Justice Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

The Conservative members are of the view that Bill C-9 is fraught with a lot of issues and therefore requires considerable attention. Anything less than 10 meetings would not enable the various stakeholders.... As Ms. Lattanzio can imagine, there is a lot of interest in this bill, and not necessarily good interest given some of the concerns articulated in the definitions or the reduction of the threshold with respect to meeting the threshold of hatred.

There are concerns with private prosecutions with respect to hate charges that could be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. There is the application of a new stand-alone criminal offence on conduct that is prescribed by any other act of Parliament. We could have a civil statute, like a Canada Labour Code violation, potentially attracting a criminal charge.

There is a lot to be concerned about with respect to what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-9. This requires that we give it fulsome consideration.

At the same time, as a member of the Jewish community, I take considerable exception to Ms. Lattanzio's point that today being October 7 means that somehow this bill is going to address some of the issues that have arisen under this Liberal government since October 7. In fact, the vast majority of issues concerning the Jewish community today are already criminalized. Most of the behaviour that concerns us is already criminalized in the Criminal Code, yet unfortunately, because of the tone set by this government, it does not attract enforcement, whether it's the incitement to violence that we're hearing on the streets of Toronto and Montreal.... Today, at the University of Toronto, students are glorifying the martyrs. They're glorifying murder on the second anniversary of October 7.

I take some exception to the suggestion that, with it being October 7, we need to do something or other. Definitely, we cannot have a situation where we don't give Bill C-9 a very serious look.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

There's always irony, I find, in some things we do, and this is no exception.

Mr. Lawton pointed out earlier with one of our witnesses on the first panel that her research didn't include speaking to victims. I think that he was alluding to that being a flaw in her approach. The next panel of witnesses we now have waiting for us includes the Victim Services of Brant, which would address some of those issues that he raised, yet here we are delaying dealing with Bill C-9.

He also made the point of saying that he's had numerous requests for people to appear on Bill C-9 and that he doesn't want to disappoint them. He feels very strongly about this bill, as do they, which is why we need to proceed with Bill C-9, and we shouldn't bifurcate the process and deal with the current study.

Mr. Baber said that Bill C-9 is fraught with issues. Maybe it is. Maybe you're right. Let's get the witnesses in and hear them. That's what we're doing here.

The legislation is before the committee and, as the chair has quite rightly pointed out, committees are masters of their own domain. This bill has been referred to this committee, and it's been a standing practice of this place in the 10 years I've been here that legislation takes priority, so let's deal with it. Let's get those witnesses whom Mr. Lawton wants in here. Let's address those concerns that Mr. Baber has.

Here's the other thing. We worked very well together, Mr. Lawton, a few weeks ago with Mr. Fortin and all of the people around this table, and we agreed on an approach, an agenda and a sequence of events for what we were going to do. We worked for very well together, I thought, merging all of these various motions, because we agree that bail reform and sentencing is an issue that we all feel strongly about and we need to address, but so is Bill C-9. If we do this the way you're talking about, Bill C-9 will not get back to the House until the new year.

We all know that bail reform legislation and sentencing legislation is coming. The minister has been quite clear about that. The most logical way to proceed, based on this spirit of co-operation that we've shown so far, is to deal with Bill C-9 and get it done. We can sort out the number of meetings required to do that, whether it's four or nine, whatever that is. We can sort that out, and once that's done, we can get back to the study we're doing now, which might dovetail nicely with the legislation that's coming. It's certainly not going to be a setback, and it could be an advantage.

It seems to be completely illogical and inconsistent with the approach we've been taking to try to bifurcate this process right now. The only way to look at it is that it's an effort to delay so that no legislation gets back to the House. We have an obligation as a committee, whether you like it or not.

We don't have a majority government, Mr. Baber, so we can't ram legislation through the committee or the House, so let's get here, let's call the witnesses you want, let's call the witnesses everybody around this table wants to hear from and let's deal with the legislation that Mr. Lawton has said is so important, because that's what we're here to do.

