Evidence of meeting #75 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 amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Carole Morency  Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Matthew Taylor  Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
Nathalie Levman  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

If you'd prefer that, it's totally fine. We can go in order. We'd require unanimous consent anyway.

All right, let's go in order.

We come to the clauses related to modifications to proposed section 176, which are CPC-2 and then LIB-2.

Mr. Nicholson.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Thank you very much, colleagues.

We believe there is certainly nothing wrong with section 176, and that protecting religious services and protecting those who conduct religious services are important.

We made the case that most Canadians would agree that if you do anything to disrupt a religious service—and it's extended, there's a long definition in there—that is more serious than if you cause a disruption at a hockey game or you get into a fist fight in a bar. We heard testimony from the minister that there are other sections.... I would suggest that most Canadians would indicate that if you disrupt a religious service, it's not just mischief. There is something more significant to it, and much more serious. We had no problem with that.

That being said, there was some suggestion that we could update the terminology as to who we're referring to, whether ministers and clergymen. I've put in an amendment here for “religious official”. That's the term we have used in the past, and it includes everybody. With regard to the remarks that it refers to "him", we refer to "their", so that it's completely neutral in that sense.

I remember when I first discovered this. They talked about this bill at second reading. I remember mentioning to my colleagues across the aisle that if they talked to their constituents, I think many of them would agree there is something very significant and serious about the disruption of a person's religious freedom. All the debates we had earlier this year seem to confirm.... Why would we take his out?

We have had an excellent response from people. I can tell you truthfully that I had 900 emails this weekend. My office said there were 900 emails from people in support of keeping section 176 as it is. I have no problem with changing the words, but I can tell you that the interpretation of these words has been expanded and that they do include....

I was at National Defence, and the term “minister” or “clergy” referred to and encompassed rabbis, imams, anybody else. If you check with the courts, they aren't always narrowing the definition of something. For the most part, they expand the definition. We have not excluded people from other religions besides Christianity.

With respect to whether you're referring to “him” or “her”, it has been established that when it refers to “him”, it also refers to “her”. However, I changed that, as well, and I'm hoping that this will get the support of this committee.

I believe it is consistent with what you heard from the testimony we had here, and I believe it's consistent with what you've probably heard from your constituents. I'm hoping that this will pass.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments by Mr. Nicholson and his advancing of the amendment. A very similar amendment is brought on the same clause by me. It's the LIB-2 amendment.

I want to say at the beginning that I think there are many parts of section 176 that are covered by other sections of the Criminal Code; however, when we are looking at the totality of this, it is different from some of the other provisions that would be deleted from the Criminal Code. This one is clearly not unconstitutional. I don't believe that it's clearly obsolete. There have been charges laid in recent times.

Also, I don't think it's clearly redundant, but I want to emphasize that there are many provisions of the Criminal Code that do cover almost everything in here. I think this is a little different and is not clearly redundant. I want to say, though, that if people are charged under other sections of the Criminal Code for causing a disturbance, or for other things that could amount to what is covered already in this section, I would suggest that clearly would be an aggravating factor on sentencing and would be treated differently, based on the circumstances of the offence.

However, in view of all of the other arguments that we heard at committee, and given that there is a seeming rising volatility in the level of intolerance that should be completely rejected, I'm persuaded that section 176 should remain in the code, that it does serve some purpose. I think that modernizing the language, as I have put forward in LIB-2, with these in there, but also a more inclusive type of definition to include “spiritual” service along with religious service, would be the right way to go.

All that said, I agree almost entirely with Mr. Nicholson and the rationale behind keeping section 176. That is why I proposed LIB-2. On the wording regarding the modernization, I prefer my amendment. That is why I won't be supporting his amendment, but voting in favour of mine, which is almost the same thing. I prefer the wording, and that's why I brought it forward.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

The thing is that we all agree on the substance, then. We just disagree on what wording we want to use. That's a good thing.

Mr. MacGregor.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Thank you, Chair.

In the summer, when I first read through Bill C-51, my eyes passed right over section 176 being repealed. It didn't really cause much of an issue until I started receiving a trickle of correspondence, which has now evolved into an absolute avalanche.

