Chris Bittle

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 11 wordsI am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-255.Greeting Claims · 110 wordsThe bill proposes to create a new a new criminal offence, mischief to religious property, which would join the existing criminal mischief offences at section 430 of the Criminal Code.¹ The bill further proposes corresponding mandatory minimum jail sentences and a penalty structure whereby the offender would pay money directly to the property owner as part of their punishment. The existing offence of mischief to property is a broad offence that generally prohibits intentionally damaging, destroying or interfering with someone’s lawful use or enjoyment of the property. For example, it could capture throwing a rock through the window of someone’s home or vandalizing a building, including a place of worship. Reasoning · 16 wordsWe all have an interest in protecting both public and private property from these criminal acts. Claims · 30 wordsThe bill’s objectives are laudable. This is something we have talked about often in this place in terms of protection of not only places of worship but broader religious spaces. Reasoning · 23 wordsI agree with the sponsor that religious property deserves protection and that property owners, in appropriate circumstances, deserve compensation when damage is suffered. Promise · 11 wordsHowever, after careful consideration, I intend to vote against the bill, Procedure · 5 wordsand my reasons are these.Procedure Reasoning · 11 wordsFirst, the bill would duplicate mischief offences in the Criminal Code. Claims · 21 wordsThough members who have spoken today suggest there is a hole in the Criminal Code, there is not. This is illegal. Reasoning · 37 wordsSecond, the proposed financial penalties are not necessary given the authority of sentencing judges to order restitution to victims and inappropriately risk overcompensating certain victims when damage to their property is less than the $1,000 minimum penalty.² Claims · 43 wordsAlso, the proposals are redundant as a result of the recent changes advanced by the government through the Combatting Hate Act, including a new hate crime offence and new offences that address obstruction of or interference with access to buildings for religious worship.³ Positioning · 25 wordsIt has been bizarre to sit here for the last 50 minutes and hear from Conservative members who pretend that Bill C-9 does not exist.Positioning Claims · 11 wordsAlso, we did not hear how they voted, which was against.⁴ Positioning · 94 wordsWe also did not hear how they spent months and months delaying the bill, months and months spreading misinformation and disinformation, sowing fear in communities where enough fear exists and suggesting that people will be arrested at the pulpit, which is preposterous given the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They stoked so much fear and division. Many of them sanctimoniously got up with bibles at their hearts to vote against this piece of legislation. However, a few months later, they are here to say we need to be protecting religious places.PositioningOff point Claims · 19 wordsThe previous speaker said the government has an obligation to the sponsor of the bill to work with her.Partly on point Positioning · 19 wordsWhere was she when Bill C-9 was going through and there was an unwillingness to work through Bill C-9?Positioning Claims · 17 wordsThere was filibuster after filibuster as religious groups were calling for the Conservatives to pass the legislation. Positioning · 4 wordsWhat did they do?Positioning Claims · 4 wordsThey spent months fundraising. Positioning · 29 wordsAs religious groups were asking for it, that is what they did.Off point It is interesting to hear now that we should have an obligation to work with this member.PositioningPartly on point Claims · 8 wordsI agree that the member’s objectives are laudable, Positioning · 12 wordsbut so too were the objectives of the government in Bill C-9.PositioningPartly on point Claims · 42 wordsThose were campaign commitments that we needed to step up, Off pointas there was so much debate in this place, in not only this Parliament but the previous Parliament, Partly on pointas we have seen a rise in hate crimes and attacks on religious institutions. Positioning · 24 wordsThe government stepped up, and the Conservatives were nowhere to be found, so it is a little surprising to be here in this place.PositioningOff point Claims · 10 wordsAs I mentioned, I support the intent behind the bill, Reasoning · 26 wordsbut I do not believe its specific proposals will enhance criminal law responses to conduct targeting religious property beyond what the existing criminal law already does. Claims · 127 wordsReturning to my concern that the bill would result in duplication, the Criminal Code already contains a mischief offence that applies when any property, including religious property, is damaged. This offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years or, ⁵if the value of the property exceeds $5,000, a maximum of 10 years.⁶ In addition to this general offence, there is a specific offence that prohibits mischief to religious property, which is punishable by a higher maximum penalty if the conduct of the offender was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. This specific offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years when prosecuted by indictment, regardless of the value.⁷ Now, the previous speaker said we should not look at motive, Positioning · 21 wordsand that would be a great thing to say if that was not required by the criminal law in all cases.Positioning Anecdote · 13 wordsIt has probably been 20 years since I took a criminal law class, AnecdoteOff pointClaims · 25 wordsbut we need to look at motive. That motive needs to be proven. Even in the member’s legislation, that motive will need to be proven. An hon. member: Oh, oh! The question · 4 wordsMr. Chris Bittle: Why? Mr. Speaker, Claims · 7 wordsthe sponsor of the bill asks why.Partly on point Aside · 3 wordsThat is wonderful.AsideOff point Claims · 56 wordsThere 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. Positioning · 15 wordsIt is surprising to hear the Conservatives ask, “Why do we need to prove motive?”Positioning Reasoning · 83 wordsIf 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. Claims · 7 wordsThat is already in the Criminal Code, Positioning · 12 wordsand members on the other side are pretending it does not exist.PositioningOff point Claims · 9 wordsThe power is already in the hands of judges. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Chris Bittle: Procedure · 10 wordsThe member on the other side is heckling, Mr. Speaker.Procedure Claims · 8 wordsHe is saying I am out of touch, Positioning · 13 wordsbut he has spent months spreading misinformation and disinformation, and he believes it.Positioning Aside · 9 wordsIt is amazing when they believe their own supply.Aside Positioning · 69 wordsHe is doing nothing but yelling one line. It is somewhat amusing that he has nothing of substance to say except to shoot me down. He knows that all they can do is spread disinformation and raise money, Motive imputedwhich is shameful. These communities already have enough fear, and now a political party stands up to spread misinformation and disinformation when every member of this House seeks to protect them.PositioningOff point Claims · 5 wordsThe bill’s goals are laudable, Procedure · 4 wordsas I have said, ProcedureClaims · 14 wordsbut they will not do what the members are saying. The member is laughing. Positioning · 56 wordsHe thinks this is funny. He is going to go back to his constituents, raise money and continue that spread of disinformation. That is all he has. The Conservatives are sitting on the other side because Canadians can see through the act. They see through what the Conservative leader does, and that is all they have.PositioningOff point Thanks · 30 wordsThere is nothing of substance, though I think the hon. member has brought this forward in a laudable, honourable way and wants to do better and to protect her constituents.Thanks Claims · 16 wordsIt is reasonable to stand up here and say the law does not necessarily do that, Positioning · 38 wordswhile the member laughs. The member thinks it is funny, and he will just go back to his riding and raise money off that as he tries to shout me down. This is shameful conduct by the Conservatives.PositioningOff point