Evidence of meeting #46 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was religious.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.
We've done one round. Let's ask if anybody has shorter questions.
Mr. Falk.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Arya, for coming to committee today and for the work you've put into this piece.
I have a question, and I'm going to build on what Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Fraser talked about, and that's in regard to proposed subsection 4.1 of your private member's bill.
They've talked about coordinating amendments. If Bill C-16 ever became law.... That isn't a law, but we do have a document today that is law, and that's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsections 15(1) and 15(2) make specific reference to categories that cannot be discriminated against.
Why would your bill not include this similar language or the exact language that is used in the charter?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
That's a good question.
Honestly speaking, I don't know, but this can be considered.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
Are there other shorter questions?
If not, I have a couple, if it's okay.
Sorry, Mr. Baylis, please go ahead, sir. This is your first question at this committee, so it better be excellent.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
There it is.
First of all, I'd like to say that I sit on the industry committee with Mr. Chandra Arya, and he's always looking to make sure that we take into account diversity, ethnic questions, culture, and gender, so that when we're drafting our laws there, or whatever, we take those into account. I also know and have seen personally in the greater Ottawa area that many minority communities hold him in high respect. I'd like to underline that.
I'm not a lawyer, but when I look at this, I understand that you're trying to expand the definition of a building. Why do we have to have a building? For example, in my riding, there's the West Island Black Community Association. I know that it says here that we're trying to protect against mischief motivated by race. That association I mention is for a race, the black community. If someone were to go there and do hate crimes on that building, they would not be subject to this, nor would your amendments make them subject to it—or would they?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
In the current subsection, it is not covered. In my bill, it is covered.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Let's say that people go to that, but then they go home and find the same graffiti on their home. That would not be covered.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I struggle to understand why we have to limit. If a hate crime is a hate crime, why would we limit it? Okay, if I did something against the WIBCA building, and then went and did the exact same thing against the homes of every person who goes into that building, that is not a hate crime, but doing it to the first building is.
Did you consider just removing it completely?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
That's a good question and one that I asked myself. I was advised that we cannot deal with private properties in this particular bill.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I have a few questions, if it's okay with the committee, just to clarify your intent, Mr. Arya.
First of all, thank you for an excellent effort at drafting a bill that really goes to a commendable purpose.
My understanding right now is that you're looking at all of the things that we will eventually have in subsection 4.1. You took the current list and you added a few. You're open to this committee's looking at other documents and broadening it or changing the scope, but there will be, let's say, protected classes.
What you are saying is that, irrespective of the type of public building, where there is an act of mischief motivated by hatred or dislike of that protected class, it's covered. At the city hall, if there's a swastika, it would be considered an act of mischief or hate because it's a public building.
Let me just ask a few questions. I read Mr. Casey's comments. He was the parliamentary secretary at the time, and he was suggesting that this be restricted to religious buildings. He said it's okay if it's now a church, synagogue, mosque, mandir, or whatever, and also if it's a community centre owned by one of those communities or leased by one of those communities, but if it were, for example, a community centre leased by the black community or the gay community, it wouldn't be protected.
Was that your intent, or is that totally opposite to your intent?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
That's the problem, Mr. Chair, that I had with Mr. Casey's point. I always take the example of schools. We have two major school systems here. If we go according to what Mr. Casey has said, a hate crime against Catholic school board schools is going to get covered, but not hate crimes against district school board schools. For me, that's unacceptable.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I understand that, but just to clarify, let's take two analogous situations. A community centre owned by the Mennonite community is defaced. You intend that to be covered?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
But my understanding is that you equally intend that to be covered if it's owned by the black community, or the gay community, or any other of these classes.