EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights NUMBER 014 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, December 9, 2025 Le mardi 9 décembre 2025 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE December 9, 2025 Committee NUMBER 014 NUMBER 014 NUMÉRO 014 14 09 12 2025 2025/12/09 15:30:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights JUST Chair James Maloney 1 45

(1530) [ English ]

The Chair (James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)) :

Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Thank you for being here. First of all, this is my second meeting as chair. I hope we're able to get along as well as we did last meeting. Welcome to meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 2025, the committee is meeting to continue the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-9 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using Zoom—I don't think they are. I'd like to confirm that sound tests were done successfully. Before we continue, I ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table.

These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including and especially the interpreters. You will also note a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. At the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for

interpretation: floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. Members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding. I want to welcome the witnesses joining us today, who are back.

From the Department of Justice, we have Kristen Ali, manager and senior counsel, criminal law policy section; Joanna Wells, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; and Marianne Breese, counsel, criminal law policy section. Before we get started, I'll remind you that we are at clause 4, debating BQ-2, which is where we left off at the last meeting when it was adjourned. I'll also remind you that new clause 1.1 and clause 2 were also stood down. Members, once again, if you have subamendments or new amendments, please provide them in writing and in both officials languages to the clerk. (On clause 4)

The Chair: Now, we're going to move to continue BQ-2 at clause 4.

(1535) Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I don't believe we're in the right.... I believe we're at LIB-1.

Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, CPC) :

We passed that one.

Anthony Housefather :

It's to remove the word “swastika”. No, we didn't. We deliberately went to all of the offences that related to the Attorney General, and we're supposed to come back. We did Ms. Idlout's amendment, which is NDP-1; we rejected it. Then we agreed, by committee, to go through all the ones that were related to the Attorney General. We should be back at LIB-1, which relates to the swastika.

Larry Brock :

I thought LIB-1 follows BQ-2.

Anthony Housefather :

On my thing it didn't. Does it?

An hon. member: Yes.

Anthony Housefather: Okay. I apologize.

The Chair :

Are we all good? Okay. Thank you. I'll just remind you that there are votes tonight. Bells are expected at around 5:15, give or take. We'll deal with that when we get to it. We are ready to resume, then. We're on, just to be clear—

Larry Brock :

We're on BQ-2.

The Chair :

We're on BQ-2. Before we move on to BQ-2—and I'll get back to Mr. Brock—I'll let you know that if BQ-2 is adopted, LIB-1, CPC-6 and CPC-7 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Okay, now we're ready to roll. Do you have your hand up?

Larry Brock :

Thank you, Chair. I have several comments to make, but I'll summarize as best I can. It's clear that Bill C-9 , given the deal that has been worked out between the Liberals and the Bloc, has become a lightning rod to religious organizations right across this country. I have been inundated, as have been several of my colleagues at this table and several colleagues in my caucus, by concerned members and religious leaders of all kinds of denominations stating that this is a direct attack on the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion.

Given how toxic and how divisive this Bloc amendment is and will continue to be, now with Liberal support, we are at an impasse. It's no small wonder that an additional six hours of resources have been devoted to this meeting. I also want to clarify the notion that the Conservatives have been deliberately blocking and filibustering any attempt by the government to prioritize and move to study Bill C-14 . That is an absolute lie. It has been circulated for at least two weeks now in and outside of the House of Commons. One can only take a look at the dysfunction of this particular committee.

The former chair of this committee has abruptly ended meetings and did not call meetings. I know our current chair also did the same last week. If that is not a deliberate stalling tactic on behalf of the Liberal government, I don't know what is. It is clear that it will always continue to be the priority of the Conservative Party of Canada to address the elephant in the room, and that is the explosion of violent crime in this country. Since my election in 2021, I have been singularly focused on strengthening provisions in the Criminal Code that relate to bail and sentencing. I wasn't alone in this crusade.

We've heard from premiers, we've heard from law enforcement, we've heard from victim advocacy groups and we've heard from municipal leaders, all advocating, pleading and begging for this government to take real action. What did the government give us? It gave us a failed Bill C-48 , which did nothing to stem the tide. We had an election. One of the issues in the election was community safety. We all heard about that knocking on doors. It was a real surprise to me and to members—

(1540) Anthony Housefather :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Mr. Chair, is this relevant to clause-by-clause?

Larry Brock :

Yes, it is. I'm getting to it.

The Chair :

I'll give Mr. Brock some latitude. He's been talking in anticipation of what may or may not happen in the future—

Larry Brock :

Yes.

The Chair :

—but we're not quite there yet. If you're addressing this clause, Mr. Brock, you can continue.

Larry Brock :

We had an election. A number of issues were front and centre. Community safety and a government response to address community safety were front and centre. We all anticipated that when we returned to the House in the spring, one of the first hallmarks of this Carney government would be the introduction of bail legislation to deal with community safety. That didn't happen. All through the summer I anticipated that some proposal, some policy, would be introduced that we would study in the fall. That didn't happen. Ultimately, Bill C-14 was introduced. We studied it. We looked at it in the House.

We debated it in the House. It passed second reading. It is now waiting in the wings to be studied here. I want to make this abundantly clear to everyone who is watching this particular proceeding, and to all of the groups who have an interest in community safety. I've always said and always will say that community safety is not a partisan issue. Regardless of political ideology, everyone wants to live in a safe community. Given the impasse we are at with respect to Bill C-9 and the Bloc's proposed amendment, I have a proposal, and that proposal is to seek unanimous consent from every member at this committee.

I'll read out the consent motion that I wish to adopt. I move that to improve public safety in our communities and to protect Canadians from repeat and violent offenders, the committee (

a) immediately prioritize the consideration of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act and work together to report the bill to the House at the earliest opportunity; (

b) sit through the winter adjournment to undertake meaningful consultations with victims, community leaders, police services and associations, and other relevant witnesses; and (

c) pause consideration of Bill C-9 to make room on the agenda for Bill C-14. With every day that we do not as a justice committee deal with Bill C-14 , more murders are going to happen in our communities, more sexual assaults, more extortions, more car thefts—

Wade Chang (Burnaby Central, Lib.) :

I have a point of order.

Larry Brock :

Victims are coming through loud and clear. They want this committee—

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, I'm sorry. We have a point of order. Mr. Chang.

Wade Chang :

How is this relevant to the consideration of the clause-by-clause of Bill C-9 ?

The Chair :

It's not. It's not relevant at all, in fact. We're in the middle of clause-by-clause, Mr. Brock. I understand your point, but one point I take from your comments is that you want to move forward expeditiously, which I think we can all agree with—

Larry Brock :

I do, and I'm asking for unanimous consent, Chair.

The Chair :

I don't think it's on point. We're dealing with clause-by-clause. Mr. Chang's point of order is accurate, and I agree with him. We're going to move on to clause-by-clause—

Larry Brock :

I challenge that.

The Chair :

Okay, and that's your right, but just let me finish. I'm going to then give the floor to Mr. Fortin to continue discussion on that. That's my ruling.

Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, CPC) :

You guys can just give consent. Do you not want to do Bill C-14 ?

The Chair :

This isn't a debate, Mr. Lawton.

Anthony Housefather: You clearly don't—

The Chair: Hold on—

Anthony Housefather :

—want to do Bill C-9 . They don't care about the communities that are hurt by Bill C-9—

The Chair :

Gentlemen, please. To all members on both sides, please speak when I give you the floor and not otherwise. Mr. Housefather and Mr. Lawton, that applies to everybody. I would ask that you respect each other and respect the interpreters. Don't talk over each other. I will give everybody an opportunity to speak when it's appropriate, but do not speak at the same time when it's not your turn. I've made my ruling on Mr. Chang's point of order. Mr. Brock, you are challenging my ruling.

Larry Brock :

That's correct.

The Chair :

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

(1545) The Clerk of the Committee (Jean-François Lafleur) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the question of whether the chair's decision shall be sustained, we will go to a vote. (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

Larry Brock :

Clearly, the Liberals do not want to prioritize Bill C-14 .

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, you do not have the floor. If you will respect the chair and respect other members of the committee, when it's appropriate for you to speak, as with others, I will give you the floor. I would ask that you don't do it otherwise. Mr. Fortin, we are on your amendment, BQ-2.

Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Could you just clarify what the ruling was? Is it that a member can't bring forward a request for unanimous consent motion?

The Chair :

My ruling was that it was not relevant to the amendment we were discussing.

Garnett Genuis :

Is your ruling that relevance is required for a request for unanimous consent?

The Chair :

Mr. Genuis, we went through this in the last meeting. The ruling was made, it was challenged and it was upheld.

Garnett Genuis :

I'm just asking what it was.

The Chair :

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor.

Garnett Genuis :

I'm just asking what it was, Chair.

The Chair :

I've answered the question twice now. Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have now reached amendment BQ‑2, if I am not mistaken.

[ English ]

The Chair :

That's correct.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Amendment BQ‑2 seeks to amend subsection 319(2.2) proposed for the Criminal Code by clause 4 of Bill C‑9 , which begins as follows:

Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place, a symbol….

We propose replacing the three symbols listed with a single symbol, by replacing line 15 on page 1 to line 6 on page 2 with the following:

…-ing, in any public place, a symbol that is principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity , as defined in subsection 83.01(1).

This means that the offence would relate to a symbol identifiable with a terrorist entity and no longer to the swastika or a similar symbol. The reason behind this proposal is that the swastika is a symbol that was used not only for serious crimes committed during the Second World War by the Nazis, but also by religious communities, and we believe that we should not ostracize or indirectly punish them with this bill. In addition, proposed paragraph (

c) refers to a “symbol that so nearly resembles…that it is likely to be confused”, which we find rather vague and counterproductive. In short, amendment BQ‑2 aims to limit the ban to symbols identified with a terrorist entity listed in the Criminal Code.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

Thank you, Chair. I'm moving a motion that the committee proceed to the consideration of Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. It's a dilatory matter. There's no debate.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock—

Larry Brock :

There's no debate. I'm asking for a vote.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, we're in the middle of clause-by-clause. There's a motion on the floor. That motion is—

Larry Brock :

It's a dilatory motion, Chair.

The Chair :

I understand what a dilatory motion is, but there are times when you can bring them and times when you can't, and this is one of the latter situations. If you have comments on the amendment put forward by Mr. Fortin, the floor is yours.

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order. I'm hoping you could please, Chair, cite the authority on which you determined it's out of order, because it sounds an awful lot like you're trying to prevent the bail study from taking place.