We know that the minister is scheduled to come on Thursday. Let's get it started and get moving, and we can get back to the other study maybe at the same time as we're studying the next piece of legislation, and that is highly efficient.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

It is now 10 minutes to five. We have a second panel. I personally invited one of those witnesses to attend, the manager of Victim Services of Brant. I certainly want to hear from her. I think we've all had a chance to say our piece and to identify the priorities and the importance of Bill C-9, which we don't take issue with.

I'm not hearing any sort of support in terms of a concurrent study with bail and sentencing reforms, so if I'm the last speaker, I'm moving to vote at this point, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No, there's Mr. Fortin first.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Am I the only speaker on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

That was the case earlier, but there are others now.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I would have called for a vote as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You have the floor, but there will be other speakers after you.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

If I cannot call for a vote, I will say that I find this a bit strange. We are keeping people waiting while we discuss whether or not to keep them waiting. It is ridiculous.

We have already decided to alternate between the study of Bill C‑9 and the one currently under way. I still agree with this. Ms. Lattanzio asked if we could increase the number of meetings, and I find that proposal interesting. If this is possible, I would agree with that. If we can finish these studies before the holidays, so much the better. I proposed a study myself. It is on hold, and at this rate, we will not be starting it before spring.

Now we need to get to work. I would like us to vote quickly. If my colleagues who will be speaking after me also wish to do so, let us call the vote and move on to the business at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Chang is next.

It will then be Mr. Maloney and Ms. Lattanzio.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Baber said there are many issues with Bill C-9.

Could you please list some of the major issues? I have a personal experience that—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

No, I have a personal experience that I want to share. As the first gay Asian member of this House, I did experience some personal issues in 2022. Let me share some figures with you.

Hate crimes on sexual orientation was 69% in 2022—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Then, it increased 6% from 2022 regarding race.

In August 2022, in Metrotown, in my riding, I was waiting for a SkyTrain. They have transit ads on both sides of the platform. I was reading one of the signs. It said “Douglas College, blah blah blah”. One of the guys in front of the transit ad was shouting at me, saying, “What are you looking at, Asian? If you want to F-word, go to Davie Street.” Isn't this part of the hate crime here in this country?

Bill C-9 is very important to me personally and to Canada. Mr. Baber said Bill C-9 has lots of issues. Well, what are the major issues?

It was unfortunate that this happened to me personally, and that's one of the reasons I'm in the House now. That was very insulting. Bill C-9 is very important to me personally and to many members of my community—the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community, the Asian community. Lots of people in my riding told me they want us to study Bill C-9 ASAP.

As I mentioned many times, Burnaby Central is one of the most diverse communities here in Canada, yet hate crime is on the rise.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Chang.

Mr. Maloney.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Chang for his comments. It's another reason we should proceed with this bill.

It seems ludicrous to me that every single member sitting around this table has talked about how important Bill C-9 is, yet we're debating a motion to delay it. It's counterintuitive. Somebody will have to explain to me the rationale behind that if it's anything other than wanting to delay the legislation. You can't on the one hand say that it's important and that it's something we need to deal with because it's critical, and then say that you want to delay it. It doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Fortin, I agree with you completely: Your motion is in the hopper and it's waiting to be debated. If we adopt Mr. Brock's motion, your motion will be delayed further. If you game this out and you follow the sequence of events, if we get Bill C-9 done, we can then get back to the bail study, which will probably coincide with the bail legislation. That would allow both of those bills to get through this committee faster and more efficiently, and would allow us an opportunity to get to your study. If we adopt the approach Mr. Brock has outlined, we'll have two parallel tracks, which will delay both. We'll go down this road with the bail study, probably get the bail legislation and still be dealing with Bill C-9 because we'll be so logjammed in this committee.

Mr. Fortin, you can be as optimistic as you want, sir, and hope that your study gets before this committee, but in that scenario, the likelihood of that happening diminishes rapidly. The only logical way to do this is to proceed in the fashion we agreed to earlier.

