporting survey conducted by Statistics Canada in collaboration with the policing community collects police-reported information on hate crimes. This includes offences motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, and any other similar factor.

It also includes information about hate crimes categorized by the term “most serious violation”, which includes the categories of mischief and mischief to religious properties motivated by hate. The statistics for mischief for the last two years of police-reported information on hate crimes cover the years 2013 and 2014. Statistics Canada reported that for 2013 there were 1,167 incidents of police-reported hate crime in Canada.

Now let me provide some information with respect to vandalism committed because of hatred of a person's religion.

According to the B'nai Brith of Canada's annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2015, for the five-year period from 2011 to 2015, antisemitic vandalism declined to its lowest point in 15 years, with 136 incidents in 2015, compared, for example, to 362 in 2011 and 238 in 2014. However, it added:

Frequent and ongoing threats against the Jewish community result in increased security costs for synagogues, Jewish schools and community organizations, in order to maintain the safety of those who utilize such facilities. These increased security costs are unfortunately justified, with hundreds of incidents every year taking place at Jewish institutions.

As well, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which tracks hate crimes committed against Muslims, has noted on its website that in 2015, of the 59 hate crime incidents reported, 18 involved vandalism against Muslims.

Bill C-305 proposes to expand subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, mischief relating to religious property, to include hate-motivated mischief directed at a building or structure that is primarily used as an educational institution; for administrative, social, cultural, or sports activities or events; or as a residence for seniors.

Bill C-305 also proposes that the grounds of hate motivation found in subsection 430(4.1), currently restricted to acting out of bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion, race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, should be expanded to include the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation. As a result, if Bill C-305 is enacted, subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code would no longer have, as its underlying rationale, preventing a chilling effect on worshippers of a particular religion.

The intent of Bill C-305 is consistent with our government's commitment to ensuring equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, in keeping with the charter. It is also consistent with a clear message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canada.

This rationale is well explained by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA. This organization has highlighted the recent spike in anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-Muslim vandalism that was reported in Ottawa, including at three synagogues and other religious institutions in our nation's capital.

CIJA argues that the current law is deficient, since it only designates as a hate crime mischief committed against a religious site such as a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. In its view, this designation should be broadened. To quote from its website:

Hate-fuelled criminals do not distinguish between synagogues, community centres and schools. Neither should the law.

I believe that this principle is a worthy one, but I have questions about the potentially broad scope of the proposed crime. For example, would it include structures such as sports arenas, like the Rogers Centre in Toronto? Would it apply to a coffee shop used regularly by a university Spanish club or to an office building occupied partly by government? As it is currently worded, it appears that the bill could potentially capture numerous unintended buildings and spaces. As a result, the offence could become over-broad and potentially vague.

Potential impacts of the bill on other parts of the Criminal Code must also be considered. Would it have a deleterious effect on paragraph 718.2(a)(i) of the code, the hate-crime sentencing provision, since that sentencing provision would no longer be used in a large number of mischief cases?

Lastly, I am concerned about maintaining the underlying rationale of subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code, which is to protect freedom of religion. In its current form, the bill appears to go quite far beyond that original intent.

Cabinet will therefore support Bill C-305, with amendments to address over-breadth and consistency with other provisions of the Criminal Code, including those referred to by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.

As noted, this bill aligns with our government's commitment to charter values, as well as being a clear message that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Canada. For these and other reasons, I believe that Bill C-305 is deserving of further discussion and examination at a committee of the House.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-305, introduced by the member for Nepean.

The bill is both timely and important in our community. The member for Nepean read a long, very impressive list of groups that are supporting the bill. That tells us a lot about the significance of promotion of hatred in North America at this time.

The bill would do two basic things. One is to expand the number of places that are defined as protected under law against hate-motivated damage, basically from religious property to community institutions like day cares, schools, universities, town halls, senior centres, and sports arenas. This is admirable, because we know that those who want to promote hatred do not pick on churches alone. Although they quite often do pick on churches, we have all seen these messages scrawled elsewhere in our communities. This is the essence of why this is an important bill.

The second part is important to me, as one of the six out gay members of Parliament. It tends to expand the grounds for protection of groups to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That is laudable. We have made progress over the years in extending protections to people of my community, but it has always been done in a piecemeal fashion, kind of step by step. I accept that this is another step in that progress.