The Chair :

Mr. Lawton, give me one second. We have two people talking at the same time, but I'll let you start over. Mr. Lawton, I'm sorry; I interrupted you.

Andrew Lawton :

It sounds like you're just trying to predetermine the outcome because the Liberals do not want to allow study of their own bail bill. I'm curious on what authority you're saying this motion is not permissible when we're saying we can and should move to a bill on which there is a lot more consensus than there is on Bill C-9 .

The Chair :

That sounds like debate on a dilatory motion to me, but no, the editorializing isn't necessary. I understood what Mr. Brock was trying to do. I ruled that his motion was out of order because of the timing it was put on the floor. We're in the midst of debating BQ-2.

(1550) Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order. Chair, very respectfully, the green book clearly identifies a series of dilatory motions, and I know that, respectfully, you're in your second meeting in this role as justice committee chair. It's on page 1,167 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice where the dilatory motions are listed. You would only use a motion to proceed to another item in a situation where you want to proceed to a different item from the one that is currently on the table.

The Chair :

Mr. Genuis, if somebody wants to challenge my ruling, they're free to do so. I'm not entertaining debate on a ruling I've already made.

Garnett Genuis :

Chair, I promise you that I'm not making things up.

The Chair :

Mr. Genuis, I've already made the ruling. If somebody wants to challenge my ruling—

Garnett Genuis :

It's on page 1,167 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice .

The Chair :

—that is their right to do so. This is not a debate.

Garnett Genuis :

Could the clerk clarify the rules at least?

The Chair :

No. The ruling has already been made, Mr. Genuis. I've set out the process we're going to follow here. Thank you.

Garnett Genuis :

You don't get to make things up, though, Chair. There's a book—

The Chair :

Okay, and you don't get to speak when you don't have the floor. Mr. Genuis, you're done.

Garnett Genuis :

I have a point of order, Chair—

Larry Brock :

I'm challenging the chair—

The Chair :

Mr. Brock is going to challenge my ruling. (Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 4)

The Chair: Thank you. Is there any further debate on Mr. Fortin's proposed amendment? Ms. Lattanzio.

Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to the BQ amendment, which replaces the offence so that it only covers symbols used by the terrorist entities listed under subsection 83.01(1), thereby removing Nazi symbols, SS bolts and other hate symbols from the bill, the amendment removes almost all of the hate symbols that communicate hate. Communities have come forward and asked us to address Nazi symbols, as we heard through the testimony, and the other images used to intimidate people in public places.

Groups have told us here in committee quite clearly that the problem they are facing is the open display of hateful symbols like the SS bolts. Narrowing the offence, and this specific amendment, would ignore what they've asked for. Limiting the offence to listed terrorist entities would leave out many of the symbols that the Jewish, Muslim, Black, LGBTQ+ communities and others have told us are being used to threaten and harass them, and it is really going against the spirit of this bill.

The terrorist entity list is small and slow to update, and this approach would make the offence far less useful and far less responsive to what is actually happening on the ground and in our streets. We want this law to be practical for police and meaningful for communities that are affected. This amendment would weaken it to the point where it no longer meets that goal. For that reason, we will be voting against it.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio. I have Mr. Lawton, Mr. Brock and Mr. Baber. Mr. Lawton.

Andrew Lawton :

I've cited a few times at this committee an instance from a couple of months ago in my riding that is very germane to this, which was that someone, under existing criminal laws, was arrested and charged for having a swastika mowed into their lawn. No separate offences in the Criminal Code and no additional police powers were required for that. This issue was another one of many crime stories that emerged in my riding. I've had a great many conversations with police chiefs and frontline police officers, and when they talk about what they want, not one of them has said they want Bill C-9 .

They talk about wanting bail reform. They talk about wanting legislation like we've put forward in the jail not bail act, the legislation we have tried to move attention to in this very committee meeting, because there is a lot more consensus on it. I find it shocking the Liberals will get up in the House of Commons—

(1555) Patricia Lattanzio :

I have a point of order.

Andrew Lawton :

—and accuse us of blocking bail work—

The Chair :

Mr. Lawton, I'll give you the floor back—

Andrew Lawton :

—while denying the opportunity to get to it, Mr. Chair, and you're silencing me again—

The Chair :

No, I'll give you the floor back. We have a point of order. Ms. Lattanzio.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, again, there's a question of relevance here today. I think it's quite clear that the Conservatives do not want to proceed with Bill C-9 . At every opportunity, they are invoking other pieces of legislation, which I'm hopeful we'll be able to get to if we can finish with the one before us. We are very much looking forward to dealing with the other pieces of legislation that are before this committee and that will be forthcoming in this committee, but today we should be concluding our work on Bill C-9.

It is very clear by the interventions that at every turn they are trying to stretch the time to not have to deal with this clause-by-clause study. It's very apparent. I would invite the Conservative members on this committee to move ahead so we can move to the study of other pieces of legislation. If you keep this up, we'll never get to it.

The Chair :

Okay, we'll go back to you, Mr. Lawton. I think it goes without saying that the sooner we get through this bill, the sooner we can get to the next bill. I don't think we need to repeat that over and over again. Mr. Lawton, the floor is yours.

Andrew Lawton :

My point, and where it is germane, is that it's about community priorities and justice priorities, and I find it fascinating that the Liberal government is holding its own bail bill hostage and using that as leverage to force us to advance very bad legislation that will attack the rights of Canadians.

Anthony Housefather :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Housefather has a point of order, Mr. Lawton.

Andrew Lawton :

I'm sure he does.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Mr. Chair, I question the relevance of this to BQ-2. This has nothing to do with BQ-2.

The Chair :

I'm inclined to agree with you, Mr. Housefather. We've gone—

Andrew Lawton :

I cede the floor.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

Larry Brock :

I see what the Liberal members are doing, Mr. Chair. They say one thing to the community at large; they say one thing to the House, accusing Conservatives, including the parliamentary secretary herself, of deliberating blocking the study of Bill C-14 . I brought forth a unanimous consent motion that could have dealt with prioritizing bail and sentencing. To my colleague Mr. Lawton's point—

The Chair: Mr. Brock—

Larry Brock: I'm not done yet.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, with all due respect, I really don't want to interrupt anybody. I don't—

Larry Brock :

Then why are you interrupting me, Chair?

The Chair :

Let me—

Larry Brock :

I'm not even done my point. No one has raised a point of order. You're supposed to be independent, Chair.

The Chair :

I am independent, Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

Not when you interrupt me, you're not.

The Chair :

If you're going to continue making the same point you did on the point of order earlier—

Larry Brock :

How do you know? You're not allowing me to finish my comments.

The Chair :

You just repeated the same thing.

Larry Brock :

You're not allowing me to finish my comments, Chair. That's completely inappropriate.

The Chair :

What I'm saying is that you need to stick to the amendment we're dealing with right now.

Larry Brock :

I'm speaking to that. If you'll let me finish, I will speak to it.

The Chair :

As long as you keep it relevant to the clause we're debating, that will be fine. Thank you, Mr. Brock. Continue.

Larry Brock :

Mr. Lawton raised serious concerns about Bill C-9 . When we raise concerns about Bill C-9 , that is extremely relevant to every clause we are about to consider. Because he is not narrowing his commentary with respect to BQ-2, that does not, by definition, automatically mean that he's not speaking with relevance to the whole purpose behind Bill C-9 . That's where I object. That's where I wanted to support my colleague. That's why I wanted to call out these Liberal members, who refuse to be honest with Canadians that we need—

The Chair :

Now I'm going to interrupt you. I'm going to make this point—

Wade Chang :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

—whether it's a Liberal, a Conservative, or a Bloc member. If people are going to start calling each other names and using words like “lying”, this meeting is going to be really long, and I'm not going to put up with it. Mr. Brock, you know better—

Larry Brock :

I'll sit all night, Chair.

The Chair: We might be.

Larry Brock: Give me the resources, and I'll sit all night.

The Chair :

You know better than that, I know better than that and my colleagues on my right know better than that. Please, I'm just asking for a level of civility here. Do not use words like “lying”, ascribing motive to people when they haven't been.... It's out of line. Mr. Brock, you have the floor, but I'm just pleading with you—

Larry Brock :

I hope, Chair—

The Chair :

I will follow the same rules regardless of who is talking.

Larry Brock :

I take your comments to heart, and I hope that when you hear in particular the parliamentary secretary using that type of language in the House, you will pull her aside and you will call her out.

The Chair :

Except we're not in the House. I can only control the process of the committee. Let's do that.

Larry Brock :

I wanted to continue, sir, because I have some grave concerns, and that's why I challenged your decision. I don't know what authority in the green book you are relying upon to rule that the motion that I just indicated I wanted to deal with, which was a dilatory motion, was not appropriate to be dealt with here and now. You made a ruling saying that the Bloc motion takes priority over my motion, and I wanted to ask you, perhaps in consultation with the clerks, what particular authority you are relying upon.

(1600) The Chair :

The issue has been dealt with, Mr. Brock. If that's the end of your submission, we can move on to Mr. Baber.

Roman Baber (York Centre, CPC) :

I'll quickly say, with respect to BQ-2, that I am mindful of the concern Mr. Fortin articulated. However, that could easily be dealt with by an amendment to remove reference to the swastika, as asked by various representatives of the Hindu community. However, I'd like to understand this. Granted, I am new here. Nonetheless, this goes beyond our desire to talk about bail. I want to understand the process here. If a motion is sought, I would think it's not just a matter of order but also a matter of privilege that a member of this committee can ask for unanimous consent at any point.

That would be a dilatory motion. We have a situation here where the chair ruled—respectfully—incorrectly in my view and is then able to sustain his own incorrect ruling with a vote. Effectively, what is happening here is this: You can dispose of decorum and the rules if the Liberal members vote in favour of doing so. In that case, what's the point of having any rules? I'm asking the chair to please allow Mr. Brock to move his motion, and let's have a vote. Let's deal with Bill C-14 —with bail and sentencing. Let's deal with that right now.

To vote to effectively suspend the rules and continue with this terrible piece of legislation, Bill C-9 , is not appropriate.

The Chair :

My ruling, to be clear, was that it was an inappropriate time to move that motion. If you, Mr. Brock or others want to move a motion at an appropriate time, that's different, but we have already moved on from that issue. If you have other submissions on this amendment, the floor is yours. If not, we can move on to Mr. Gill.

