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.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome Frank Baylis, who is sitting in for Ms. Khalid.
Mr. Baylis, welcome to our committee.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I also welcome Randeep Sarai, who is sitting in for Randy Boissonnault.
Randeep, it's great to have you here.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
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.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We very much look forward to studying this very interesting piece of proposed legislation. We're going to start by inviting you to make your remarks. Please go ahead, sir.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
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.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Arya. I very much appreciated your remarks.
Now we will start with some questions. We will start with Mr. Nicholson.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you very much. You're expecting some resistance from the government? Did you want to elaborate?
3:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
It's usually the opposition parties, I would have guessed, but not lately. Fair enough.
I want to tell you how pleased I am to see that you include in your list, religious properties, educational institutes, community facilities, and seniors' residences. This is very good because hate crimes don't necessarily have to be directed at a mosque or a temple or a church or a synagogue. They are not the only places where religious activity is encouraged. So I think that is a great step forward here and I very much appreciate it.
The question I want to ask you relates to this. The former parliamentary secretary said that the bill could potentially capture numerous unintended buildings and spaces. What is your response to that?
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Going back to my remarks on resistance from the government, I am confident, that the opposition parties—the Conservatives and the NDP—will join hands with us to unanimously support this bill. However, the remarks by the former parliamentary secretary have caused me a bit of concern.
This bill does not try to cover every single property; for example, coffee shops are not covered here. There are so many other properties.
The point I made in my remarks is that hate crimes do not affect the individuals or the families or a particular group, but make the community feel unsafe. To state that hate crimes against a Catholic school board building are different from hate crimes against a district school board building, in my view, is not correct.
So I am not trying to cover every single private property or private business here. I am trying to cover all the public properties, especially where the communities gather—the community centres, the schools, and other places.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
That would be a good example. You said that if somebody has a problem with Catholics, it's a hate crime—or that there's an additional measure of how terrible the crime if it's a church or a Catholic church. But if you went after a Catholic school, that's what you'd be including in this.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
It's not just a Catholic school. I want to include all schools, because that's where the communities gather. When a hate crime is done against a property—a school that is not Catholic, for example—there is an effect on the community. The entire community will feel unsafe.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Okay.
From the former parliamentary secretary, did you get any wording changes that you might suggest...?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
You didn't get that. Okay, fair enough.
There are some questions with respect to consistency with the provisions of the Criminal Code, and I believe one of my colleagues in the NDP, Mr. Garrison, has a possible amendment. Have you had a chance to have a look at that?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Not yet? Okay.
Again, I congratulate you for bringing this forward. As I said, I think it's more expansive than the present wording within the existing legislation, and I think this would be an improvement to it. So thank you very much.
Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you.
I just wonder if anybody has....
Uncharacteristically, Mr. Nicholson took up only about half of his time, and—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