Some people are surprised to know that sexual orientation was not originally included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, I am old enough to have been around at that time. In fact, I was actually here in Ottawa at that time, and I was not a supporter of the Charter of Rights because it did not include my rights. That was corrected through decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 1996, Parliament, and again, a Liberal government, brought forward a government bill to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 2004, the section we are really dealing with in this bill was brought forward by Svend Robinson, a New Democrat member of Parliament, and the first out gay member of Parliament. His private member's bill succeeded in working its way through Parliament to add sexual orientation to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code.

Of course, I am very proud that Bill C-16 has now passed in the House of Commons. It would extend that same protection against hate crimes to those who are gender diverse, non-gender binary, or those who are called transgender. Bill C-16 would also add this to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

When this bill gets to committee we will be asking for one small amendment, and that is to make its wording consistent with Bill C-16. That will take a very small amendment, but I am confident that the member for Nepean had no intention of narrowing the bill. I hope to have a good discussion with him about the possibility of that. I regard it as a technical amendment that really meets the objectives of what he laid out in the bill.

When it comes to hate crimes, we know the groups that are most often subjected to them because of the statistics that are kept. However, I would point out in the chamber, as I did in debate on my private member's bill in the last Parliament, and as I did on Bill C-16, that we do not keep good statistics on hate crimes that are committed on the basis of gender identity or gender expression, because these are not explicitly embedded in the law. They are lumped together usually, when they are considered at all, with sexual orientation, which is quite a different matter than gender identity and gender expression. Again, I hope we can make the bill more consistent.

We need a larger debate about hate crimes in this Parliament at some point. I am not faulting the bill. It is not the purpose of the bill, but I would look forward to a discussion, because unfortunately, in the last Parliament, in June of 2013, we passed a bill that removed section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would have allowed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do more proactive work against hate crimes in our society.

The very fact that this is coming forward as a private member's bill gives me some confidence that we can probably find a consensus in this Parliament to actually restore the power to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do that preventative work that would prevent the kinds of crimes that Bill C-305 is talking about.

I look forward to finding a forum where we could have that broader discussion among MPs.

I would hope that the government might bring forward such a bill as part of its agenda. Again I have to question why this important bill is a private member's bill and not part of the government's agenda. In response to my question, the member for Nepean said he hoped to have the support of his frontbench and the Minister of Justice for this legislation. That is a bit of a waiver for me in terms of my confidence. I hope that we can and will see the government, particularly the frontbench, support the bill and not kill a private member's bill as it has done to other Liberal backbenchers.

When it comes to hate crimes, the crimes that the bill focuses on are the most common. I do have to note once again that the groups most likely to be subject to violent hate crimes are the LGBTQ community and, in particular, transgender Canadians, and within that group, first nations or two-spirited people.

I am pleased that on Friday and Saturday in my riding, the Victoria Native Friendship Centre is putting on a workshop for two-spirited British Columbia youth from across the province to help them build confidence in themselves and to confront the prejudice and the violence they often face. I intend to be at that conference on Friday and to bring news, I hope, that we have support for adding gender identity and gender expression to help protect two-spirited first nation youth in this country against these kinds of hate crimes.

Who is in favour of this legislation? I guess my question should be, who in Canada would not be in favour of this legislation? Quite often because of the immense overflow of American culture and American politics into Canadian society, we get caught up in the negativity that goes on there, particularly the negativity of the presidential campaign, and the increased frequency of hate crimes reported throughout the United States as a result of the unfortunate encouragement of prejudice and hate by some very prominent citizens, including the current president-elect of the United States, whose name I always avoid saying.

As previous speakers have done, I am not going to review some of the incidents that have taken place. We all know about them. It is a bit like my own personal habit of not mentioning the perpetrators of crime, but instead talk about the victims and how they recover from that crime. It is important that we recognize the reality, and I thank the member for Nepean and the member from Edmonton for bringing that to our attention again.

I know my time is drawing short, but let me go back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I extend my thanks to the member for Nepean for bringing this forward. I encourage him to talk to the frontbench of his party seriously to make sure that those members will support this legislation. We have found some support, I hope broad support, within the Conservative caucus. The member will find universal support in the NDP caucus for his bill. We will ask for what I regard as a technical amendment to broaden the legislation a bit to make it consistent with Bill C-16. We look forward to this legislation's passing through the House expeditiously.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in strong support of Bill C-305. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Nepean for his hard work in bringing forward this important and much-needed legislation.

Bill C-305 seeks to amend section 430 of the Criminal Code. Section 430 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence for an individual to commit an act of mischief motivated by hate targeted at a group and carried out on religious property, whether that property be a church, synagogue, temple, or cemetery. Bill C-305 seeks to expand section 430 of the Criminal Code to include other types of property, whether it be a school or other educational facility, a cultural or community facility, a seniors facility, or other facility.