Roman Baber :

Could you please clarify for me what is an appropriate time and what is not an appropriate time?

The Chair :

No, I am not—

Roman Baber :

He can move a motion at any time.

The Chair :

Your colleague back there has the green book. Mr. Gill.

Amarjeet Gill (Brampton West, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. I would like to talk about what I am hearing in the riding I represent. Every single person I speak to talks about how we should be looking after Bill C-14 first, because bail and sentencing are very important for all of us. We all agree, to a point, that this is legislation we had to put forward. Now we are delaying, and every single day we delay causes problems in the neighbourhoods, on the streets and—

Wade Chang :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Chang.

Wade Chang :

How is this relevant to the clause-by-clause of Bill C-9 ?

The Chair :

It's not.

Amarjeet Gill :

It is relevant, sir.

The Chair :

No, it isn't, because you're talking about a different piece of legislation. I'm imploring you: If you want to talk about Bill C-9 , which is what we're here debating, please do so. I'll give you all the time you like. We have unlimited resources, as far as I'm concerned.

Amarjeet Gill :

I'm coming to that, if you will give—

The Chair :

You haven't addressed it yet, so in these circumstances, Mr. Chang's—

Amarjeet Gill :

If you keep interjecting with these kinds of points of order, I will not be able to speak.

The Chair :

I've deemed Mr. Chang's point of order to be appropriate. I'm going to give you back the floor. If you want to talk about this bill and this amendment, please do so.

Amarjeet Gill :

It is important for us to understand what we are hearing at the ground level and in reality. We have to work accordingly. Our main purpose is to look after what people need at this point in time, whether it's Bill C-9 or Bill C-14 We all know that extortion calls are coming every single day. Gun shootings are happening every single day. People are scared. Families are being targeted. Businesses are threatened. These are the things we have to look after. I suggest strongly that we should be looking after Bill C-14 right now. We have to support the motion presented by my colleague Mr. Brock. We have to move forward on that one.

(1605) Wade Chang :

I have a point of order on relevance again.

The Chair :

I agree. Mr. Gill, you're still not talking about this bill or, more specifically, this amendment.

Amarjeet Gill :

Mr. Chair, if that is the case, I'll cede my time and move on. Actually, we should not be stopping anyone from speaking when we are talking about important legislation that needs to be discussed at this committee meeting.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Gill. Are there any other further submissions on Mr. Fortin's proposed amendment? No. Before we put it to a vote, let me remind you of what I said at the outset: If BQ-2 is adopted, LIB-1, CPC-6 and CPC-7 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. We'll put it to a vote now. (Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

The Chair: Thank you. We're now moving on to LIB-1. I will give the floor to Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a simple amendment. The Hindu communities and some other communities, like the Jain community, view the swastika as a holy symbol in their culture. We can refer to the Nazi hakenkreuz , which is the symbol used by the Nazis, without using the word “swastika” in the English version of the bill. All my amendment does is remove the word “swastika” from the English version of the bill. I hope this is something we can all agree on given the community's representations.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. Are there any other submissions on that? No. Let's move on to a vote on LIB-1. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: That takes us to CPC-6, which I believe is from Mr. Brock. I'm sorry, but just before you get the floor, Mr. Brock, if CPC-6 is adopted, CPC-7 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Mr. Brock, do you want to speak to it?

Larry Brock :

Actually, it's Mr. Lawton's motion.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

Andrew Lawton :

Thank you. We have raised in the course of our study of Bill C-9 —a study that has been, sadly, shortchanged because of Liberal obstruction—that there are grave concerns with a number of sections of this bill, like how they will affect civil liberties and, in some cases, the very communities that the Liberal government claims it will protect. There have been several concerns raised specifically about the

section on hate symbols, and we will be discussing those more thoroughly when we get to the clause at hand. However, if we as a committee and as a Parliament are to enumerate hate symbols—symbols that have vile meaning, that carry a death toll and that often bring up a lot of trauma for various communities—we need to be thorough with it. I am proposing the following amendment. I ask that Bill C-9 , in clause 4, be amended by adding, after line 3 on page 2, the following:

(b.1) the communist symbol known as the hammer and sickle; or

I also ask to replace line 5 on page 2 with the following:

scribed in paragraph (a), (

b) or (b.1) that it is likely to be

In layman's terms, this is adding the hammer and sickle, the Communist insignia, to the list of hate symbols. Communism has a death toll of 100 million people around the world. People have died as a result of the dangerous and harmful ideology perpetrated by it. A number of concerns have been raised by people who have lived under Communist rule in Cuba and in eastern Europe, people who see this as an incredible evil that needs to be stamped out.

The Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, from the 1920s to the 1950s, saw some of the worst mass repression and mass killings in history—from the great purge to gulag or forced-labour camps, collectivization and the terror famine—with a death toll of up to 27 million. In China, under Mao Zedong, the Communist Party carried out massive repression, causing the deaths of tens of millions through executions, labour camps and man-made famines. Cambodia, under the Khmer Rouge, from 1975 to 1979, saw one of the worst episodes of mass killing in the history of the 20th century, with up to two million people killed.

That's around 25% of Cambodia's population. If we are to describe what hate symbols are in law, we need to acknowledge the death toll of the hammer and sickle, so I move this amendment for consideration and ask that it be added to the list.

(1610) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lawton. Is there anybody else? Mr. Baber.

Roman Baber :

I have to give it to my friend, Mr. Lawton. As some committee members have heard by now, I was born in the Soviet Union. I lived in the Soviet Union until 1989. Frankly, when I look at the hammer and sickle, I'm scared. I appreciate Mr. Housefather's previous amendment. I appreciate his sentiment, as we both come from the same community, with family members who were deeply affected by the Holocaust. However, I can tell you that my family has also been significantly affected by Communism. Frankly, I do not see much of a distinction between the two. The hammer and sickle represented collective oppression.

If I could, I'll summon my thoughts here, because this is definitely interesting. I'm not sure if Mr. Lawton mentioned that it is estimated that, subsequent to the world war, more than 20 million Soviet citizens were murdered by the Communist regime. It wasn't just confined to Jews; it was everyday people: Ukrainians, intelligentsia, anyone who had any type of microphone, press members and educators. I view it as a hate symbol.

I believe that it is a hate symbol because it drives the extreme of collectivist ideology where the state says, “Not my way or the highway, but my way or murder.” I hope that all of my friends around the table will support this amendment.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Baber. Is there any other discussion on that point? Shall CPC-6 carry? (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair: Next we have CPC-7. Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

Thank you, Chair. The majority of us, if not all, at this committee are lawyers. We can all think back to first-year law when we took statutory

interpretation. The overriding rationale that I remember so long ago—several decades ago—was to always seek clarity when drafting laws. It's no more important when it comes to the Criminal Code of Canada. In my view, after almost two decades of prosecuting and about 14 years of defending, as the Criminal Code currently exists, there are so many areas that really require significant editing. What I bring to the table as a parliamentarian now is the ability to ensure that there are no grey areas when it comes to statute

interpretation and that we strive to look at the Criminal Code in terms of what's black and white. What exists right now in Bill C-9 , specifically proposed paragraph (2.2)(c), is worded as follows:

(

c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (

b) that it is likely to be confused with that symbol.

I don't know what that means. It is so vague. There is no definition

section as to what a like symbol would mean. What does “likely to be confused with” mean? Would that be an objective standard? Would that be a subjective standard? In terms of the rationale for the amendment I seek, it's to seek precision and clarity. To remove that type of language would go a long way. Thank you, Chair. That's my explanation.

(1615) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Brock. More than anything, you just reminded me of how old I am. Mr. Baber, it's over to you.

Roman Baber :

I remember being taught overbreadth by a former Liberal cabinet minister, Mr. Bentley. He taught me first-year criminal law, and he made criminal law come to life—for me, at least. Of course, as the chair knows, I did not become a criminal attorney; nonetheless, I appreciate Mr. Brock's input. I'm looking at the section. If we could please read it, I would ask my Liberal colleagues to look at proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(c), which is what Mr. Brock's amendment is targeting. It reads:

(

c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (

b) that it is likely to be confused with that symbol.

My point is very simple: If it can be confused, it should not be criminal. I'd like to offer an example. Some folks might say that if you take out the language inside the Canadian Tire triangle, it might resemble a symbol used by the Hamas terrorist organization. It sometimes uses a triangle to indicate who the next target ought to be—god forbid. I would say that I could probably get around that, because that might be incitement to violence. Isn't that right, Mr. Housefather?

Ironically, you could probably say the Hamas triangle is incitement to violence, but I don't want to watch a Christmas commercial for Canadian Tire thinking it might be confused with the Hamas triangle. This amendment is being made in good faith to try to not be overbroad. Again, if it is likely to be confused with the actual symbol, the word “confused” is not only confusing; it should allow for some degree of latitude and not be criminal. Maybe we ought to think about some first principles, as former labour minister Mr. Bentley would probably say.

We're talking about criminal conduct, and we should be very clear not to criminalize conduct unless it is clear that it's criminal conduct.

(1620) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Baber. Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the last two Conservative amendments, which I think have been made in very good faith. On the first one, just to be clear, we had no testimony to the effect that the hammer and sickle should be included. There are a number of others, like the Ku Klux Klan symbol. I think this has to go through a thought process if we are to add other symbols, rather than just picking one and not another. That's why I voted against that amendment. This one is much more compelling in terms of the discussion about it.

My issue is that I think it is trying to achieve the opposite. Here's what I think it's trying to achieve. There's a terrorist group that has their symbol, and then, because they know the law has prohibited the display of the symbol, they themselves distort the symbol by one tiny iota so they can argue that it wasn't the symbol. The point of this section, I believe, is to capture that. I would like to ask a question of the officials who are here. Presumably, this was drafted by the Department of Justice. Can you explain the intention of this section?

The Chair :

Please go ahead.

Marianne Breese (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

Thank you for the question. Yes, I can confirm that the intention is to capture symbols that are defined in proposed paragraphs (

a) and (b). These are symbols principally used by or associated with a listed entity: the Nazi hakenkreuz or Nazi double sig-rune. If there's a slight modification—for example, if the flag of a terrorist entity has a different colour background—or if it's displayed for the purpose of promoting hatred against an identifiable group, we're not precluded from using that offence to prosecute. It's really, on a technical basis, about not excluding symbols that wilfully promote hatred.

Anthony Housefather :

Can I ask another question?

