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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'm looking to the chair for a ruling in the same way he provided one in regard to Mr. Bittle, but I'm certainly prepared to briefly outline the position.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think that for you to intervene, we simply have to have consent.
Is there consent to have Mr. Mendicino provide what the government's position is?
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I appreciate the committee's co-operation, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, let me pick up on two comments that were made by my colleagues, Mr. Bittle and Ms. Khalid. I do think it's poignant that you're here today, especially given some of the issues that we have been debating today and will continue to debate in the coming weeks around religious discrimination and the need to call it for what it is. I want to commend Ms. Khalid for bringing her motion.
Let me take a moment, as well, to say that the incident of anti-Semitism in North York hits very close to home, Mr. Mostyn. You know that my riding is very close to that neighbourhood and I work very closely with the community there. I was quite alarmed and disturbed to see that incident. Hopefully, the authorities will be able to pursue their investigation vigorously.
The government's position is generally supportive of the objectives of this bill and it's precisely because of the reasons that I just articulated. The original intent of subsection 430(4.1) was to identify mischief relating to religious property. That subsection expressly articulates a number of building structures where, if the mischief occurs, it would attract a stiffer sentencing regime.
My colleague, Mr. Chandra's, private member's bill, Bill C-305, would seek to expand both the grounds, as well as the categories of buildings and structures, that would attract this stiffer sentencing regime.
In general, the government supports those objectives. Where we would offer some additional comment for the purposes of the committee's deliberations is related to the categories of secular buildings to which this sentencing regime would apply.
If one goes back and reflects on the original intent of Parliament around subsection 4.1, there was a focus on religious property. That is not to say that there aren't other categories of buildings and structures that are used for other purposes. I think Monsieur Marceau provided some testimony regarding, for example, the JCC community centre that is not used primarily for religious purposes, but where there should be an appropriately stiff sentence following conviction, if it were targeted for mischief or hate speech.
Our response to this is that, certainly, under subsection 718.2, a trial judge or sentencing judge could consider, as an aggravating factor, the cultural and other identities that should attract additional protection and denunciation in the context of that particular phase of the trial process. Assuming that the categories of buildings remain focused on those buildings used primarily for religious purposes, it doesn't rule out that a sentencing judge could use their discretion to sentence someone appropriately and more stiffly in the JCC hypothetical case that you provided.
The other thing that I would point out, Mr. Chair, is that I appreciate Mr. Mostyn's comments regarding the attempt to clarify what should be the appropriate threshold for triggering the stiffer sentencing regime under Bill C-305. I also appreciate his suggestion that we move from using “primarily used for” to “substantially” or “regularly used”. My only comment is that I think that on reflection, “substantially” or “regularly” might be even more subjective than “primarily used for”. I think that as the committee reflects on where these amendments should land, hopefully that evidence will be helpful.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Mendicino, and Ms. Khalid.
We could just say “used for ”, as well, without any modifier. In the end, if something is used for something and there's a hate crime committed.... But it's something to deliberate. We're not there yet, so again, thank you Ms. Khalid.
We don't have time for a whole other round, but I'd like to go to the members who have shorter questions to allow them to ask them. I know Ms. Sgro had one, and I think you each had one, did you not, Mr. Arnold and Mr. Falk?
Let's go to Mr. Falk then Ms. Sgro.
Go ahead, Mr. Falk.
February 21st, 2017 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to follow up what Ms. Khalid was talking about when she began. She talked about deterrence. What do you see this bill actually accomplishing?
You can both comment on it.
4:20 p.m.
General Counsel and Senior Political Advisor, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
I'd be happy to.
My comment would be to say to people that, yes, houses of worship and cemeteries are important, but schools and community centres are also identifiable places for certain groups, and that touching those institutions would affect the community as much as a threat or hate crime against a synagogue, mosque, or church.
The latest example I can give you is that yesterday across North America there were specific threats made against JCCs—Jewish community centres. They were not synagogues being threatened; they were Jewish community centres. I can tell you that everywhere in the Jewish world things were put into place very quickly. Security experts were brought in. Is the entire community, all across North America, touched? Are we a potential target? Again, we cannot underestimate this. Let's say you're a parent and you have to bring your children to a swimming lesson at the local JCC, and you hear there's a threat against JCCs generally. You're going to wonder if you can leave your kid there. Is it dangerous? The message of hate targeted at a non-religious institution but linked to a religious community can also be very disturbing and affect a lot of people.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
I guess what I'm wondering is this. Does something like this really matter to the people who do these kinds of things?
