Justice Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

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

Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Arya, for appearing and for your presentation. Let me say at the outset that I think the intent of this bill is a good one, and I certainly support it.

You mentioned that a couple of months ago a whole series of hate crimes were committed against or targeted at religious groups. I think a mosque and a Jewish community centre were targeted, among other places, here in Ottawa. Am I am correct that it was not just houses of worship but also community centres that were targeted? Is that what happened in the Ottawa incidents?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Yes, in Ottawa mosques and synagogues were targeted, plus some private buildings. At the same time, I might be slightly wrong in saying that a community centre was targeted. Actually, it was a building that is used as a community centre, but it is also used as a place of worship.

In the current subsection of the Criminal Code, if the property is associated with a place of worship, that is covered, but when it is only a community centre, that is not covered.

As I mentioned earlier, when a community centre or a school is targeted, the effect on the community is the same.

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

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

You have a minute.

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

Right now, then, under section 430 of the Criminal Code, if someone committed an act of mischief—such as the individual in, say, the Ottawa case—at a house of worship, they would be subject to a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment, but if they committed the very same act of vandalism against the same Jewish group, but at a Jewish community centre instead of a synagogue, they would only be subject to two years' imprisonment. Is that correct?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Absolutely.

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

And that's the loophole in the Criminal Code that your bill seeks to close.

Is that right?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Yes, absolutely. You're correct.

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

Okay, good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are you clear?

Thank you very much.

Mr. McKinnon.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Arya, for bringing forward this bill. I appreciate the effort and I support the intent.

In the first clause here, you mentioned that you've added “gender identity” and “sexual orientation”, but you did not add “gender expression”. I wonder if that was deliberate or an oversight.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

It was an oversight.

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

Okay. All right.

Second, I'm interested in the scope of the buildings that you're intending this to apply to. Proposed paragraph (c) of new subsection (4.101) states:

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

and so on and so forth.

There's no tie-in here to whether they are associated with any religious affiliation at all. It would seem to be applying not only to a great number of public buildings, but also a great number of private buildings. I wonder if it's perhaps too expensive.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

My thinking is that the subsection saying that this is against religious properties can be amended to say “religious and public properties”.

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

But paragraph (c) doesn't mention that these buildings have anything to do with any religion.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Yes, absolutely. It doesn't specifically mention....

If I had to redraft the bill, I would redraft it as “crime against religious or public properties”.

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

So you intended it to mean all public properties, like city properties, provincial properties, federal properties.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Basically, it's those properties where the community gathers.

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

I'm sorry, but I didn't catch that.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Basically, it's any property where the community gathers, for example, schools or community centres or cultural centres.

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

Okay.

I know in my riding there are a number of churches that don't have their own premises. They rent space on a regular basis in commercial premises.

Would this bill apply to those specific premises, and, if so, would they apply just to those premises or to the entire structure?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Good question.

In fact, this question came up after I introduced the bill. I don't have an answer. I know it's not specifically covered in my private member's bill.

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

There are a number of groups and categories mentioned in the definition of mischief and hate speech, but buildings and structures relating to other than religious groups and other than public properties are not referenced in any way.

In my reading of this bill, if I had an ethnic cultural centre of some kind perhaps—it's not a public building, but it might be something that hate graffiti might be sprayed upon—it would not be covered.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

If it is a cultural centre, to my limited knowledge, it is a public property. I don't know if it can be construed as a private property.

Unfortunately, I don't have a correct answer for that.

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

Okay.

What if a commercial premise is rented by a group promoting, say, racial equality?