The Chair :

Sure. Then I'll give the floor to Mr. Brock.

Anthony Housefather :

Just to clarify, the goal of the way this is worded by our experts—presumably at the Department of Justice—is not to catch a different symbol that is not included in paragraphs (

a) and (b), but to take only the symbols in (

a) and (

b) when there is a deliberate attempt to distort a symbol in order to avoid or circumvent the law by the person using the symbol. It is not to catch a symbol inadvertently. Is that correct?

Marianne Breese :

That is correct. It is to capture slight variations or modifications where otherwise that symbol.... It presupposes the definition of the symbols in paragraphs (

a) and (b). It doesn't create new symbols. Is that helpful? Does that respond to the question?

Anthony Housefather :

Yes. Thank you very much.

The Chair :

Are you done, Mr. Housefather?

Anthony Housefather :

Yes, thank you. I got my answer.

Larry Brock :

Thank you, Ms. Breese, for that explanation. I don't know if it satisfies my concerns. I know Mr. Housefather is concerned, but given the way you responded to his latter question about the slight modification, did you ever give some consideration to using that language—a slight or some type of modification to an existing symbol? I think it's more specific and might assist me as a prosecutor in making an argument to a judge.

If I were a judge, it may give me some comfort knowing that it's a different standard I'm applying by taking a look at the real symbol and taking a look at the closely resembled symbol to see whether there was a slight modification. I think that language might be better than the language “that so nearly resembles”, which I think opens up such a grey area that, should there be a prosecution, I can see most cases being dismissed, even on the W.(D.) standard that judges would apply in this particular case.

It would leave them with reasonable doubt, not understanding and not appreciating a subjective analysis on that type of symbol versus an objective analysis. I'm wondering if you would be amendable to tightening up the language to make it a little more specific for prosecutors and to assist judges in adjudicating.

Marianne Breese :

Thank you for the comments. I believe that's really a policy decision and not something I can speak to. With respect to the drafting of this provision, as you pointed out, the objective you spoke to—using the words “nearly resembles” in conjunction with “likely to be confused with”—is the guidance provided in this legislation to narrow down the types of symbols that would be captured. That was the policy intent and the legal effect of that provision.

(1625) The Chair :

Are you done, Mr. Brock?

Larry Brock :

Yes.

The Chair :

Mr. Baber had his hand up as well.

Roman Baber :

First, to Mr. Housefather's point, I think the real issue here—and this is also for Ms. Breese—is the intent of the display. It might nearly resemble something and not be exactly right, especially if you draw it and if you're not good at that. It would be slightly off. However, if the intent is a terrorist symbol, as we prescribe in this section, then it would be caught and would be indeed criminal conduct. That's the point: You don't need to be concerned with the fact that someone made a slight alteration. You could think of an ISIS flag, which is a very good example.

There are many variations of it depending on where you're situated geographically. Some versions of the ISIS flag have more letters than others. At the same time, if you're a law enforcement professional, when you look at an ISIS flag, I would hope you know whether it's an ISIS flag or not. I'm not concerned with not being precise, because it goes to intent,

whereas what this

section is really doing, I think, is precisely what this

section hopes not to do, which is to potentially criminalize behaviour inadvertently. What might happen here is this. If the intent is not there and the intent is only to draw something else, then you're now criminalizing non-criminal behaviour. I think I'm right on this. Ms. Breese, what do you think about what I just said?

Marianne Breese :

I think you described well how a symbol is used within the hate propaganda offence, which is that the intent of the public display of the symbol is to promote hatred. In the reading of the offence, again, it would not expand the type of symbols captured; it would just specify.... Another way of seeing it would be that police officers on the ground would have to know, with great precision, that the symbols are caught by paragraphs (

a) and (b), and that if they get that wrong, they are precluded from charges or going forward through prosecution. That's the inverse. The question to committee would be, do you want that great precision to be on law enforcement?

Roman Baber :

To your point, the problem is the word “confused”. I kindly ask my Liberal colleagues to please bear with me. If I could redraft the section, I would say, “a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (

b) that it is likely to be that symbol.” That's what Ms. Breese is saying the

section tries to accomplish. It so nearly resembles a symbol that it is meant to be that symbol, as opposed to being confused with that symbol. I'm right on this one.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Baber. Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

My colleague Mr. Baber is very confident in his legal understanding of statute

interpretation. To all the officials here, were any of you responsible for the final wording in proposed paragraph (c)? Did anyone draft that?

(1630) Joanna Wells (Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) :

We did participate in the drafting.

Larry Brock :

You did participate in the drafting.

Joanna Wells :

Yes. That's one of our roles as policy counsel: to work with our legislative drafters to put the minister's policy into legislative text.

Larry Brock :

I want to circle back to your latter comment that if there were amendments to the language, that would be a policy decision. Are you not policy decision-makers at the Department of Justice, or are you just responsible for drafting legislation?

Marianne Breese :

We provide advice to the minister, who gives policy direction, and then we put that into text.

Larry Brock :

What was the genesis of that particular clause? Did you consult with legal stakeholders? Did you consult with the judiciary? Did you consult with academics, law professors—anything like that? Did it come from specific ethnic minorities? Were you persuaded one way or the other in terms of the language to be used? I'd be very interested in your response.

Joanna Wells :

I can speak to this one. I understand the concern is specifically targeted to this particular provision. This provision was developed, as Ms. Breese said, to try to close what was thought to be the risk of a loophole that could be created in the offence. Generally, we don't consult on the specific wording for an offence like this, although I know there were broad consultations on the broader policy objective of Bill C-9 .

Larry Brock :

What real-world examples can you give me that would support the inclusion of this clause, ones that came from law enforcement where they said they were missing an important tool in their tool box to tackle individuals who are demonstrating on our streets, harassing members of religious communities and using symbols, but they don't know whether they're an exact replica of something that is within the regs or there's been a slight modification? Did you get specific input?

Do you have examples of cases where police officers were presented a choice: “Should I or shouldn't I charge?” If they said they couldn't charge because they were missing a tool in their tool box, is this designed to remedy that?

Marianne Breese :

Generally, the feedback we have received is that police officers are looking for clear tools to address this type of conduct—a clear red line as to what types of symbols, for example, could be captured by this type of offence. In terms of examples of how this could materialize, if on a Hezbollah flag or Hamas flag the background colours were changed, that flag was being waved in a public place and the person waving it was also chanting slogans that directly targeted an identifiable group—

Larry Brock :

Aren't there criminal laws already in the books to address the particular example you just gave, which is incitement to hatred?

Marianne Breese :

Perhaps I could finish this one first. If there's a more limited definition of the symbols in proposed paragraphs (

a) and (b), then this offence would be precluded. However, to your point, there are other tools in the Criminal Code—other hate propaganda offences that could potentially apply—depending on the case at hand. Communicated statements, for the purpose of

section 319 offences, include visible representations and signs.

Larry Brock :

Here's the problem. What I'm about to say to you right now is certainly not new to you if you've been following the debate in the House or the debate here in this particular committee. We would love to completely reject every aspect of Bill C-9 . It is a flawed piece of legislation, because there are existing laws that already deal with the multitude of disturbances we have seen over the last two years. It's not an issue of a want of criminal legislation or specific tools for law enforcement. There is a lack of will among law enforcement. I have gone on tour.

I'm still touring across the country, talking to stakeholders. I'm absolutely surprised and stunned by the number of examples of lawlessness on the streets where police have been directly told by their municipal leaders to abandon their number one sworn responsibility to enforce our laws and simply be peacekeepers. I'm not going to identify the city. I'm not going to out the police service, but I spoke to a number of Jewish leaders in this particular community.

They explained to me, with example after example, that pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas protesters specifically spat on Jewish individuals who simply wanted to attend their synagogue. It was right in the presence of police officers. That's intimidation. That's assault. They have the tools; they're just not enforcing. I appreciate your explanation. You've given me some hope that you have done your due diligence. I would never accuse you of not exercising due diligence.

This is a touchy area, but I'm concerned that police asking for more and more provisions to deal with thorny issues may not ultimately achieve what you're hoping to achieve and what the Liberal government hopes to achieve if we have a lack of will to enforce. The fact that we've had demonstrations lasting two years in our country is absolutely pathetic. It puts this country in a really difficult position on the world stage. I've read and watched news reports from all over the world. The ability of government leaders and law enforcement to take immediate, concrete steps to deal with this lawlessness....

That is something this country did not do. It's shameful. As a former member of the legal community, I'm disgusted that this has happened in my country. That's what I'm concerned about. If you give a new tool to law enforcement—one that I think is still fraught with confusion—is it up to police to determine whether it is clearly in line with a symbol that falls within the regulation, or is it something that closely resembles that? Is this confusing? I can see so many red flags in the mind of a young police officer. Despite leadership saying, “We want this”, I don't think it's going to have the desired impact.

That is all the more reason, in my view, to always seek clarity and precision, and to strive for black and white language when we're dealing with anything in the Criminal Code of Canada. I appreciate all your responses, but I'm still not satisfied that this will address the issues that present themselves. Thank you, Chair.

(1635) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Brock. Next I have Mr. Lawton, and then Ms. Lattanzio.

Andrew Lawton :

To the officials, I want to make this less abstract for the time being, because we know in the context of the last two years that there have been a number of protests on Middle Eastern politics in communities across the country. Let's say a listed terrorist entity claims as a symbol the keffiyeh, and this becomes a symbol that's closely associated with a listed entity. Would a keffiyeh be viewed, or could it be viewed, under this legislation as a hate symbol?

(1640) Marianne Breese :

Taking a step back, we'd have to look back on.... It's always a factual analysis. The test established here in the provision would be what it is principally used for or associated with. That would be about showing there is a close nexus between the listed group and the symbol. I can't provide a yes-or-no response as to whether that symbol would be associated. Again, it really is a determination for law enforcement to make based on available evidence. That's as far as I can take it.

Andrew Lawton :

Per your answer, you're now saying there would be a grey area where that could be.... Because you can't say no, you're basically saying that a keffiyeh, under this, could be a hate symbol if there were a listed entity that had associated itself with that symbol.

Marianne Breese :

Based on available evidence, if the facts at hand demonstrated that that symbol was principally used by and associated with a listed entity—and that's a determination that can only be made by law enforcement and prosecutors after a full investigation—then perhaps, but I cannot say today whether factually it is principally used by or associated with a listed entity. That nexus is a factual determination.

