Are additional criminal tools needed by police when enforcement of existing laws is problematic?

A number of participants asked whether additional criminal tools are needed by police when enforcement of existing laws is problematic.

Enforcement of criminal laws varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from terrorist-related activity to protest activity. We wish to promote greater consistency in approach across the country. That is why we referred to a special purpose committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP), which Mark is the non-policing member of, to examine inconsistencies in enforcement in hate-motivated cases with a particular emphasis on antisemitic hate crimes. But a number of police officers and CACP believe that some sharper tools can build on existing tools to prompt greater enforcement. These include new intimidation and obstruction offences.

Some tools are designed to ensure that hate-motivated crimes are treated more seriously (e.g. the new hate offence that treats hate-motivated conventional offences more seriously). The removal of the Attorney General’s consent for certain police-laid cases will improve timeliness. The statutory definition of hatred will address police concerns that their officers are unclear on the meaning of hatred. The new display of symbols offence provides greater specificity to police about the symbols to be addressed, although it must be accompanied by training on the terror symbols used.