My understanding is that the reason it was originally limited to property primarily used for religious worship was that, in particular, could interfere with the freedom of religion in the charter. In a sense, it was tied to the charter right of freedom of expression. You're absolutely right in terms of how a community feels, that if a Jewish community centre were attacked, we've heard testimony that the impact on that community is the very same as if a synagogue were attacked. I do not dispute that at all. Of course, at the end of the day, it is up to you as parliamentarians to decide whether there is a need to change the original rationale for what is now the current law into something broader.
On February 23rd, 2017. See this statement in context.