Andrew Lawton :

Iran has been acknowledged as a state sponsor of terror. Could waving an Iranian flag attract the same scrutiny? Could it be viewed as a hate symbol? I'm sorry; that question is for the officials.

Marianne Breese :

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

Andrew Lawton :

Yes. Iran has been acknowledged as a state sponsor of terror. Could an Iranian flag be captured as a hate symbol by this definition?

Marianne Breese :

Iran is not a listed entity under the terrorism listing regime in the Criminal Code.

Andrew Lawton :

When we talk about like symbols, I realize we are discussing one particular amendment here, but we have to look, at various points, at Bill C-9 in its totality, so if you'll indulge me, Chair, I have to ask about other parts of the bill, such as—

The Chair :

Could I interrupt you for one second? There are a lot of conversations going on around the room, and I'm having trouble hearing Mr. Lawton and the witness, so if people don't mind.... Go ahead, Mr. Lawton. I'm sorry.

Andrew Lawton :

We have to look at other aspects of Bill C-9 , in particular the removal, or the potential removal, of Attorney General consent for laying charges. The reason I bring that up is that you in your previous answer, Ms. Breese, mentioned law enforcement discretion as being a key part of this. If this falls outside of what the Department of Justice is able to comment on, I understand that, but how do we expect law enforcement to make these calls? Sometimes this comes down to, as Mr. Baber alluded to, nuances in the Arabic language that might not be known. Sometimes it comes down to very technical details.

In some cases, there is complexity to what is on the list of terror entities in the first place. I'm wondering if you could explain how these things would intersect with this

section and, with that in mind, why we're talking about trying to remove ambiguity.

Marianne Breese :

As a caveat, this is not my expertise, as I'm not in law enforcement, but we would assume that police have tools and training to be able to identify.... You have special counterterrorism units, for example. There are even tools that are publicly available, like databases of symbols, so relying on that expertise of the police, with their tools and their knowledge, is how that factual determination would be made. I would always bring it back to this: Whatever the symbol is, if you've established that the symbol meets the definition in the offence, it all has to be considered within the broader offence: the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group.

Andrew Lawton :

We heard testimony from a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I can't recall her name precisely, but she posited that this proposed subsection, unamended, basically amounts to a strict liability offence. The act of displaying the symbol itself, irrespective of motive, will be an offence. For clarity, I'll read the proposed subsection in question:

Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's position was that the wording of this suggests that displaying, in and of itself, is sufficient to say that hatred is being wilfully promoted. What is your view on that?

(1645) Marianne Breese :

I would respectfully disagree. I think it's quite clear that this offence, which, as you see in how it's structured, resembles the existing wilful promotion offence. The display of the symbol is to be understood within the broader context of someone who is intentionally and wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. The displaying of the symbol is the communication. It is not a straight ban on symbols, and neither is it criminalizing the mere display of symbols.

Andrew Lawton :

As my last question, did you or anyone in your department advise the government for or against the

section that Mr. Brock's amendment seeks to remove, specifically the wording “resembles a symbol”? Did you advise for or against that in your counsel to the minister?

Marianne Breese :

Our role is always to advise the minister on the criminal law in Bill C-9 as it goes through the parliamentary process. Within that ambit, we continue to provide advice on all matters related to the bill.

Andrew Lawton :

I'm sorry. Are you claiming or disclaiming responsibility for that wording? You can blame the minister.

Joanna Wells :

If I may—

Andrew Lawton :

I won't hold it against you.

Joanna Wells :

—our role is to provide advice to the minister on issues related to criminal law. The content of that advice is subject to solicitor-client privilege. We're not able to be more specific in communicating the advice that we do or do not give.

Andrew Lawton :

You are paid by Canadian taxpayers. Is that correct?

Joanna Wells :

We are.

Andrew Lawton :

Okay. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. Ms. Lattanzio.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, we heard testimony here at committee from the Edmonton Police Service that I want to put it on the record just so that it's clear for everybody. I looked up their testimony from when they came before us. This is their take on the whole issue of symbols:

EPS also supports the additional offence of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain specific symbols like the swastika, the SS bolt or symbols of listed terrorist entities. This

section clarifies these types of symbols but also reiterates the requirement that police establish that a suspect was wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group in public.

I just want it to be on record that the Edmonton police force was very much in favour of this whole

section on symbols.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio. Is there anyone else on Mr. Brock's CPC-7? No. Shall CPC-7 carry? (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair :

Thank you. Now we are moving to—

Roman Baber :

Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Baber.

Roman Baber :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move an amendment to the same proposed subsection. Specifically, I'd like to amend clause 4 on page 2, in line 6 only, by deleting the words “confused with that symbol” and substituting the words “a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b)”.

The Chair :

Can you read out the whole proposed paragraph to be amended?

(1650) Roman Baber :

Yes. The amended proposed paragraph would be:

(

c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (

b) that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b).

The Chair :

Okay. Does everybody understand that? Mr. Fortin, do you need a translation?

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

No, I agree.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Chair, can we just have it done in French and English so that everybody can appreciate the amendment on the floor?

The Chair :

Okay, so—

Andrew Lawton :

I have a point of order. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Ms. Lattanzio heard Monsieur Fortin. He said that he agrees with it, so I believe he understands it.

The Chair :

All right, but she's entitled to make the request.

Andrew Lawton :

I know. I just didn't believe she heard that, Chair. That was all.

The Chair :

That's fair enough.

Patricia Lattanzio :

Mr. Chair, could we just suspend for a couple of minutes?

The Chair :

I was just going to suggest that we suspend for a moment.

Roman Baber :

Wait one second. I propose that we not suspend if there is a will on the part of the committee to stand my amendment down and come back to it. I have a technical problem, in that once we move past this clause, I'll be unable to move it, which is why the time is urgent, but I don't want to hold up the committee.

The Chair :

Why don't we suspend for a few minutes just to clarify this and then we'll come back to it?

Roman Baber: Okay.

The Chair: All right, we are suspended.

(1650) (1655) The Chair :

The meeting has resumed. Go ahead, Mr. Baber.

(1700) Roman Baber :

Could I please ask the clerk to read it? We had a further change to the initially proposed amendment. The amendment has been unofficially amended. Could we please hear the new version, also in French?

The Chair :

You took the words right out of my mouth.

The Clerk of the Committee (Jacques Maziade) :

I will read proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(c):

(

c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (

b) that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b).

[ Translation ] In French, this reads as follows:

c) un symbole à ce point semblable à un symbole visé aux alinéas

a) ou

b) qu'il est susceptible d'être un symbole visé aux alinéas

a) ou b) .

[ English ]

The Chair :

I have Mr. Baber next and then Mr. Lawton.

Roman Baber :

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate an opportunity to weigh in on this, and I appreciate that the committee is entertaining this amendment at this time. I am very concerned with the voting down of Mr. Brock's amendment and that proposed paragraph (

c) will remain in its present form and will therefore criminalize, should this legislation pass, a symbol that so nearly resembles a criminal symbol that it is likely to be confused with that symbol. What that will do is confuse law enforcement, confuse lawyers and also potentially involve someone who did not mean to display a symbol referred to in paragraph (

a) or (

b) but did so such that the depiction was confused with the symbol in (

a) and (b). Then you have an otherwise innocent person charged with a criminal offence. I am mindful of the fact that intent probably factors into this a bit, so there may be some grace, but, if I may.... I referred to a previous Liberal minister who taught me criminal law, and now I'm reminded of Professor Graham at Western University, one of the leading jurists in our country on statutory

interpretation. I remember that in the first week of school, the first week of statutory

interpretation, he told us about the mushroom case. I apologize that I'm unable to cite the name of the case, but the proposition was simple. He asked, is a mushroom a vegetable? He said that he had a lot of experience ordering vegetarian pizza, and when he wanted a veggie pizza, he got mushrooms on it, so he would think mushrooms were a vegetable. Well, the issue became prevalent vis-à-vis the question of whether mushroom growers ought to pay minimum wage.

The case turned on the fact that if they were vegetable growers, employers would be exempt from paying minimum wage as prescribed for vegetable growers, and if they were not vegetable growers, there would be a mandate to pay minimum wage. Mr. Housefather seems to think he might recall what I'm referring to. The statutory

interpretation turned on the fact that, while we know mushrooms are not really vegetables—they're fungi—the mushrooms were grown inside greenhouses as opposed to outdoors, because they were commercial mushrooms. As a result, the court asked, what is the intention behind the legislation? It is that sometimes due to weather elements or the industrial carbon tax, the cost of mushrooms might be very prohibitive. When you have all sorts of weather events, you might lose your crop, so growers would be given some latitude not to pay minimum wage.

However, because mushrooms are grown in greenhouses, the grower doesn't have that problem. The mushrooms are not subject to the elements, and as a result, when the annual crop would come in, the grower would sell his mushrooms, so there would be no need to exempt the mushroom grower from the application of minimum wage. The question is, are mushrooms vegetables? The answer was to look at the intent of the legislation. The intent of the legislation was to exempt those who risk losing their crops.

The mushroom grower will not, because mushrooms are grown in a greenhouse, and as such, there is no need to exempt them from the application of minimum wage and no need to even answer the question of whether mushrooms are vegetables. In that spirit, I appreciate the latitude and the accommodation. I think it's very important that the intent of this legislation is clear.

(1705) We Conservatives tend to err on the side of caution, not only when we talk about moving forward issues that might be transformational without thinking them through, but also in the application of criminal law. We want to be very conservative there, because we want to preserve charter values and preserve the presumption of innocence. We certainly don't want a law that would be overbroad. As presently outlined, the law might criminalize conduct that it doesn't mean to criminalize. My proposal—that the symbol displayed needs to be so nearly resembling a symbol in paragraph (

a) or (

b) that it is likely to be the actual symbol referred to in paragraph (

a) or (b)—eliminates that ambiguity and therefore accomplishes what the

section intends to accomplish. I'm grateful to everyone on this committee for entertaining this seemingly small change. I think it might actually save law enforcement a lot of time, but deny criminal lawyers an ability to argue the statutory

interpretation of what this committee otherwise intended. Thank you.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. Apparently there was a slight modification of the translation.

[ Translation ]

The Clerk :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will simply reread the French version we received from the legal translators:

c) Un symbole à ce point semblable à un symbole visé aux alinéas

a) ou

b) qu'il est susceptible d'en être un.

[ English ] The English version doesn't change.