4:20 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, B'nai Brith Canada
“Does something like this really matter to them?” To go to Richard's point, the fact that a non-religious building—for example, a building that's within the Jewish community—is being targeted, like a JCC, is because it's Jewish. It's very important for society to acknowledge when there are hate-motivated factors in a crime. In fact, it's very disturbing for our community, and I'm certain for many other communities out there, if a mischief, say, were addressed, but the hate-motivating factors were not addressed by a court. At the end of the day, there's a sense of letdown, and perhaps betrayal, in a community if the criminal justice system does not address the motivating factors. The reason why non-religious buildings are often targeted in our community is the hate-motivated factor, and that should certainly be addressed.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
That's a very interesting point, sort of like mandatory minimum sentences, right? Is anybody not going to commit a crime because of what the sentencing is? I think there's a larger message here.
Ms. Sgro.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Thank you very much.
Twenty-nine years ago, I was elected to North York city council, and the first committee I was put on was the North York race relations committee. Everywhere in my progress in elected office, until here, we've talked a lot about race relations, we've talked about hate, and we've talked about these things. I supported your motion, Mr. Marceau, in 2006, and Ms. Freeman's, Ms. Jenning's, and Mr. Garneau's. As such, I'm sad to see that we're dealing with this issue today when we have already tried to deal with it so many other times. Clearly, you have to close every loophole and do everything you can to possibly.... One is to educate people, to talk about what respect is, and all of those reasons.
I can only wonder what kind of world we would live in if.... I know that, for the last 29 years, there have been a lot of people in our country working on these issues, sensitizing each other to the needs, and so on, of other communities, whether it's in response to a school that gets vandalized by hate crimes or any building, period. I think some folks have a built-up hatred in them, and it won't matter if it's a mosque, or a temple, or a synagogue; they'll just find a place to plaster their terrible message.
Anything we can be doing to bring in enforcement and things to make people pay attention.... We've got to send out that much more positive message to the world, which is a much more respectful one. There are those people who just don't get it, because they have their own malice, so I think having C-305, if it closes the loophole and tightens it up every little bit more, is one more thing that needs to be done.
I just found it odd that I end with the committee today, and you're dealing with this issue. It makes me sad that in our country we're still having to deal with that kind of anti-Semitism. North York is my city, and we're still dealing with it. It takes each and every one of us to push back. Bill C-305 is another little step in closing any opportunities and sending that message that this kind of stuff is not acceptable.
We'll put all the support we can behind the police department, because it's a very difficult issue for them to be able to get enough evidence to actually lay charges. I think we need to do that.
4:25 p.m.
General Counsel and Senior Political Advisor, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
Thank you, Ms. Sgro.
First of all, it's hard for me to believe that you started in elected politics 29 years ago. I very much appreciate your support for BillC-305 and the previous iterations of the bill. I am not in any way naive in thinking that we're going to stop hate crime with this or any piece of legislation. I can tell you, however, that yes, there are bad people. These people should be punished and we should use every deterrent that we can.
Very generally speaking, Canadians are good people. We saw it when there was that horrible attack in Quebec City. The swell of support for our Muslim brothers and sisters in Canada was overwhelming and amazing to see. When we saw attacks on the Jewish community centre and synagogues here in Ottawa, everybody went on that Saturday to the synagogue Machzikei Hadas to support. We had local politicians there; municipal, federal, and provincial ones; and members of every community were there. When the United Church was vandalized a few months earlier, the following Saturday members of every denomination were there to support that church. There is lots of good in Canada. I'm finishing on that.
So let's build on this, and let's not forget that despite having to deal with ugly stuff, we have lots of good in this country.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Now we have two more short questions. Make them very short questions, and very short answers please.
Mr. MacGregor.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marceau, I was really glad to hear of the work and support you've given to Bill C-16 and my colleague, Randall Garrison and his work on that. I think we've identified that gender expression is missing from this bill.
