Kelly Block

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the rising rate of crime in Saskatchewan. The petitioners believe these rising crime rates put Canadians at risk and pose a formidable threat to public safety, community well-being and economic prosperity. They also believe local businesses should not have to suffer the financial and economic consequences of the government's lack of action in addressing crime. As such, the petitioners ask all members of Parliament to repeal policies that have failed to effectively discourage criminal activity and protect public safety, and they call upon the federal government to deliver a detailed plan specifically addressing the rising rate of crime in rural Canada.

moved that Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief—religious property), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, having served in this place over numerous Parliaments, I know what an honour it is to have the opportunity not only to introduce a private member's bill but to have it debated at second reading. I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-255, the protecting Canada's places of worship act. Over the past three years, the Holy Rosary Church in Edmonton, Alberta, was the target of three acts of vandalism. On December 23, 2023, a nativity scene in front of the church was set on fire. On September 18, 2024, two individuals spray-painted a church security camera before being startled and running away. On September 20, 2024, a man was filmed spray-painting the church's statue of Pope John Paul II. Last year, the Ar-Rehman Islamic Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, was vandalized when an individual with a skateboard smashed the front glass doors of the building. In January 2023, the Shri Gauri Shankar Mandir temple in Brampton, Ontario, was defaced when someone spray-painted anti-Hindu messaging on its exterior walls. In April 2025, the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara in Vancouver, B.C., was targeted by vandals who spray-painted exterior walls and parking lot perimeters with graffiti. On August 2, 2025, a man wrote anti-Semitic messages on the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue in Victoria, B.C. Sadly, I could go on and on with more examples. In 2015, Statistics Canada reported that there were 66 cases of hate-motivated mischief relating to property used by identifiable groups. In 2025, there were 263. The current peak was in 2024, when there were 274 incidents. This represents a more than 300% increase over the past 10 years. In light of this trend, I introduced Bill C-255, which would amend the Criminal Code as it relates to mischief to religious property. As I began to develop this bill, I discussed with my caucus colleagues and subsequently every stakeholder I met with how my sole purpose in introducing this bill was to provide additional tools to protect faith communities across Canada. I was, and remain, convinced that this is not a partisan issue, and that this bill and the broader issue of protecting places of worship in Canada are things that members of Parliament on both sides of this place can and should support. The freedom of religion and belief is an important fundamental freedom. It is one that the authors of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms understood. All across our nation, places of worship, including synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, mosques, churches and many more, serve as vital centres in our communities. They are gathering places that provide hope and solace, a sense of meaning and a place of belonging for millions of Canadians. Many of us regularly attend a place of worship and gather with our fellow adherents for fellowship, to worship and to practise our faith. Both as a Canadian and as a Christian, it distresses me to see a gurdwara, temple, mosque or synagogue vandalized just as much as it does when a church is vandalized. As a person whose faith is an integral part of who I am, I understand the fear and the feeling of vulnerability that would grip someone whose place of worship has been defaced. Finally, as a parliamentarian, I believe I owe it to Canadians, Canadian families and our communities to defend the protection of our freedom to worship in our own way. By amending the Criminal Code to enhance the protection of places of worship, we send a clear message to faith communities and, indeed, all Canadians that we value this freedom and that vandalizing places of worship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Let me outline how the protecting Canada's places of worship act proposes to change the Criminal Code of Canada. First, and I think most consequentially, the bill proposes to eliminate the need for police and prosecutors to prove that a crime of mischief committed against a place of worship was motivated by hate. Section 430 of the Criminal Code addresses crimes of mischief. While subsection 430(4.1) addresses crimes of mischief relating to religious property, educational institutions and other properties, it applies only to the commission of mischief if it is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Bill C-255 would not eliminate any of these sections; rather, it would add new subsection 430(4.12) to address mischief relating to places of worship that does not require proof that the vandalism was hate motivated. It is structured this way for two reasons. First, there is no reason or need to remove the crime of hate-motivated mischief directed against religious property. Second, mostly by way of background, I was working with the legislative drafters throughout the summer and early fall of 2025 to develop a bill to address this issue. When Bill C-9 was first introduced in this place on September 19, 2025, it proposed repealing subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) of the Criminal Code, which I was planning to amend. Therefore, I rescued the definition of a place of worship from subsection 430(4.101) as the drafters and I had every reason to believe it was being eliminated through the government's bill. As we are all aware, over time, Bill C-9 was amended, and subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) remained in place. I am glad they did, as I believe they provide much-needed protection to property used by identifiable groups. While there are similarities between what is proposed in this bill and what remains in the Criminal Code after Bill C-9 was eventually adopted, the differences are consequential and clear. Removing the requirement that police and prosecutors prove that a crime of mischief was hate motivated would make it easier for police and prosecutors to obtain convictions. Bias, prejudice or hate can be difficult to prove. A video camera can capture the evidence to prove who did it, but what it cannot capture is motivation. In my opinion, it should not matter what motivated the act. The impact on the victim is still the same. In fact, I would argue that the victims of these crimes would find it more reassuring that someone has been charged and convicted for the offence than they would if they were told the