The Chair :

I'm good with that. Mr. Lawton, did you have your hand up?

Andrew Lawton :

Yes. I just want some context here, and I appreciate the lesson in statutory

interpretation from my colleague Mr. Baber. I've learned a lot, and now I'm hungry. The amendment doesn't go as far as the original amendment, but the committee decided to vote against Mr. Brock's approach, and that's the way the mushroom bounces. I do want to ask our officials whether the further amendment put on the table ameliorates the concerns you raised with respect to the first attempt at this from Mr. Brock?

A voice: [ Inaudible—Editor ]

Andrew Lawton: No, ameliorate and mitigate.

Anthony Housefather :

I thought you said alleviate.

Andrew Lawton :

No, ameliorate. See, we're all learning things today.

Marianne Breese :

I want to be helpful. When I spoke earlier, I was pointing to the policy intent and the purpose, mindful that I can't provide advice on this amendment. Is there another specific question with respect to...?

Andrew Lawton :

I'll rephrase it. Do you believe that the amendment put forward by Mr. Baber is in keeping with the spirit of the policy in this

section of the bill?

Joanna Wells :

I think that puts us in a bit of a difficult position in being able to respond directly to your question. If the committee thinks the amendment is consistent with the policy intent of the bill, we would invite you to proceed with your meeting. I think we were clear, and Ms. Breese was clear, as to the original policy intent of the language. This would maybe narrow it slightly, but the provision would remain on the books to maybe provide some support to Crown prosecutors and police who are looking for guidance on what symbols would fall under the offence.

(1710) Andrew Lawton :

Okay. I don't want to do the thing that I'm sure frustrates people. I legitimately do not want to put words in your mouth, but would you view this amendment as diverging from the policy intention and legislative goal of the

section as it is? That's really what I'm asking here. Do you believe that this amendment is fundamentally altering the policy direction? Do you think this is a divergence from the intention that you and/or the Minister of Justice had when drafting this section?

Joanna Wells :

I'm trying to be helpful. I think the question is whether it is the committee's intent to change the policy the department has shared at the outset with respect to—

Andrew Lawton :

I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. I'm trying not to put you into that realm. Let's go back to first principles. What is the policy intention of this particular section? What was the direction your department was given that led to that?

Marianne Breese :

Perhaps what I can do is speak to what this amendment would do technically, as opposed to the policy intent behind the amendment that is being proposed.

Andrew Lawton :

Sure.

Marianne Breese :

If I were to read, for example, “that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b)”.... Did I get that correct?

Andrew Lawton :

Yes. It's “that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b)”.

Marianne Breese :

At first glance, the “is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b)” would appear to mean the symbol described in proposed paragraph (

a) or (b). [ Translation ] There is barely any difference. [ English ] I don't know how to say it. Basically, proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(

c) would capture a symbol that resembles (

a) and (

b) and that is likely to be (

a) and (b). Again, there's not much difference, I would say, between paragraphs (a), (

b) and (c). That's plain reading.

Andrew Lawton :

I realize you are not in law enforcement, but if this were to come before a courtroom you were working in, would you view this as being an amendment that provides greater clarity in how to interpret that offence?

Marianne Breese :

I think I'm delving beyond my role as a technical expert with that type of question. I can speak to the technical aspects, which I've just done. If that is the committee's desired

interpretation, then the committee would be best able to respond to whether that empowers law enforcement to better understand the provision.

The Chair :

Mr. Lawton, are you done?

Andrew Lawton :

Yes.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

Larry Brock :

I'm moving a subamendment to my colleague Mr. Baber's amendment. I do this not out of disrespect to Mr. Baber. We're trying to come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone at this committee and also address the overall concerns I had at the outset with my original amendment, which was voted down. I appreciate the input from both Ms. Wells and Ms. Breese. I hope you are not concerned about us questioning you. I appreciate that you can't give us legal advice; you can't provide us with a legal opinion. You are here to help. What I'm picking up when I read between the lines is some degree of hesitation.

I don't think you would support or not support a potential amendment. It's the will of the committee. I think there is a compromise here. I wish everybody would pay attention and hear me out on this. I propose that we take the existing language in proposed paragraph (

c) so that it would now read, “a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (

a) or (b).” There's no further explanation beyond that. I think that provides a very clear direction to law enforcement. We still get into

interpretation issues in a trial in terms of a subjective or objective analysis, but we don't have to worry about that. That's for a different day and a different discussion. I think it clarifies your concerns, Ms. Breese, that the amendment brought by Mr. Baber may be more confusing than clear. That would be my subamendment. I don't have it drafted, but I can certainly do that when the bells are ringing. I understand that we are not providing unanimous consent. I think there's a will from both the Liberal team and the Conservative team to actually attend at the House for the purposes of voting. In the interim, I can draft this in both official languages.

(1715) The Chair :

Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

I propose that subamendment would not be receivable on Mr. Baber's motion, which substituted words. You would be cutting off the entire sentence that Mr. Baber substituted. I don't believe that's a proper subamendment to Mr. Baber's motion. I would ask you to rule that way, Chair.

The Chair :

The bells are ringing, so we are going to suspend. I have a solution that might get us through this, which we can do during the break. We'll suspend until after the votes and ask everybody to be here 15 minutes after the last vote.

Roman Baber :

It's until the tally of the vote is declared. It's not after the last vote, but the tally.

The Chair :

If you want to get out of your chair before, that's fine. Go ahead, by all means.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: The meeting is suspended.

(1715) (1825) The Chair :

I'd like to call this meeting back to order, please. Yes, Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

On a point of order, I'm just seeking clarification in terms of timing. I know that we have resources today until 11:30. I also heard from a reliable source that you plan on sitting tomorrow. I'd like you to confirm the time we're going to start and the time that we're going to finish. I also heard from that reliable source that there will be a full sitting on Thursday, starting as early as 8:30 in the morning and concluding at midnight. I'd like clarification of that, as well as sitting this Friday.

I wasn't aware of the start time or the concluding time, but we all have other commitments outside this committee room, not only with respect to our commitments to our parties, but also our commitments to our ridings. Obviously, travel arrangements will need to be adjusted if that, in fact, is accurate.

(1830) The Chair :

Your sources are better than mine, clearly. We have asked for additional resources.

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

There are worse.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair :

Again, that's

interpretation, but fair comment. We've asked for additional resources. I don't know where we've landed on that, but I'll give you an answer by the end of the meeting. Look, I have commitments too. We all have commitments, and I'm going to try to accommodate all of that, but it just reinforces the urgency. The sooner we get this thing done...we can avoid all those problems, if necessary. I will find out where things stand as the meeting progresses, because we do have some time this evening to sort that out. This brings us back to the meeting. When we left off, Mr. Baber, I think you proposed an amendment, but Mr. Brock was on the verge of proposing a subamendment. Where are we on that?

Larry Brock :

I don't know if the subamendment is properly before this committee. I had the impression it was not. If it is not, I'm prepared to withdraw the subamendment in its entirety and proceed with Mr. Baber's amendment.

The Chair :

My understanding is that it is not appropriate. There are two ways to proceed. Mr. Baber can withdraw his, and you can introduce yours, or we can vote on Mr. Baber's, and then it's up to you what you do with yours, depending on the outcome of that. Are you not proceeding with your subamendment?

Larry Brock :

No.

The Chair :

Okay, so we're on Mr. Baber's amendment. Does anybody want to speak to it before we move to a vote?

An hon. member: Let's vote.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to go to a vote. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: This takes us to new LIB-2. To clarify, if you'll recall, last time there was some issue with page numbering. LIB-2 was originally on page 11. It's now on page 12, and the reference number is 13784838. I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Mr. Chair, because this was discussed in the same context as Mr. Baber's CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4 amendments, and we parked those until the end, I would like to do the same and park this, to be discussed in conjunction with Mr. Baber's amendments.

The Chair :

Okay. I'm told that would require parking—to use your language—other proposed amendments, and we'd have to move to clause—

Anthony Housefather :

That wouldn't make sense, Mr. Chair, with respect. Can I just understand that? There is no line conflict with my amendment, LIB-2, and any other amendments. It's simply language to be inserted after something. There should be no reason that it would prejudice any other amendment from moving forward. The only thing that wouldn't be able to move forward is a vote on all of clause 4, which would have to wait until my amendment was heard. There would be no line conflict, and it should not preclude any other amendment from going forward. I'd ask you to rereview that with the legislative clerk.

(1835) The Chair :

There's uncertainty, Mr. Housefather. We can move forward to clause 5 and then go back to it, or we can proceed and address any problem that arises as a result.

Anthony Housefather :

I'd like to understand that, again, Mr. Chair. There are other amendments to clause 4 that do not have a line conflict with LIB-2. Why could those amendments not be dealt with in their proper order? We can park LIB-2 until the end and simply not vote on the entirety of clause 4 until we come back to LIB-2 and Mr. Baber's amendments. That's all I'm asking.

The Chair :

Okay. We're going to suspend for just a couple of minutes to get clarity.

(1835) (1840) The Chair :

I call the meeting back to order. Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for this indulgence. I was hoping to have more discussions about this. You will remember the last meeting when we talked about the wilful promotion of terrorism. I strongly agree with Mr. Baber that this should be in the Criminal Code. He presented amendments about where this clause should be, which is the terrorism section, but I don't feel it would be receivable in light of this bill. I think it will have to be withdrawn. I had other issues with it, so I put forward my own.

It should be in the hate section, where it would be proper, but it's like putting a round peg in a square hole. I had some discussions with the Minister of Justice , and I'd like to read out his letter to me. He said I could share it with the committee. It says: “Dear Anthony, “Thank you again for the thoughtful way you have engaged with Bill C-9 . I appreciate your willingness to work with us in what has been an understandably intense and emotional debate. “I share your concern about the glorification of listed terror entities in Canada, and I agree with you that the status quo is not good enough.

I am committed to a serious, focused examination of how Canadian law should better address the glorification of terrorism. “As the amendments proposed were not in the initial text of the bill or previously consulted on, I would appreciate more time to properly consult and to respond. “Thank you again for your leadership on these issues and for your collaboration as we work to get Bill C-9 right and to address the broader legal gaps you have identified. “Please feel free to share my request with the committee if desired.” This is the last I have from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice .

Out of courtesy to him, I will not put forward the amendment. I will give him the space and latitude to come forward with a consultation, and then hopefully a legislative fix, which I hope will arrive before Mr. Baber's private member's bill. If not, I will support moving Mr. Baber's private member's bill to the House. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. Mr. Baber.