Regretfully, Bill C-305 could not be more timely. Recently, we have seen a spike in anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim racist vandalism in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and other centres throughout Canada. Just last week, as the hon. member for Nepean alluded to, we saw peaceful Jews, Muslims, and black Christians targeted by a criminal with a string of hateful vandalism.

Bill C-305 seeks to close a void in the Criminal Code that presently exists under section 430. The fact is that if an individual commits an act of mischief motivated by hate toward a particular group and carried out on a religious property such as a house of worship, that individual would be subject to being charged, prosecuted, and convicted under section 430 of the Criminal Code. If convicted, that individual would be subject to a penalty of imprisonment for up to 10 years. By contrast, if the same individual committed the same act of mischief motivated by the same hate and targeted at the same group, but carried it out not on religious property but at a school, a recreational facility, or a seniors facility, that person would not be able to be charged under section 430 of the Criminal Code and would not be subject to a penalty of imprisonment for up to 10 years. Most likely, that individual would be subject to prosecution under the general mischief provisions of the Criminal Code where the maximum penalty is up to two years.

Acts of mischief motivated by hate toward a particular group, whether it be on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, and so on, are not general acts of mischief. They are much worse. They are acts of hate. They are acts of hate designed to intimidate and terrorize a particular community. It is precisely for that reason that under section 430 of the Criminal Code, an individual who commits an act of mischief motivated by hate targeted at a group on religious property is subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, not two years.

Bill C-305 would close the loophole that presently exists in the Criminal Code by ensuring that anyone who commits an act of mischief motivated by hate toward a particular group would be subject to section 430 of the Criminal Code and subject to a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment whether they carry out that act of mischief at a religious facility, a school, a community centre, or other facility.

We know that, so often, acts of mischief motivated by hate are carried out in places other than strictly religious institutions or other religious property. Indeed, when we look at the very sad events last week in Ottawa, we saw that, yes, a church and two synagogues were targeted, but also the Ottawa Muslim Association as well as a Jewish teaching school. This past July, a Jewish community centre outside of Montreal had graffiti spray-painted on its doors. In 2004, the United Talmud Torah School in Montreal was firebombed. There are hundreds of other examples in the past number of years.

We, as Canadians, take pride in our collective diversity. The values of tolerance and inclusivity are Canadian values, but the fact remains that crimes motivated by hate continue to occur in Canada. Sadly, they occur regularly. Indeed, according to Statistics Canada, in 2014 nearly 1,300 hate crimes were reported. Those were just the reported hate crimes. We know from Statistics Canada that the vast majority of hate crimes are not reported. Of the hate crimes that have been reported, nearly 60% involved mischief.

Based on those very troubling statistics, it is evident that we have a lot of work to do collectively as Canadians to combat the scourge of hate. As we undertake that work, we must not be complacent and turn a blind eye, but must be vigilant and proactive, and must call out hate when we see it, by shining the light on the darkness of hate.

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure that individuals who perpetrate crimes motivated by hate are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Bill C-305 would be a step in that direction. Let us support Bill C-305 and make sure that this legislation is passed as soon as possible.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from Nepean for all of the hard work he has done on his private member's bill, Bill C-305. Again, you have done a great job, and a lot of great work.

Having worked for the RCMP for a number of—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

moved that Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to my private member's bill. Bill C-305 seeks to amend a subsection of the Criminal Code which deals with damages to property due to crime, motivated by hate, based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin. The bill proposes to expand this to include motivation by hate based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Also, the subsection is primarily limited to places of worship like churches, mosques, synagogues and temples.

The proposed Bill C-305 seeks to expand this to include schools, day care centres, colleges, universities, community centres, seniors residences and cultural centres.

Recently there were acts of hate crimes in Ottawa, motivated by hate based on religion and race. Synagogues, a Jewish community centre, a Rabbi's private home, mosques and a church were targeted.

Whenever these things happen, it is important for each and every one of us to stand up united to condemn these acts.

I am Hindu, and no Hindu temples in Ottawa were targeted in the recent hate crime wave. However, in times like this, we do need people from all different religions and races to stand united together. We need, each one of us, to speak to each other and in one single voice.

Let me 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 said:

“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.”

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 prison term is up to 18 months.