perpetrator was not charged because the police could not prove the suspect's motivation. The second change this bill proposes to make to the Criminal Code is to implement new penalties for mischief directed at places of worship. Similar to the provision in the Criminal Code that outlines punishments for mischief directed at war memorials, this bill proposes mandatory compensation to the victim for the first offence and mandatory minimal jail time, as well as compensation to the victim, for subsequent offences. I want to state up front that I am aware that the concept of compensation to the property owner, which I am proposing to add, is novel. The Criminal Code includes provisions which mandate fines. However, fines are paid to the Crown, and in cases of mischief committed against places of worship, the Crown is not the victim. The Criminal Code also extends discretion to judges to impose restitution in their sentencing decisions. So as not to conflate a judge's discretionary restitution with a mandatory requirement, with the assistance of our amazing legislative drafters, I termed the monetary penalty proposed in the bill as compensation to “the property owner”. This is not a duplication but an intentional differentiation. Practically, the process of compensating the property owner would function the same as or similar to the process followed by the courts when a judge imposes a sentence of restitution. I would now like to address how I arrived at the amount of $1,000 for mandatory compensation. First, this amount aligns with the $1,000 fine imposed in subsection 430(4.11) of the Criminal Code, dealing with mischief directed at war memorials. Second, the cost to the victim to professionally remove spray paint or replace broken windows or a door is very likely to be at least $1,000, if not more. It is my belief that a minimum of $1,000 is reasonable and would not be unduly punitive to the perpetrator of the crime. Lastly, the wording in the bill states that compensation is to be “not less than $1,000”, which is again consistent with subsection 430(4.11). This means that a judge would have the discretion to impose a greater amount of compensation to the property owner should it be reasonable, given all of the extenuating circumstances. To wrap up this portion of my remarks addressing the proposed changes within Bill C-255, I would like to highlight the recent coming into force of Bill C-16. Setting aside my personal views and lack of support for that bill, its passage, I believe, has eliminated the need to defend the mandatory minimums as prescribed in Bill C-255. In closing, I hope my fellow parliamentarians from all parties will support Bill C-255. Reports of places of worship being vandalized have become all too frequent. They are so frequent that they have become commonplace. It is critical that we address this issue. Regardless of whether or not we are part of a faith-based community, I believe we should not ignore the increase in cases of mischief directed at places of worship. As parliamentarians, the ability to amend legislation is one of our primary tools to improve the safety, security and, ultimately, lives of Canadians. By passing this bill, we would be signalling to criminals that their actions have real consequences. We would be signalling to victims that we recognize that acts of mischief are deeply hurtful, fear-inducing and costly. We would also be signalling to Canadians that we continue to value our fundamental freedom of religion or belief. Finally, we would be providing law enforcement with a new tool that would make their job of protecting society easier. On that important note, I am pleased to advise my colleagues in this place that the Canadian Police Association, which represents 60,000 frontline civilian and sworn police personnel across Canada, stated in a recent letter that it supports the objectives of Bill C-255. It said Bill C-255 reflects an important principle. Offences involving religious property should be treated seriously. Those responsible should be held meaningfully accountable, and the people and organizations left to repair the damage should not be forgotten. The association particularly welcomes the bill's emphasis on compensation for the property owners, as well as stronger consequences for repeat offenders. I have met with organizations across the spectrum of faiths in Canada and from different regions, and to date, everyone I have met with has supported this bill. Between now and the second hour of debate, I encourage all members to meet with faith communities in their riding to talk about the measures proposed in this bill. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this issue is not a partisan one. I believe it is a small but important change to the Criminal Code that could make a big difference. I look forward to the debate and to any suggestions about how this bill might be improved upon. I understand that sometimes compromise is necessary to make progress. I thank members for their time and attention, and I look forward to answering any questions my colleagues might have.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, my private member's bill was already being drafted when Bill C-9 was first introduced. Without repeating everything I said in my remarks or going through a chronology of the changes that occurred to Bill C-9, I would respectfully submit to the member that Bill C-255 proposes a change to the Criminal Code that was not contemplated in Bill C-9 and does not currently exist. My objective is simply to put forward that the changes proposed in Bill C-255 are important amendments to the Criminal Code that would provide clarity and are supported by faith communities across the country, and I believe this bill should be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to expand on the remarks related to mandatory minimum punishment prescribed in Bill C-255. First of all, my bill simply mirrors the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials. I mentioned I was glad that the provisions in the Criminal Code that address hate-motivated crimes still exist, but the changes I am proposing in this bill do not require law enforcement and the courts to prove that hate was a motivating factor when the perpetrator committed the crime.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that today is a day of debate, and we will be hearing from a number of our colleagues, both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House. I hope that throughout the debate, they will note the merits of this bill, and that even if they have already made up their minds to oppose it, they will be open-minded to what is shared here today. I want to remind them that this bill seeks to accomplish two things. First, it would broaden the scope of mischief by removing the requirement for the mischief offence to be hate-motivated. That is a huge difference. Law enforcement resources are already stretched. Second, this bill would make monetary compensation to the victim by the perpetrator a mandatory part of any sentence. Those provisions already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials. I think the members in—