Roman Baber :

I appreciate the predicament Mr. Housefather is in. We currently have a situation where there is a desire for a comparable piece of legislation on each side of the aisle. It's a rare occurrence in this place, and it's the right policy at the right time. I understand we have a process issue here that we can't get around. I anticipate that the Conservatives will put out a motion to expand the scope of this bill at some point to try to accomplish the ability to pass the Baber amendments—CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4—and therefore have this placed correctly within the terrorism

section of the Criminal Code. I hope there will be consensus on the other side for this. I appreciate your comments and your effort, Mr. Housefather, very much.

(1845) The Chair :

Thank you, both.

The Chair: That takes us to BQ-3. I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Fortin.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill C‑9 is part of an effort to legislate against hate, a fight I support 100%. I think that is pretty much the same everywhere in the House of Commons. There is already a provision in the Criminal Code that proposes to combat hate, namely

section 319. In a nutshell, it prohibits or considers it an offence to promote hatred or anti-Semitism, in subsections (2) and (2.1) respectively. However, there is a problem with one of the defences provided for in subsection (3) of

section 319. It states:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) …

(

b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

The same can be read in paragraph (3.1), which refers to paragraph (2.1). The problem with this defence is that it creates a situation where someone can commit acts or make statements that would otherwise be prohibited under

section 319 of the Criminal Code, but which may not be prohibited if they are based on a religious text. In our view, this is an exception that has no place in our legal system in Canada. I will refer to an example that has been given a few times, but which is worth looking at again. Last year, preacher Adil Charkaoui, in front of an audience listening to him, prayed to Allah to identify the enemies of Gaza, to exterminate them and to leave none behind. I don’t remember the exact words. It was a speech that clearly incited hatred and for which we expected the Attorney General to take legal action. However, no legal action was taken. We suspect that the Attorney General, upon reading

section 319, realized that in a trial, this individual would benefit from a defence based on paragraph (3)(

b) or paragraph (3.1)(

b) of

section 319 of the Criminal Code. If Bill C‑9 aims to effectively combat hatred, we believe that this religious exception should be removed from the Criminal Code. Amendment BQ‑3 therefore proposes, as a first step, that clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following after line 12 on page 2:

(1.1) Paragraph 319(3)(

b) of the Act is repealed. (1.2) Paragraph 319(3.1)(

b) of the Act is repealed.

These are the two provisions that allow for a religious defence for an offence of incitement to hatred, in the first case, and for an offence of incitement to anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial, in the second. Secondly, the amendment proposes that the bill be amended by replacing line 19 on page 2 with the following:

journalism, education or art, that is not con‐

Line 17 of page 2 reads as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.2) (

a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest;

The prohibition of symbols has already been discussed.

(1850) We understand that the use of a symbol that would normally constitute an offence is considered legitimate if it serves a purpose related to journalism, education or the arts, and that there is a defence based on this exception. However, the existence of an exception for the use of a symbol for religious purposes seems to us, once again, to be contrary to the intent of Bill C‑9 , which is to prohibit hatred. Hate is something detestable, no pun intended, that must be eradicated from our society.

In our opinion, when the Criminal Code prescribes offences related to the promotion of hatred, it should in no way allow a defence based on religious pretexts. Regardless of which religious text one reads, whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the Torah or any other, religion should never be interpreted in such a way as to allow the incitement of hatred. By reproducing provisions in the Criminal Code that allow for religious defences, we are creating confusion and sending an undesirable message that religion can be used to incite hatred. I submit that this is not the case.

Nowhere in any religious text, whether Catholicism, Christianity in all its forms, Islam or Judaism, is it stated that inciting hatred is a good thing. Unfortunately, not everyone reads these texts in the same way. It would be truly detrimental if, by passing Bill C‑9, we allowed religion or religious texts to be interpreted in such a way that they enable their adherents to incite hatred or anti-Semitism. I therefore propose that we adopt amendment BQ‑3 to remove from the Criminal Code the religious exceptions currently found in

section 319 and those proposed to be added in Bill C‑9.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. I have Mr. Brock and Mr. Baber. Mr. Lawton, was that from before or was that on this?

Andrew Lawton :

It was on this.

The Chair :

Okay, so you're first, and then it's Mr. Brock, Mr. Baber and Mr. Genuis.

Andrew Lawton :

It was clear during some of our witness meetings on Bill C-9 that an amendment of this sort was coming. We heard Monsieur Fortin ask questions about it. We heard him cite those horrific and heinous words by a man I will not even dignify by calling a preacher, Charkaoui, in Quebec. It was easy to suspect that an amendment like this was coming. Be that as it may, this is a significant incursion on religious freedom and the freedom of expression, for reasons I'll share in a moment. The fundamental point is that this committee has not studied this.

This committee has had no opportunity to call witnesses with specific expertise about this. When we learned through media reporting that this amendment was coming, I took it upon myself to reach out to some of our witnesses who had testified and invite them to submit further briefs. I realized that it would be too late to have them circulated on the committee, but at least we would have the opportunity as members to have a bit of insight into this. I want to share a very important timeline on this.

There was a report in the National Post eight days ago, I believe, indicating that the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois had reached a secret deal to launch this assault on religious freedom and exchange, quid pro quo, adoption of Monsieur Fortin's amendment for support from the Bloc on Bill C-9 , a bill with tremendous flaws that has been derided by pretty much every religious group in the country and that has been derided by civil liberties advocates—and for good reason.

Now all of these issues with Bill C-9 would be supercharged by this amendment should it pass, and I have little doubt that it will given what we've heard. What is interesting is that the Liberals seem to not be willing to stand by this. For the past week in the House of Commons, there have been attempts to get clarity from the government on where they stand.

The Minister of Justice , who has not yet decided to appear before this committee on his mandate and priorities, coyly said that the committee will decide, as though the committee does not have any direction given by the minister, the Prime Minister or other operatives within the Liberal apparatus. Beyond that, we had a rather interesting turn of events. At first, it was not clear that there was going to be this meeting today. We got a notice only on Monday, which was for an eight-hour meeting.

Then we learned that the meeting had been truncated to two hours, which, as we've demonstrated, would not have given us enough time to get there, suggesting that the Liberals could not agree on what they were going to do on this precise amendment. Then, evidently, they got a clear direction on it, and the meeting was extended again to eight hours, the meeting we are finding ourselves in right now.

In the time that transpired, further media reporting cited that sources in the Prime Minister 's Office indicated that the Liberals intend to support this amendment—again teaming up with the Bloc Québécois—which I realize has a very distinct political context in Quebec that it is responding to. I realize that three of my Liberal colleagues hail from Quebec as well, and I don't know to what extent that is going to influence their decision.

Evidently, there has been no desire to listen to the concerns raised by Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists—there are potentially other groups that have raised concerns, as well, that I have not yet heard—that this will come as a direct threat to their ability to practise their faith. When we hear the example of Charkaoui brought up, a man prosecutors in Quebec did not claim was spared from prosecution because of anything to do with the religious defences that this amendment would take away....

The religious defences do not apply to any of the sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to incitement, pertaining to calls for genocide or pertaining to threats. When Mr. Charkaoui was talking about death to Jews, even if it was determined that it was in good faith—and no call for violence can ever be made in good faith—this religious defence would not even have applied to the sections of the Criminal Code that would have been engaged had there been political leadership and, I would say, courage by prosecutors in that case.

To invoke Charkaoui to justify eroding long-standing religious protections from law is a red herring. It is a misrepresentation, either deliberate or unintentional—I won't speculate—of what the law says. However, we do know what this will mean for people of faith.

(1855) Your predecessor, Mr. Chair, who's now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture , sat in that very chair and said that Christians and Jews who preach from books of the Bible and the Torah in ways that he finds hateful should be subject to prosecution. Prosecutors should, according to Minister Miller, be able to “press charges” against people who dare to invoke scriptures the government finds offensive.

Earlier today, Minister Fraser issued a statement in which he tried to claim that this isn't going to have anything to do with religious freedom, but the Liberals have not stated on the record what their position is. I'm grateful that we have officials from the Department of Justice. We also have, in Ms. Lattanzio, a high-ranking representative of the Liberal government. She is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I will ask her this right now: What is the Liberal Party's position on this amendment? Is she willing to answer as a representative for the government?

The Chair :

It's not appropriate. I suppose if Ms. Lattanzio wants to answer, she can, but it's outside the course of procedure, Mr. Lawton. I think you know that.

Andrew Lawton :

If I may, with Ms. Lattanzio's consent.... Will you agree to speak for the government right now?

Patricia Lattanzio :

I will not speak for the government. I will speak as a member of Parliament. I'm very much looking forward to hearing you and anybody else who wants to take the floor on this issue. When everybody has finished speaking, including me, I will make my decision, and you will know my decision through my vote.

(1900) Andrew Lawton :

Is the position of the Liberal government that it has no position on this amendment, which has been responsible for cancelled meetings, extended meetings and shortened meetings? It's been eight days since the reporting. Is the Liberal Party claiming that it does not have a decision on this?

The Chair :

Mr. Lawton, Ms. Lattanzio was kind enough to respond to you, even though she's not required to do so. She's not a witness before the committee. You have the floor. If you want to continue with your submissions, you're free to do so.

Anthony Housefather :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it is only fair to recognize that we're all individual members of the committee and we all make our own decisions. We're not here as representatives of the government, so to ask her to do that is just not fair.

Patricia Lattanzio :

It's fine. I answered it.

Andrew Lawton :

If I may respond to that point of order, Chair, the parliamentary secretary is literally the Minister of Justice 's representative.

The Chair :

The parliamentary secretary is a member of the justice committee for the purposes of what we're doing here today. Mr. Lawton, if you want to continue, please do so.

Andrew Lawton :

I will ask some hypothetical questions, through you, Chair. It would be wonderful if the Liberal government's representative on this committee, Ms. Lattanzio, answered them. Is the government okay with disregarding the calls that have come from Muslims, Christians and Jews, uniting all observant religious members of the Abrahamic faiths—and other faiths—who are alarmed that this will infringe on their religious freedom?

I would also ask the Liberal government's representative here about how the government squares the fact that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Canada's hate speech laws in the first place only because of these defences, which exist to provide for a wide array of protections, understanding the importance of religious freedom and freedom of expression. I hope the government, in its submissions and comments here, will answer this next question. Precisely what does it think it is doing, other than alienating people of faith?