I have one quick question for you. In section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, one of the aggravating factors is also sex. Do you think that should be included in this specific part?
I ask because in my riding I have a building, the Cowichan Women Against Violence Society. It's a women's organization specifically there to help women out of abusive relationships, and if someone were to target that building just because it is helping women, do you think that sex is a key element missing from section 4.1?
4:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Senior Political Advisor, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
When Bill C-384 was debated between 2006 and 2008, that was the main thing pushed by members of Parliament at the time. It's certainly something that I would encourage this committee to consider. Women's shelters or women's buildings, or based on gender, is certainly something that I would look at if I were sitting in your shoes.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Marceau, I want to acknowledge the Jewish community's support for the LGBTQ2 community.
I note particularly the Canadian Jewish Congress. At the time of same-sex marriage debate, the Jewish community of Canada was the first non-LGBTQ intervenor, because the point at the time was that human rights were for everyone and that we all have to stand together. I see you doing that again today, both organizations. Thank you to you both.
You mentioned that this is not a panacea and that there are other tools that we need to avail ourselves of. Do you have any quick recommendation for other legislative tools at our disposal that you would like us to consider?
4:30 p.m.
General Counsel and Senior Political Advisor, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
I'm a bit surprised by the question. Can I get back to you on this?
As of now, I think this would cover what I think is the main gap in the hate crime legislation. Let me get back to you on that.
4:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, B'nai Brith Canada
We'd be happy to get back to you as well.
The only thing I would add is that an offence such as this is a very cowardly offence. This is something that's usually done under the cover of darkness. I know you were talking about your experiences in the past. Unfortunately, we live in a social media age in which people don't have to interact directly with one another. Perhaps if they did, they would treat each other as more human. There are great societal reasons why you would want to say that behaviour like this is abhorrent and will not be tolerated in Canada.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you so much, gentlemen.
Mr. Mostyn, Mr. Marceau, your testimony was very helpful to the committee. We want to thank you for coming. It is incredibly appreciated.
We're going to take a short pause to change panels, and we will resume shortly.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We are reconvening the meeting.
I would like to welcome our next witnesses. Representing the Pride Centre of Edmonton is Mr. Mickey Wilson, the executive director.
Welcome, Mr. Wilson.
Representing himself as an individual is Mr. Kristopher Wells, assistant professor and faculty director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta.
Welcome, Mr. Wells.
4:35 p.m.
Dr. Kristopher Wells Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think the two of you have agreed that Mr. Wells is going to go first, so Mr. Wells, the floors is yours.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
And to our colleagues who presented before, it's great to see the solidarity between communities talking about such an important issue of hate and bias in our country.
I believe that the proposed amendments to Bill C-305 are important to the preservation and protection of Canada's increasingly diverse, multicultural, and pluralistic identities, especially as we increasingly express and make visible our diverse identities and values directly through our public institutions.
As emphasized by member of Parliament Randall Garrison, I believe Bill C-305 should not only include sexual orientation and gender identity, but also gender expression, as prohibited grounds for the offence of mischief, which aligns with the current changes proposed by Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, which includes both gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Transgender individuals experience some of the highest rates of violence, discrimination, and prejudice in our society. Unfortunately, in Canada we have no way for law enforcement to track, charge, or specifically prosecute hate or discrimination that is motivated by gender identity or gender expression. Trans lives matter and are worthy of protection. This critical absence must be addressed.
It is vitally important to recognize and protect the LGBTQ community in similar ways as other cultural, racialized, or visible minority communities that are vulnerable to hate, prejudice, and discrimination because of an identifiable characteristic of a person. Much discrimination against LGBTQ people is based on their gender expression and the assumptions that are made as to what it means to be stereotypically male, female, or to be perceived as neither.
It has been said that homophobia and transphobia are one of the most powerful weapons of sexism, misogyny, and privilege in our society. LGBTQ individuals are often considered to be invisible minorities because they may not reveal their true identities unless they feel safe. This is why the LGBTQ community organizations, like pride or rainbow centres, and growing cultural celebrations, such as pride festivals, and specific LGBTQ-identified neighbourhoods or enclaves are all critically important safe spaces. These safe spaces are often visibly marked with rainbow flags to indicate inclusion, acceptance, and support. Indeed, it was a remarkable historic moment to witness the rainbow pride flag raised over Parliament Hill last June. This was a strong and visible signal to the world that Canada supports our LGBTQ communities both at home and abroad.
