Yes.
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.
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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I understand. It may be that we need to say it's owned, leased, occupied by, or something like that, but I do understand.
Let me also understand the purpose. For example, I think in perhaps the original intention of the law many years ago, this section putting in property was first adopted in 2001. You talk about a crime against the community, and I understand that. I think perhaps there was a feeling that if, for example, you defaced a church and it was because of a bias against that religious congregation, that would affect that congregation more than if you wrote that same symbol at city hall. I understand what you're saying, absolutely, but did you perhaps consider that it should be limited to buildings that are actually...?
I understand and agree with what my colleague said, that if a church leased space in a shopping centre, it should be covered too, because even though the main building is not a church, the church is still in the shopping centre, and everybody knows where the church is. Would you understand if it were somehow limited to only being locations where the crime was against that community, because it was that community that occupied the space?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I think if my understanding is right, when you say “community”, you are mentioning the religious community—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Or racial, or any of the communities protected under the bill.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
My bill is very clear. Any hate-based crime is not limited to just the community, or will not just affect that specific community only when it is against a religious place or property. It can be any place the community gathers. It can be community centres, cultural centres, or schools. When this crime is committed against the property, the effect, the end result, is the same.
That is what we are trying to address here.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I understand.
I just want to distinguish one more thing. When you say “public building”, you are not saying, in my understanding or how I read the proposed bill, that the public building necessarily needs to be owned by the state. It could be a building that is owned by a religious community or a building that is owned by any group. It's used by the public at large or by a certain community of the public at large. It's not a private dwelling.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Are there any further questions?
Mr. Sarai.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
I didn't get the same introduction that Mr. Baylis did, so I will go on my own.
My question is a little quirky. If a person vandalizes a Christian school with graffiti, and the slogan is “I hate school” or “School sucks”, would that fall under this proposed legislation?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC
Okay.
Second, what if a religious or ethnic bias is written against a place of worship that's of the opposite or different faith—for example, if it's targeted towards Muslims but it's written on a Hindu temple? Would that fall under this?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. Those were excellent questions.
Mr. Cooper.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To pick up on some of the other lines of questions from other members, you very clearly indicated, and I fully support, a closing of the loophole in the Criminal Code when it comes to targeting certain types of religious property, whether it be houses of worship, a religious community centre, or a religious school. I support that objective. It makes sense in terms of the purpose of this section, which is mischief in relation to religious property. However, are we not really creating another inconsistency here, based upon the wording of your bill?
Mr. Casey, in his submission to the House, made reference to a coffee shop, that it might include a coffee shop. Well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. Suppose it doesn't fit into the language of your bill, and suppose you commit an act of hate directed towards a specific group at a synagogue. Under this you'd be subject to 10 years of imprisonment. If it were at a school, it would be up to potentially 10 years imprisonment. But perhaps if you did the very same thing at a coffee shop, you would be subject to two years. Is that not creating another inconsistency?
Finally, if the objective of the bill is simply to condemn acts of hate directed at groups writ large, then what do you say about section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, which would constitute an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing? Does that not have a deleterious impact on section 718.1?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
If the same crime is committed against a coffee shop, that would not be covered by this bill.
As I said, my objective is to cover as wide a range of things as possible, but I was advised that not everything can be covered in that one single subsection or one single piece of legislation. As I said in my remarks, my bill will not try to solve or address every single issue related to hate crimes or to discrimination or racism. This is just one small part of the bigger picture. You and this committee, I think, are all well placed to address these issues.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On this coffee shop idea, there are certain coffee shops that are frequented by certain communities, for example, an Italian coffee shop in an Italian area. Say, someone goes and writes something against Italians. That's a hate crime against Italians. Could it not be easier to use wording to the effect, “a building associated with a certain community”, thereby including a public building associated with a community that's being protected, whether it's rented, owned, leased, or frequented?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
On whether it's rented, owned, or leased, I'm not really sure. But in my definition, the public properties in terms of community centres and cultural centres are covered, but private businesses like coffee shops are not covered.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'll just follow up on that line of questioning. I'll go back to proposed paragraph 430(4.101)(c), the administrative part, because you say that it's a building or structure, or any part of a building or a structure that is primarily used for administrative activities. A lot of buildings are used for administrative activities. CIBC does administrative activities. It's a private business.