It has someone, who's now a minister of the Crown, looking to Canadians and saying they should be prosecuted if they dare express a religious belief the government finds objectionable. I would also ask the government why it has continued to respond to these questions with silence when the media was asking them, silence when members of Parliament were asking them in question period and silence now when I'm asking them.

These members are curiously glued to their phones rather than dealing with the fact that they are prepared to mount, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, a full-scale assault on religious freedom in this country. We have had tens of thousands of people reach out to us, sign petitions and send emails. Members of Parliament from all parties have been receiving phone calls, emails and visits to our offices for days now, because this is a red line. This is the government that was, not that long ago, entertaining stripping charitable status from houses of worship.

It is now deciding to take away religious freedom protections in the Criminal Code that protect from prosecution people of faith who believe in good faith and religious scriptures. It is not only shameful that this amendment has even been considered by a government that pretends to speak for Canadians; it is all the more shameful that the representatives of the Liberals here on this committee do not have the courage of their convictions to state on the record what they are going to do.

The Chair :

Are you finished? Thank you. Mr. Brock.

Larry Brock :

Thank you, Chair. Further to the comments made by my colleague Mr. Lawton, this is in direct response to Mr. Housefather's comments that we're only members of the justice committee. If anyone actually believes that for a second, that is just garbage. The Liberals take a position based on policy and direction directly from the Prime Minister's Office and from the Minister of Justice . To have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General claim somehow that she's immune from articulating a position is absolutely disrespectful. It's disgusting, quite frankly, because clearly there are Liberal—

Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.) :

I have a point of order.

Larry Brock :

I said the comments are disgusting.

Anju Dhillon :

It doesn't matter. Indirectly you're saying what you cannot say directly. We all know this.

Larry Brock :

It's not a point of order.

Anju Dhillon :

Yes, we all know this.

The Chair :

Mr. Brock, in fairness, I'm not going to rule on the point of order, but we discussed decorum earlier. If we could avoid words like that, it might not be a bad idea, to make the meeting run smoothly. You can make your point without making accusations.

(1905) Larry Brock :

In any event, we all know what the Liberal Party's position is on this. Numerous unnamed Liberal sources have confirmed to numerous news agencies that this Liberal government was so desperate to get Bill C-9 back into the House to become law that it was prepared to abandon its long-held principles on this particular issue. This issue regarding the removal of the religious defence is not the first time this government has heard of it.

Two years ago, in 2023, a Bloc member—I don't believe it was my colleague Monsieur Fortin, but another Bloc colleague—brought in a private member's bill that did not pass first reading because there was no support. There was no support in the House. There was no support from the Liberal government. Now we have Bill C-9 , and Bill C-9 does not remove it. The Minister of Justice did not give instruction to Ms. Breese, Ms. Wells or Ms. Ali to draft terms that would remove that religious defence. Because I'm surmising here, I'm going to ask a question that is not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Your advice back to the minister would be, but I'm not going to go there. Did Minister Fraser inform you that he wanted to remove that religious defence, yes or no?

Joanna Wells :

Bill C-9 does not, as drafted or introduced, contain a proposal that would withdraw or remove the defence.

Larry Brock :

I'm aware of that. Did Minister Fraser , during the drafting of this bill, during all of your consultations, maybe not with you but with other members in the department, including the minister himself and perhaps even Ms. Lattanzio ...? Did anyone from a political entity, whether it was the minister or the parliamentary secretary, give you instructions to explore the possibility of removing that religious defence, yes or no?

Joanna Wells :

The way that I can be helpful to the committee is to clarify that both the communications that we give to the minister and the instructions we receive from the minister are subject to solicitor-client privilege, and I am not able to share any more on this than we have already.

Larry Brock :

The instructions he gives you are not protected, so I disagree with you on that

interpretation. The minister , obviously, is probably following this because he had a very uncomfortable week in the House of Commons, flip-flopping, not being clear with Canadians, backing himself into a corner and trying to appease the Bloc Québécois, which made it abundantly clear that if he pulls out of this secret agreement, don't expect them to support any provision of Bill C-9 . That panicked the minister, the Prime Minister and these four members of the justice committee, so that now they're playing coy, saying they want to hear from the committee. Well, to my colleague Mr.

Lawton's point, if that were truly genuine, they wouldn't have cancelled meetings when we had witnesses lined up. Perhaps we could have explored, by hearing from stakeholders, whether or not this is an appropriate removal. That was taken away from us. That was stripped from the justice committee, which I find deplorable.

It's clear that the Liberals will do whatever it takes to pass this amendment, even though it was never their idea or their intention two years ago and during hearings with numerous witnesses, until it became abundantly clear that they would be going into a winter break without the passage of Minister Fraser 's signature piece of criminal legislation. It's the only piece of criminal legislation that he brought forward, since the election almost eight months ago, to be studied at committee. I want to put that on the record. I also have the utmost respect for my colleague Monsieur Fortin.

Generally, we align very well on legal issues, but I take exception to his

interpretation of the Charkaoui case out of Quebec. I believe his words were to the effect that the Crown prosecution service in Quebec had come to the conclusion that the religious defence would not apply in that particular case. That is wrong, and I'll get into that in a moment. I want to clarify something that I think is important. Bill C-9 , as drafted, references the defences under proposed subsection 319(2.2). The language in BQ-3 is about removing religious exemptions. This is not an exemption; this is a stated legal defence. There is a difference between an exemption and a legal defence.

Just to be accurate, our nomenclature throughout this debate, however long it may be, should be referring to the “defence” as opposed to “exemption”. I have a lot of respect for the folks at the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and in particular Christine Van Geyn, who wrote a piece not too long ago in the National Post when this secret deal between the Bloc and the Liberals became public through leaked Liberal sources. I'm going to read various portions of that

article into the record at this time, but I'll start off specifically with the religious defence. The title is quite interesting: “Changes to Bill C-9 aren't combating hate—they're criminalizing faith”. It states:

Bill C-9 , the Carney government's combating hate act, would expand criminal prohibitions on expression and increase penalties for speech offences, including online speech. Now, the bill may also gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts.

As Mr. Lawton indicated:

(1910) Throughout the...hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was a group prayer delivered by controversial imam Adil Charkaoui at a Quebec pro-Palestinian rally in 2023. In that prayer, [he] asked God to “kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and take care of the “Zionist aggressors.”

Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted.

As Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under

Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.

One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.

And even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.

The religious defence has also been essential to the constitutionality of the hate-speech prohibition itself.

We've all talked about the Keegstra decision at numerous times throughout this particular study, and there she says, “the Supreme Court wrote that the offence is a minimal impairment on the right to freedom of expression, in part because of ‘the presence of the

Sec. 319(3) defences.’” That includes the religious defence. She went on:

The courts upheld the law because the religious exemption exists. Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses.

But even beyond constitutional risk, removing the defence is a profound moral and civil liberties mistake. We should not want, let alone empower, prosecutors to criminalize any form of prayer.

Religious texts across traditions contain pleas for justice against enemies, metaphors for divine retribution and expressions of anguish, symbolism and cosmic struggle. This is not the realm of the police. If the state begins parsing Psalms or Hadiths line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all.

In practice, the defence is already exceedingly narrow. It has rarely been invoked and, based on my case law search, has never succeeded. Courts have also rejected attempts to cloak hateful speech in religious [example].

In the case of Regina v. Harding, she notes:

...the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a lower court's finding that the defence does not shield speech that wilfully promotes hatred merely because it is embedded with religious language, because then “religious opinion could be used with impunity as a Trojan horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by

Sec. 319.”

Religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human. It concerns the nature of justice, suffering, good and evil—the most intimate dimensions of identity and conscience. These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread. We do not want the government parsing religious texts, or religious speech, especially given that most of our political leaders are absolutely ignorant of religion, including, in some cases, their own religion.

(1915) Mr. Lawton got into this.

For example, in a shocking display at the justice committee, Liberal committee chair Marc Miller claimed to Derek Ross, executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, that portions of the Bible are “hateful.” Miller then doubled down on X, writing, “I say this, in particular because I am a Christian,” which is in itself mind-boggling.

It's dangerous for politicians to believe they can use statutes to sanitize scripture they don’t even properly understand. Criminal law is the state’s most violent instrument.

Let that sink in.

It should not be swung at the human soul.

The Bible is the most banned book in history, precisely because it is powerful and points to an authority beyond the reach of government. A government that fears religious speech is not fighting extremism—it's fighting competition.

What better way is there to summarize the actions of this Liberal government over the last long 10 years?

The proposed amendment to Bill C-9 would take Canada down a dark path. We should never have criminalized belief in the first place. Strip away the religious defence, and Canada will not be—

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

Larry Brock :

—combating hate, it will be criminalizing faith. The defence must be maintained.

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Mr. Chair, I don’t know what the rule is, but I wonder if our Conservative colleagues, for whom I have a great deal of respect, are going to occupy this entire side of the table. I am here and I need space to work. The committee has four Conservative members in principle, but there are seven of them here. I think those who are not official members of the committee could sit elsewhere around the table. I understand that my amendment does not suit the Conservatives, but I think the least they could do out of respect would be to let me work.

(1920) [ English ]

The Chair :

Is your objection to them sitting at the table or to the comments he was making, Mr. Fortin?

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I ask that you do what is necessary to allow me to work. You could ask our colleagues to sit elsewhere around the table, rather than on my documents.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I mean, the members—

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

Isn’t there a rule about the number of people? If there are 100 Conservative MPs who want to sit around the table, we’re obviously going to run out of space. [ English ] Mr. Genuis, I agree that you can be here, but you're not obliged to sit on my files, and neither is your colleague.

[ Translation ]

Garnett Genuis :

We don’t have much space.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I think maybe—

[ Translation ]

Rhéal Éloi Fortin :

I understand, but I am a member of the committee and I have to work.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Okay. Gentlemen, members of Parliament are entitled to sit around this table, but I would request that those of you sitting near Mr. Fortin show him some courtesy and respect and allow him some space so he has room to do what he needs to do as a regular member of the committee.

Jacob Mantle (York—Durham, CPC) :

On a point of order, if I may, Mr. Chair, as I feel that some of these comments were directed to me, I made no comments to the member. I sat down.

The Chair :

I don't think—

Jacob Mantle :

If I might finish.... As you said, members are entitled to sit here. How many spaces does my colleague need for his work, if he could