Evidence of meeting #47 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 mischief.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
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?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I do. I think it's important for the LGBTQ community. For those commercial spaces, with legislation like this, if we were to have a tragedy like what happened with the Pulse nightclub, we'd be wondering if this applies or not. We can learn the lessons of history and move forward in a proactive way. Perhaps we can talk about celebratory spaces as well.
We talked a bit about that definition; once we start to get so specific as naming the grounds, maybe we also need to add that phrase, “and other similar factors”, so that over time we won't have to reopen these sections of the code they can be interpreted to be within.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, is there anything you'd like to add?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
I think the only thing I would add is that there is an opportunity for imposing a harsher sentence if hate is seen as the motivating factor, but that doesn't happen very often, even when hate is known to be a motivating factor. I think that's a problem, because then we don't know—nobody knows—that hate was a motivating factor. It's not captured anywhere. I think that's a problem.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to both of you for your testimony today.
Professor Wells, you mentioned that “gender expression” is missing in subsection 430(4.1). Could you speak about how the addition of that would augment or improve this bill and what effect it might have?
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Absolutely. I believe it has been said that it should parallel Bill C-16. As I mentioned, many people are targeted because of their gender expression, because they're not performing what it means to be societally acceptable as being a male or female. Or, what happens when you're gender diverse? That is a group of individuals who can be at some of the most extreme risks, as my colleague has mentioned.
As we're changing one part of the Criminal Code and we have the opportunity to be consistent, I think this is prudent. I think there's been a lot of conversation around this. The difference is that now I think we're getting a better understanding of gender identity and of what gender expression is and how they both create vulnerability in individuals who may operate outside of the male-female binary. We see this as more of a fluidity that's happening in our society.
As I always say, go to our students, to our young people, and go to Facebook. There aren't just two gender choices. There are over 50. As a professor who works in this area, I'll say that my students are my best educators on what is current in how they're identifying these days.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I took notice of your broader discussion about hate crimes and so forth. However, we unfortunately have to deal with a very narrow aspect of that, which is the subject of this bill. This bill was activated upon mischief being visited upon buildings that are identified very broadly in some cases and very narrowly in others, and the attendant surroundings of those; whether it's for a primary use or a partial use is something we need to talk about.
I'm wondering if that needs to be expanded to include other spaces and whether it needs to include private property. If this were expanded to include places, buildings, and structures that are targeted because of their perceived use by or association with the listed groups, whether in whole or in part, I'm wondering whether perhaps that would be too broad.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I would certainly support that. I give the example of someone putting a rainbow flag in their window or in their front yard, and then being targeted because they have signalled their support for the LGBTQ community or that they identify as a member of the LGBTQ community. And that doesn't just target them. That targets all of their friends, their relatives, because it's motivated by a specific characteristic, a person. That's really what we're getting at here. This is not an ordinary crime. This is a crime motivated out of malice, out of prejudice, out of bias.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I had a question but I've lost it.
One of the things I'm concerned about is that some speech is very hateful but within the realm of free speech. The danger here from expanding the scope or categories of buildings is that it starts to encroach upon free speech. Then we might run into charter challenges.
I wonder if either of you would like to comment on that.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
There have been lots of comments on speech, certainly, and it's not an easy issue to resolve, but I do think we have case law that's started to make those definitions.
Here we're talking about aspects of graffiti. We're talking about violence enacted on spaces. We're talking about things like fire bombing, damage to property, which is different from the notion of freedom of speech. It's certainly something we cherish and value at the university. To have that voice is something I hold as dearly important, because there are many times when I speak out that people call our president of the university to have me fired because they don't like an LGBTQ perspective being shared on issues.
In a democratic society, it's really important that we aren't limiting that space, but that, at the same time, we're finding the balance to protect vulnerable communities, particularly when it comes to moving from freedom of speech to propagating hate.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Okay, I have a final question. Do you see this as a tool that will be useful to law enforcement? Do you think this will help them if we expand this in this way?
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I can't personally speak for law enforcement, but it would be another useful tool. It sends another very powerful message. I think these kinds of changes are only as good as the education that's provided afterwards—the implementation. So there is the question of training and awareness. We still have many police officers and crowns out there who don't have a good understanding of what hate and bias are in our society, and that's a conversation that hopefully will be strengthened as these amendments go forward.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon.
We don't have time for a full round, but if people have short questions, I'm happy to let them ask them and get some short answers, hopefully.
Mr. Arnold had a question.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank our witnesses for being here today.
This is my first really close look at this bill. I've seen a lot of discussion here trying to define things fairly tightly by way of inclusiveness, by including some things, and then what is not included becomes the focus of discussion.
In this bill I see the words “primarily used” and in proposed paragraphs 4.101(a), (b), and (c), I wonder why those words are even in there, because to take the word “primarily” out of it would certainly make it apply in all cases. The only problem might be in proposed paragraph 4.101(d).
I wonder if our witnesses might have a comment on that.
5:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
Certainly, I said earlier that I'm not sure that the word needs to be there. I think it limits the opportunity to use this bill more effectively. Some places are only used occasionally.... As Kris was talking, I was thinking about the straight-owned business that is an ally of the community and has a rainbow flag in the window, and they could be targeted just because that flag is there. So I think there are a lot of limitations when we include the word “primarily”, because that business might not have anything to do with our community other than that it is supportive and is indicating we are welcome, and yet it could be targeted just because it has that symbol there.
It creates some limitations.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
Does anyone else have questions?
Mr. Boissonnault.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
This is tangential, and I hope the chair will allow it, but it speaks to the work that both of you do in your organizations. When you have to respond to an attack, to a broken window or something, it takes money. It takes funding. Also, when you support 5,000 people, that takes funding. I'm curious to know what federal funding, if any, your organizations receive to do your good work.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you. I have to agree with you, Mr. Boissonnault, that it is incredibly tangential.
We're supposed to be discussing the scope of the bill, so perhaps you could phrase that as follows, or something like it: in the bill, is there any money you know of that you would get and, if not, in what other ways have you gotten money? I'll be pretty flexible.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, it's a huge stretch, but given that it's a late hour, let's hear the answer.
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Funding is always helpful. The primary goal of a lot of funding is the education about and the implementation of government legislation. As we mentioned, it's one thing to pass the legislation, but it's another thing to ensure that it's for effective and intended uses and that people are knowledgeable about that. Any time we're talking about legislation, I think it's important to ask what the implementation plan is and what resources are going to be put behind it to make it successful.