After these recent hate crimes in Ottawa, several religious leaders have stated that education and compassion are more important than law and the consequent punishment to eliminate and eradicate these hatred acts from our society

However, while I agree education is the best long term solution, I also believe a strong law acts as a major deterrent. We have seen that we have combatted social issues like smoking, and wearing 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 behavior 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 that we face.

Also, it is quite interesting to see people who diametrically disagree on ideologies seem to agree on the relationship between culture and law. I would like to quote Ryan Anderson who is the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. While I completely disagree with Mr. Anderson's views on pro-choice and marriage, I do like to quote him on culture and law.

Culture shapes law, but so too does law shape culture. The law both reflects our values and teaches values—especially to younger generations. The better metaphor, I think, is that of two coasts connected by a tide, that comes in and out, that picks up and drops off on the shorelines. Law and culture reinforce each other, either for or against human dignity and human flourishing.

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

There is also an interesting article that appeared in the Christian Research Journal, which said:

Because every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, every law is an instance of legislating Morality. Further, because a nation’s laws always exercise a pedagogical or teaching influence, law inescapably exerts a shaping effect over the beliefs, character, and actions of the nation’s citizens, whether for good or ill. Those who seek to separate morality from law, therefore, are in pursuit both of the impossible and the destructive. The question before us is never whether or not to legislate morality, but which moral system ought to be made legally binding.

It is heartening to note the near unanimous support I have received from all sections of society. Every person has expressed his or her support and encouragement. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the support I have received from a diverse group of religious and ethnic organizations. I would like to recognize and thank the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs for its ongoing support and its efforts to mobilize the stakeholders.

I would like to thank the following organizations that have pledged their support for Bill C-305: the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, World Sikh Organization, Coalition of Progressive Muslim Organizations, Canada India Foundation, Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, Association of Progressive Muslims, Baha'i Community of Canada, Multicultural Council for Ontario Seniors, Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Ghanaian Canadian Association of Ontario, Presbyterian Church in Canada, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at of 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 of British Columbia, International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) of Vancouver, and the Akali Singh Sikh Society of Vancouver.

With respect to hate crimes, there are some alarming statistics that I would like to share today. As per a Statistics Canada report released in 2015, it was noted that 51% of police reported hate crimes were motivated by hatred of race or ethnicity, 28% was motivated by religion, and 16% by sexual orientation.

Furthermore, six out of 10 hate crimes were classified as non-violent. These would include crimes such as mischief, public incitement of hatred, and disturbing the peace. Mischief in relation to religious property and other types of mischief made up over half of all reported hate crime incidents. It was the most commonly reported offence. This is regarding the same subsection of the Criminal Code that my proposed bill deals with. Out of all of those crimes, 4% of mischief related to religious property was motivated by hate.

Four out of 10 police-reported hate crimes involved violent offences, such as assault, uttering threats, and criminal harassment. Among religious hate crimes, 18% were violent. Hate crimes fuelled by prejudice against sexual orientation at 66%, or against race and ethnicity at 44%, were most likely to involve violence.

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

The study continues:

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.

Furthermore, it notes:

As well, it is important to consider that the impact on the individual victim may result in the victim rejecting the aspect of themselves that was the target of the attack or associating a core part of their identity with fear, loss, and vulnerability.

The study concludes:

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

This bill expands the number of places to include schools, daycare centres, colleges or universities, community centres, seniors residences, and cultural centres, because the impact felt by those victims of hate crimes cannot be limited just to 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 crimes. Whether it is places of worship or other properties, the negative impact of hate crimes on the community remains the same.

Bill C-305 will also recognize that hate motivated by bias based on gender identity and sexual orientation carries the same weight as crimes committed against religion, race, colour, national or ethnic origin. I am open to amendments with a view to broadening and further strengthening the bill.

The issue of hate crime is truly one that saturates communities nationwide. While we may be shocked and appalled when these terrible acts occur, we must focus on how we may prevent them in the future. Make no mistake: this is an issue that affects every riding and every member of the House; this is an issue that goes across all party lines. There is no room for hate and/or discrimination in Canada. We are a nation that embraces its diversity and that is inclusive of people irrespective of their race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. I know—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce my private member's bill, which seeks to amend subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Hatred based on race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation are some of the worse things in our democratic society. As it stands, this subsection, which deals with mischief motivated by hate, is currently limited to race, colour, religion, and ethnic origin. I would expand this to include gender identity and sexual orientation.

Also, currently this subsection limits properties to places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. I would expand this to include schools, daycare centres, sports arenas, seniors residences, colleges, universities, and community centres.

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