At first, I was prepared to accept the government's argument that the offences in this part of the Criminal Code can most certainly be covered in other sections, but I think I've been absolutely convinced that it needs to be kept in the Criminal Code, simply because it has very significant symbolic value for the people involved. I have a pile of letters in my hand right now that were written to me by children who obviously feel this is very important to them. I'm really heartened by Mr. Fraser's amendment, because I think that as a committee we've listened to the evidence, the testimony, and I believe we've reached a consensus on this.

With respect to Mr. Nicholson's amendment, in looking at his and Mr. Fraser's, I do find Mr. Fraser's language a bit more inclusive, but I just love the fact, colleagues, that both of your amendments were reached in the same spirit. Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

We'll go to Mr. Boissonault, and then back to Mr. Nicholson.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

It's like reading the National Post on a regular basis; sometimes, when I agree with the articles, I have to check my progressive values. I'm agreeing with Mr. Nicholson on this, on retaining section 176. I think we're in the same ballpark and just talking about a few changes in wording, so I will be voting against your amendment, Mr. Nicholson, and in favour of LIB-2.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Mr. Nicholson.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Chairman, the main difference between the two is the reference to “religious official”. We agree on removing “clergyman or minister”.

As for putting in the word “officiant”, I can tell you that I've had some experience with that term. I know that it came from the public service, that particular term, because I remember that when I was defence minister they wanted the term to refer to those who provided religious guidance and support to members of our armed forces. They wanted to call them “officiants”.

I said that the problem with it is that if you stopped a hundred people on the street, I'd be surprised if you could find anybody who knows what an officiant is, but when you talk about a “religious official”, most Canadians can understand. I think it's incumbent upon us to do what we can to make the Criminal Code as understandable as possible. The main difference there is the name.

I did not buy into the name when I was defence minister. I said that you could call them members, religious officials, clergy, or anything, as long as it's all-inclusive for everyone. That's all I said, but I said that the term “officiant” was not a term. I know where it came from, the idea of this and how it arrived here, but again, I think if you look carefully at this you will agree with me that people understand you if you're talking about a “religious official” as opposed to an “officiant”.

That being said, on my amendment, if you accept that, the only other change between mine and the Liberal one is to put in “a religious or spiritual service”. I have no problem with adding that to amendment CPC-2.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you.

We have Mr. McKinnon, Mr. MacGregor, and Mr. Fraser.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

I want to ask Mr. Nicholson if he would be interested in supporting Mr. Fraser's amendment and offering an amendment to the word “officiant” to, let's say, “religious or spiritual official”.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

I have no problem with the term “preventing a religious or spiritual official from celebrating a religious or spiritual service”. I don't mind putting in both of those. It's the word “officiant”. I've always said that people don't understand what that term means.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

I guess I'm wondering if we could, then, amongst ourselves, agree to move Mr. Fraser's motion and have Mr. Nicholson

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

You could move mine and add the two words to it, Mr. McKinnon.

4:20 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

As a matter of fact, would you like to move an amendment...?

If Mr. Cooper will move an amendment, we'll use the term “religious or spiritual” with respect to the official and “religious or spiritual” with respect to the service.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Yes, I will make that amendment.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

That, I think, should include everything.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Mr. Cooper is proposing an amendment to amendment CPC-2 that would, on proposed paragraph (a) change the words to read “a religious or spiritual official from celebrating religious or spiritual service”, adding the words “or spiritual” after the word “religious”, and presumably, in proposed paragraph (b) saying, “knowing that a religious or spiritual official is about to perform”.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

That's correct.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Do we have interventions on the amendment?

Mr. MacGregor.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Chair, I'm curious to know if the department could provide any opinion on this discussion and what they think makes more sense.

4:25 p.m.

Acting Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice

Matthew Taylor

I'll do my best to tell you what I understand. If I understand what you're proposing in terms of paragraph (a), it would be to add “a religious or spiritual official from celebrating a religious or spiritual service”. Then, I think, you would have to make a similar amendment on the last line where you talk about “religious office”.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

There are three places.