Thank you, Ms. Flores Echaiz and Mr. Chair.
I will continue.
The creation of the offence of intimidation of a person to obstruct their access to a building used for religious worship or other places, and the creation of the offence of obstructing or interfering access to these places, pose significant problems.
The notion of “provoking fear” in a person in order to prevent their access to a place seems extremely vague and subjective to us. It does not appear to respect case law, which recognizes that protesting is an inherently disruptive form of expression that disturbs and interrupts daily life. Disruptive acts that cause discomfort, embarrassment and subjective fears are not likely to restrict the right to protest or picket. The same applies to the offence of “obstructing or interfering” access, which could criminalize a number of disruptive or disturbing behaviours that are constitutionally protected.
Furthermore, the places listed in the bill are countless and difficult to identify. Given that these places are also workplaces, the new offences risk disproportionately penalizing the workers who work there.
In addition, it should be noted that demonstrations may take place in front of locations listed in the bill not because of the nature of the location, but because of the event taking place there.
Given that the Criminal Code already provides sufficient tools for victims of obstruction or intimidation, these new offences are, at best, unnecessary. At worst, and this is what we fear, they actually seek to criminalize acts that are protected by the Canadian Charter. At the very least, they will have the effect of deterring the identifiable groups that are targeted for protection from demonstrating in certain places. In our opinion, such an infringement on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association is therefore unjustifiable.
Furthermore, the creation of a new offence related to committing a hate-motivated offence would undermine the consistency of the Criminal Code, which currently provides that hatred is an aggravating factor in sentencing. The maximum penalties are also being increased excessively, breaking with the principle of harmonization of penalties.
Finally, the proposed elimination of the Attorney General’s consent would not change the practice in Quebec, but we believe it would reduce effective screening elsewhere in the country, increasing the risk of unfounded and abusive charges.
Thank you for your attention.
We are now available to answer members’ questions.