Justice Committee on March 9th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to convene this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I am pleased to welcome you all here today.

Today we will do our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief).

I will be going through the amendments in the order they were received by line, so we're basically going to start from the top of the bill. We'll move down by line and then, if there are conflicting lines, I will give you guys the one that was received first and then let you know which ones are not receivable afterwards if we adopt the first amendment.

(On clause 1)

Our first amendment is NDP-1. If NDP-1 is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved as both amend the same lines. Basically, if NDP-1 is adopted, it would knock off Conservative-1.

I will let Mr. MacGregor put forward his amendment.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Honourable Chair, and yes, I will move amendment NDP-1.

The purpose of this amendment is to add public spaces to areas where hate crimes can occur. I think it's important, based on the testimony we've heard on this bill, that we don't allow the definition of property in Bill C-305. We don't want it to be too specific, because I think it could cut off areas where some of these hate crimes can occur. I was thinking along the lines of the testimony indicating areas that are not specifically mentioned in Bill C-305, but where some of our witnesses have associated with an identifiable group.

I think with this kind of amendment, we could be covering areas like certain streets. We hear testimony that some areas in cities like Toronto and Vancouver are associated with an identifiable group. They have traditionally been places of refuge where friendly businesses and allies have been, and so have been well-known areas to members of the community. I think there are a lot of examples. Every city across Canada has a street or an area not currently covered in Bill C-305 but is connected with an identifiable group.

The Criminal Code refers to “public place” in subsection 197(1), I think, and that's why we're using that wording.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move my amendment for discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor, for putting forward the amendment.

I do not support the amendment, although I know it's well intentioned. My worry would be that, in opening it up to public places more generally than what I'm contemplating, it would make it overly broad. I really think that the provisions here for hate mischief are designed to meet certain specificity requirements in order to meet the high threshold for something's being considered a hate crime, mischief.

It doesn't mean that, of course, other types of mischief would not attract criminal sanctions. In fact, if they were motivated by hate, that could be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. We're just talking about the degree of penalty here, and I believe that we're better served in this bill by being more cautious with regard to the broad nature or specificity of the buildings or structures that we're talking about, and “public place”, in my view, would go beyond that.

For that reason, I don't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there other interventions on the amendment?

Mr. McKinnon.

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

I also appreciate Mr. MacGregor's amendment.

I think the thing that we have wrestled with throughout the course of our study of this bill is how to accurately define the places to which this applies.

I agree with Mr. Fraser that we want it to be expanded a little bit, but we have to be careful that we don't expand it too much. I think this amendment opens it far too widely.

Therefore, with regret, I can't support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. MacGregor, do you want to say anything to close?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I respect the comments made, but I guess, with your line of reasoning, Mr. Fraser, then Bill C-305 wouldn't be necessary because, if there are already provisions to allow for sentencing based on that, then what's the purpose of Bill C-305? Bill C-305's purpose is to identify specific areas and really list them. We did hear testimony that there could be streets or areas that are frequented by people but that are not listed in this bill. I think, by the very purpose of Bill C-305, we need to cover areas like streets. If there is mischief done, if it's under $5,000 damage, or over, or whatever, I think those groups deserve to have the protection that goes along with the spirit and intent of this legislation.

I will close on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Just so we are clear on this amendment, if the bill deals only with a building or structure on the street and doesn't deal with the street itself, you're saying that they still have to get a building or structure used by or associated with an identifiable group found in a public place. I just want to be clear. If it is something that happened on a street, it would be the building on the street.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes. Again, you know that the Criminal Code is a vast piece of legislation. We had to keep it within the confines of an already defined term, “public place”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you.

I think at this point, since I'm not seeing further interventions, let's go to a vote.

Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

No, that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Seeing no more interventions, let's vote on NDP-1.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next one we will turn to is CPC-1.

My feeling is that, if CPC-1 is adopted, all of the other amendments proposed, other than LIB-3, which would add a separate clause, would fall because, essentially, it's reversing the way the clauses read and amending everything, in my view. The way that I believe CPC-1 intends to deal with “identifiable group” is by amending the list of groups, the same way that NDP-2, NDP-3, and LIB-1 propose doing, and also amending the type of structures in the same way intended by NDP-4 and LIB-2.

I believe CPC-1 would essentially negate all of the other amendments proposed, except LIB-3. I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary if CPC-1 is adopted.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

It would not necessarily negate, but include them. That's another way of putting that, if you know what I mean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes, that they would be—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

They would be unnecessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

—unnecessary by virtue of CPC-1.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

They are actually consistent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Yes. What I'm trying to explain is that I couldn't receive the other amendments—

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Yes, fair enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

—other than LIB-3, which proposes adding a new clause.

I will let Mr. Cooper deal with CPC-1.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My amendment is fairly straightforward. It amends Bill C-305 to encompass properties of the identifiable groups set out in the bill to ensure that any property that is targeted by the crime of mischief, motivated by hate or prejudice towards an identifiable group, is covered.

In that respect, it in some ways expands Bill C-305, but in some respects, it narrows Bill C-305. It narrows Bill C-305 to the extent that it is specific to properties of that identifiable group. That's not the case with Bill C-305 as it is presently drafted. That is in essence my amendment.

The other thing that it does is remove the ambiguity around the terminology “primarily used”, so that it would apply to any property that is used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I thank Mr. Cooper for bringing forward the amendment. Respectfully, I don't agree with the amendment and won't be supporting it.

The reason is again the rationale that I stated with regard to Mr. MacGregor's amendment, that we do recognize the higher threshold that the hate mischief is attempting to address. It doesn't mean that these other buildings—any property for any use—wouldn't necessarily be considered criminal activity. Obviously, it could be mischief and, again, it could be factored in during sentencing as an aggravating factor, if the mischief were motivated by hate.

My worry, though, would be about the overly broad aspect of it. Then, for example, if a religious group were the subject of hate speech or graffiti on somebody's primary residence, for example, or somebody's home that was used once in a while as a place of worship every month or something, it would have that use. I just don't know if that's where we want to go with this sort of criminal sanction.

I think we would be better served to have the higher threshold for buildings that are notoriously identifiable with that group and, therefore, to limit it to something that is primarily used by that group for that specific purpose as part of their worship, or any of the other identifiable groups for their meeting places. That's why I would not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Are there any other interventions?

Mr. MacGregor and then Mr. Nicholson.