Look, it's not like this was not anticipated. When we were talking about what studies we were going to do, we were talking about a scenario in which the justice minister would appear to talk about his mandate or the timing of it could coincide with legislation. That's now what's happening on Thursday. If we proceed as we currently plan, with Bill C-9 first and then the bail study and bill when it comes, we could have that opportunity again and kill two birds with one stone, as opposed to the minister coming in.... I suspect he'll get questions about bail when he's here on Bill C-9 and we'll get into this duplicating process. We'll waste time and have more motions that are unproductive.

If we want to be efficient and get all these things accomplished, which everybody says they do, the only way to do it, sir, is to do Bill C-9 on its own, finish it and move back to the bail study, which will coincide with the legislation. Then we can get to your study. I'm not trying to delay your study. I want to get on with it too, but I can almost guarantee that it won't happen if we adopt Mr. Brock's motion, because it's a channel for further delay.

Again, the irony is that it makes no sense. I would really like somebody on the other side to explain to me how they're so eager to deal with Bill C-9 and so anxious to get all these witnesses here, yet they don't want to go ahead and study the legislation. It just doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Fortin, I'm urging you to consider voting against Mr. Brock's motion, because it will assist you in achieving your goal. I agree with Mr. Brock that this motion has caused delay that's completely unnecessary.

I didn't realize that witness was yours, Mr. Brock. That's very unfortunate. You can apologize to them afterwards for this unnecessary waste of their time.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I have Ms. Lattanzio next. Then I have Mr. Brock and Mr. Lawton.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to recall the objectives of Bill C-9. Canada has seen a rise in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other hate-motivated crimes targeting religious, cultural and community spaces. I would like to remind the committee that this bill aims to close the gaps in the Criminal Code by extending protections to these spaces, as with safeguards for health facilities. It also clarifies the definition of hatred, removes the need for the AG's consent on hate propaganda charges and helps law enforcement respond more consistently and quickly. At the same time, it preserves lawful protest and free expression while clearly distinguishing it from conduct that intimidates, obstructs or promotes hatred.

Mr. Chair, there have been comments made around the table in terms of what this bill would do, and perhaps questions were raised. I would suggest to the members that the purpose of this bill, the first pillar of this bill, is proposing a new obstructive offence. This bill would create a new offence making it illegal to block or interfere with lawful access to places like religious institutions, cultural centres, schools, seniors residences or cemeteries primarily serving identifiable groups. It mirrors existing protections around health facilities and ensures that these protests that are peaceful expressions exist and that they can remain lawful.

It also proposes a new intimidation offence. A new intimidation offence would criminalize—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, Ms. Lattanzio is reading Bill C-9. We are debating a motion about how this committee is to engage in its business moving forward. The Liberals are filibustering at this very moment a motion they said they would dispense with in 10 minutes. They have now spent nearly half an hour and are insulting this committee by just reading the bill that we're set to start studying in two days.

If they want to move on with this, as they claim they do, they need to stop their filibuster now, let us vote on the motion and speak to the witnesses who have been waiting very patiently while they obstruct this committee's work.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, can I continue? I'm on topic.

The proposed bill would create a new intimidation offence, which would criminalize conduct intended to instill fear in people trying to access those same places and spaces. The new bill would target threatening, menacing or fear-provoking behaviour outside community or religious buildings while also protecting lawful protest and free expression.

With regard to hate, which is what my colleague Mr. Baber has brought up, the bill would also propose and strengthen Canada's response to hate-motivated crime. It creates a new hate crime offence applying to any federal offence broken out of hatred, introduces a new offence for publicly displaying hate or—

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

Ms. Lattanzio is actually reading the bill and the talking points on Bill C-9. It is not relevant to the meeting we're currently having. We have witnesses who have been waiting patiently for over half an hour. We have a witness invited by the vice-chair of the committee. We're asking Ms. Lattanzio to stop this filibuster and vote on the motion so we can at least accommodate one round of questioning with the witnesses we have before us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You'll remember that I did allow you some leniency on yours. Bill C-9 is on point, and how she presents it is entirely at her discretion.