Evidence of meeting #7 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Work on Bill C‑9 was based on commitments made during the previous consultations. As I said, we always have the option to consult our provincial and territorial colleagues.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Were the provinces and territories consulted about this in 2025?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
I think your time is up, Mr. Fortin. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge of time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
We'll end this round with Mr. Baber, followed by Mr. Chang.
Mr. Baber, you have five minutes.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Ms. Wells, in advance of drafting Bill C-9, did you review the Supreme Court's definition of the term “hatred”?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'll defer that question to either Mr. Ripley or Ms. Breese, who have more expertise in the area of hatred than I do.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Ms. Breese, did you review, yes or no, the Supreme Court's definition of the term “hatred” in advance of drafting Bill C-9?
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
The Supreme Court's definition of hatred includes the words “emotion of an intense and extreme nature”. Why have you dropped those words from your proposed definition in Bill C-9?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The definition captures the body of the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence on the definition of hatred. The “intense and extreme” description is captured by the words “detestation or vilification”, as the minister pointed out earlier. It is also clear that it is stronger than disdain or dislike.
The intent is to capture the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence by indicating the high threshold of what is hatred and the narrow scope of it.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I don't agree with you. You can have disdain or dislike that not's necessarily extreme in nature, or not intense in nature. I also note that the definition is conjunctive. It's intense “and” extreme, something that the Supreme Court has clearly articulated and is still good case law today.
Were you instructed by the minister or any political staff to drop the words “intense and extreme nature” from the definition?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
MP Baber, we want to be very clear on what the government's perspective is.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Certainly, we have heard the concerns you've expressed—
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
The question was this: Have you been instructed by the minister or any of his staff to drop the words “intense and extreme nature” from the definition?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
No. The government's position, in what it is advancing in the definition, is intended to reflect the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. That is what we are seeking to do.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
You can have an intense and extreme nature for a positive emotion. You could be happy in a very intense and extreme nature. You could love a loved one intensely. I would not necessarily say that just because you use two different words, including disdain, you necessarily meet the high threshold articulated by the Supreme Court.
I'd like to go back to your point, Mr. Ripley, with respect to the screening process in private prosecutions. I agree with you that, yes, you would have a pré-enquête hearing where a judicial officer, a magistrate or a justice of the peace would either green-light the process to issue on private prosecutions or not. However, in almost all cases, the informant or the complainant would have an ability to appeal that decision to judicial review and take that to divisional court. The accused is typically an invited party to such a proceeding, so even though there may be no cause for criminal charges to be instigated, the accused would be dragged before the divisional court, would have to incur legal fees and would have to suffer reputational risks and time inconvenience if accused of a criminal charge.
Don't you see how this potentially opens itself up to abuse to ruin the lives of ordinary Canadians who should not be before a criminal court?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
As we've highlighted, there are mechanisms to safeguard against those frivolous private prosecutions while acknowledging that, in that kind of situation, it can still have an impact on the accused. I think you heard the minister express an openness to hearing the committee's views on that point if—
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
You understand that there's no safeguard against the appeal of the justice of peace's decision—the appeal for judicial review and divisional court. There's no safeguard for that, sir.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
I hear what you are saying, that if an individual accused finds themselves in that position, yes, there is an impact for that person.
Liberal
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, all, for your time.
I'm wondering, if Bill C-9 is enacted, how your department will monitor and evaluate its impact, both to measure how effectively it addresses hate-motivated crime or hate-motivated offences and to ensure that it's fully consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
On charter compliance, the government is bringing forward a bill that it feels can be solidly defended—it believes it strikes that right balance between charter rights and denouncing hate-motivated crimes. Of course, in any circumstance, it is always open to an accused to ensure that the law is being applied in a charter-respecting way, and nothing in this bill takes away from those safeguards.
One of the benefits of the bill, if it were to pass, is that, moving forward, there will be better evidence in terms of the hate-motivated crimes, because, again, it would allow police and prosecutors at the front end to make that assessment about where they believe the elements of hate motivation are present and to charge it as such. Again, in situations where you may have threats, threats of violence or those kinds of things, where there's clear evidence that it's hate motivated, it will allow Canada and Parliament to have a better understanding of that kind of criminal conduct over time.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Thank you.
Internally, do you have any mechanisms to monitor its impact?