The challenge of the proposed amendments in Bill C-305 will be in establishing clear definitions as to what is meant by administrative, social, cultural, or sports activities or events. For example, many hate crimes and incidents happen in specific LGBTQ-identified neighbourhoods and at community or social events. Places like Church Street in Toronto, Davie Street in Vancouver, and Saint Catherine Street in Montreal all represent clearly identified and civically supported LGBTQ neighbourhoods.
Would these areas receive the same protection that is proposed by Bill C-305? I believe clarity is needed to ensure that these and other important community gathering places, such as pride festivals, which can draw tens of thousands, or in the case of Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver's pride festivals, hundreds of thousands of people.
Sadly, these celebrations of diversity also make them prime targets for hate and extremism. While mischief or crimes to property are one of the most common forms of hate crimes in Canada, most hate crimes against the LGBTQ community are not to property, but directly target individuals in the form of physical and sexual assaults and murder. Indeed, recent hate crime statistics indicate that of all the reported hate crimes committed in Canada, those targeting the LGBTQ community are among the most violent in nature and require serious medical attention. It's not one stab wound, but 40, as these individuals are not seen as persons, but as objects to be destroyed.
Sadly, only one in 10 hate crimes is ever reported to law enforcement. By attacking vulnerable individuals, most hate crimes are designed to instill fear and terror into entire communities. They strike at the very heart of what we believe an inclusive democracy should be, which is to live one's life openly, without threat or fear.
The proposed amendments to Bill C-305 raise several further questions. Will commercial spaces, such as LGBTQ-identified businesses, be protected under the legislation? Places like bars and nightclubs have been important and historic spaces of refuge and resistance for the LGBTQ community. In some cases they were the only safe spaces that existed in many communities.
Our modern pride movement is said to have emanated out of the police raids at the Stonewall Inn, an infamous bar in New York City. And now thanks to one of the final acts of president Obama, it has been recognized as the first national LGBTQ monument in the United States. Stonewall marked the beginning of a newfound source of community identity and activism. Those fateful riots in June of 1969 are the reason why many pride festivals are held around the world today.
The recent Pulse nightclub tragedy in Orlando, which took the lives of 49 innocent people and wounded 53 others, occurred in a gay-identified nightclub. This is another very recent and tragic example of the extreme hate and violence still directed at the LGBT community. There have been more than 25 documented directed attacks on LGBTQ-identified spaces, where people came to find community and love, but where they were met with hate and death.
Perhaps rather than the piecemeal amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, all of which are well intended to address hate and prejudice, it's time for a different and more comprehensive approach. In Canada, law enforcement agencies still do not have a common operational definition of hate crimes, which causes challenges in police investigations, reporting, and the accurate collection of important national data. This is why there should be a specific hate crime section and universal definition included in the Criminal Code of Canada.
For example, a possible uniform definition might be this: A hate crime is an offence committed against a person or property, which is motivated in whole or in part to harm or instill hatred towards an identifiable group based on real or perceived race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor.
The addition of a specific hate crime section in the Criminal Code of Canada, which could be in similar form to the current section on terrorism, section 83.01, and the education and application of this new hate crime section by police agencies and justice officials would ensure that Canada's diverse communities understand that our government not only advocates and supports peaceful co-existence between communities, but it also enforces the full extent of the law against hate-mongers and extremist groups whose goal is to attack diversity and difference and tear away at Canada's very social fabric.
While the proposed amendments to section 430 are important, hate is not only a crime against property. Rather it disproportionately impacts people, many of whom are the most vulnerable in our society. We must do more to protect and support our most vulnerable and marginalized communities. One look around the world shows us that hate and extremism are on the rise. The question is this. What will be our response to this growing threat? As we recently and tragically witnessed, Canada is not immune.
We must do more to protect our diverse communities. We must do more to give law enforcement the appropriate tools to adequately investigate, track, and prosecute hate-motivated crimes, regardless of whether they attack property or persons. It's time for us to have a much broader conversation about hate and extremism in Canada.
I hope this private member's bill will do just that.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.