Why? Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of the bill asks why. That is wonderful.
There are two things in a criminal offence that need to be proved: the actus reus, the criminal act, which is very easy to prove; and the mens rea, or the mental component. One needs to prove that the offender was going to do it, the motive behind it, for every crime in the Criminal Code. It is surprising to hear the Conservatives ask, “Why do we need to prove motive?” If we are legislating around the Criminal Code, we should know what elements are required to convict someone of that offence.
The requirement to prove specific motivation, which the existing mischief to religious property offence includes, would not remove the requirement to prove it as an aggravating factor in sentencing. After a conviction, the law already allows for what we are calling for in this place, that the penalty should be higher if someone is attacking places of religious worship or religious gathering. That is already in the Criminal Code, and members on the other side are pretending it does not exist. The power is already in the hands of judges.