Justice committee  I can't give you the government position on the bill at this time. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. However, I think I can maybe make some comments to help you in your considerations. As I mentioned, subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, the sentencing provisi

Justice committee  Well, the hate crime sentencing provision applies to all crimes in the Criminal Code, including crimes of violence and crimes against property. As a conceptual issue, the more one expands a particular crime into an area that has already been covered by an existing Criminal Code p

Justice committee  The effect is, as I understand subparagraph 718.2(a)(i), that it's not a discretionary issue for the judge. It says the judge “shall...take into consideration”.

Justice committee  It doesn't change what the maximum penalty is for that particular crime. What it means is that the judge is to take that factor into consideration when deciding, within the range that's provided by the criminal law up to the maximum sentence already provided, at what level the pe

Justice committee  As you say, I'm not in a position at this point in time to comment on what the government's position is on the bill, but I can comment on the effect.

Justice committee  Right now, you're right that paragraph (a) has basically the same wording as we currently have for the current hate crime mischief offence, which uses the words “primarily used for religious worship”. My guess would be that in crafting paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), the drafters o

Justice committee  My reply to that would be, I suppose, in part related to Bill C-16,, the bill currently before the Senate on expanding not only the definition of “identifiable group” but that would also amend the hate crime sentencing provision in the Criminal Code to add both gender identity an

Justice committee  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 absol

Justice committee  I have a couple of comments. I'll just reiterate that even under the current law, without Bill C-305, those sorts of incidents could be caught by the sentencing provision in subparagraph 718.2(a)(i). If the desire of parliamentarians is to expand the scope of the bill so that t

Justice committee  As you know, Bill C-16 refers to both gender identity and gender expression. To the extent that this bill only refers to gender identity, it is inconsistent with current legislation in the Senate, which has been already approved by the House. I'm certain that the government is aw

Justice committee  Thank you.

Justice committee  Well, there is a difference, of course, between a building being “primarily used”—that means, presumably, the main reason that the building is being used is for that particular purpose—versus just “used”. “Used” could be someone using that particular building several times, infre

Justice committee  That's correct, yes.

Justice committee  This would propose to add the concepts of age, sex, or mental or physical disability to what had been proposed originally in Bill C-305. It makes no reference to the concept of gender identity, but for a particular reason. This amendment would make the hate-motivating criteria in

Justice committee  That's essentially what would happen. The principle behind both this amendment and the coordinating amendment is that, at all times, there would be consistency with the definition of “identifiable group” as it exists in the Criminal Code, either as it currently is right now or as