Justice Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'll take that. I'll ask the next question.

Historically, the AG's consent provided a supervisory safeguard, ensuring that hate propagation charges met the public interest and reasonable prospect test. Why was that safeguard removed in Bill C-9? What mechanism now replaces that oversight? Did provincial attorneys general express support for removing this? If so, in which jurisdiction was that?

Without the AG's consent, how will the department prevent inconsistent or politically influenced prosecution at the municipal or police service level?

[Owen Ripley]

It is important to recognize that the requirement to seek the AG's consent is, generally speaking, an exception condition in the Criminal Code. Most offences can be laid without the AG's consent. As the minister highlighted in his testimony, there are concerns that this requirement has been acting as a barrier in some circumstances to police laying charges with respect to the existing hate propaganda offences.

That being said, there are still safeguards in place to ensure that there won't be abuse of that power. For example, provinces do, as you highlighted, have a degree of discretion to put in place appropriate criminal procedures within their jurisdictions. There are provinces that do that to require precharge screening in all cases. That's their prerogative. Provinces, to the extent that they feel safeguards are needed, could put those procedures in place.

When I was listening to the exchanges earlier.... With respect to the issue of private prosecutions, there is a safeguard or a mechanism in place to ensure that, if a private prosecution is coming forward, there is a screening that this private prosecution isn't frivolous or vexatious. There's an ability for a judge to make that assessment. If it was being brought forward in bad faith because it's frivolous or vexatious, they could ensure that this situation is dealt with.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

I cede my time to Mr. Brock now.

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

Thank you, officials.

This question can be answered by any particular official.

I like clarity when it comes to criminal law, jurisprudence and interpretation, and I'm troubled by a couple of aspects of this bill.

On the issue of symbols, you have indicated proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(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.” That is just fraught with subjective interpretations. It's going to be a minefield in litigation, leaving aside the confusion for police officials to determine whether or not, in their view, it is a symbol closely resembling a symbol that is tied to “a listed entity”.

Why did you use that language, and was that directed by any particular group that you consulted with?

[Owen Ripley]

Just briefly, before I address your specific question, MP Brock, I would highlight that the objective of listing those symbols—the symbols associated with a terrorist entity or the Nazi symbols that are listed—recognizes that there is often a nexus of hate associated with those symbols and the way that they can be used in certain situations. As I imagine you are aware, and as the minister highlighted, it's not a simple public-display offence in this case. There are a variety of offences—

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

No, I get that, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

The time's up. I'm just hoping he can finish his thought quickly.

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

I'd like him to answer the question that was put to him.

[Owen Ripley]

Specifically, proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(c), Mr. Brock, recognizes the element of offence of the symbol. If there is simply a minor modification to the swastika, or the hakenkreuz, for example, that should not necessarily exempt that activity.

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

Who interprets that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Ripley, thank you. The time's up.

MP Dhillon, go ahead.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Can you explain how the new hate crime offence would apply to existing Criminal Code offences? The minister explained about...hatred, and how it's different from treating hate as an aggravating factor during sentencing.

[Owen Ripley]

The objective of creating a stand-alone hate offence is to denounce all hate-motivated crime. Therefore, it recognizes that it would be open to police and prosecutors, at the beginning of an investigation, to charge somebody with any kind of hate-motivated crime. For example, if you had the crime of uttering threats or violence, and if there were evidence to suggest that it was hate motivated against an identifiable group, they could charge that crime as hate motivated. Again, the objective there is to denounce what is “enhanced moral culpability”, as the minister put it, associated with those crimes when they are hate motivated. That is done at the front end.

When they do that, it could, if the prosecution were proceeding with indictment, open up a higher range of sentencing that is available at the back end, if they were able to make out the offence as hate motivated. That is different from an aggravating factor, which is considered only at the end of an investigation and prosecution, at the sentencing stage. Again, the objective there is to recognize, from the very get-go, situations in which there may be a hate-motivated crime, and to prosecute them as such.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

From now on, right at the outset it would be considered hate, the word “hatred”, when filing charges.

This is another question I have: The attorney general's consent is removed. Can you talk to us a bit about that? There seems to be a lot of confusion around it. What is the purpose behind this?

[Owen Ripley]

As I indicated to some of your colleagues, the concern around AG consent is that it was potentially acting as a barrier, in certain circumstances, to police laying charges. The objective in removing it from the existing hate propaganda offences—and it's not proposed alongside any of the new offences either—is to remove that barrier and provide police the ability to lay those charges without seeking that AG consent.

I've been listening, again, to the exchanges, and I heard some of the concerns that may come up in that space, including private prosecutions as well as discretion for provinces to put in place their own criminal procedures. Again, there remains sufficient flexibility for provinces to do that, and there are safeguards in place to deal with vexatious or frivolous private prosecutions.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

That is going to be my next question to you...about jurisdiction. From an implementation standpoint, how would they navigate this, and what guidance or coordination would be needed with provinces, territories and municipalities to proceed with a consistent application of the law under this bill?

[Owen Ripley]

The government recognizes that there are important considerations at play when it comes to implementing Criminal Code offences, and it's critically important that police and frontline officers understand the elements of the offence and how to identify them, so that will remain.

The government and other bodies have been doing a lot of work in this space. What comes to mind, for example, is the work of the Race Relations Foundation. It has been doing a lot of work with police of jurisdiction across the country to better equip police forces to identify the various elements of hate crime, to improve community trust in reporting hate crime, and to ensure that, when police do receive complaints, they take them seriously. All of those efforts will remain important because, again, the government recognizes that offences on the book are only as good, at the end of the day, as the people who apply them in a fair and consistent manner.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Can you please walk the committee through the differences between what already exists in the Criminal Code regarding hatred and hate crimes and what's in the bill?

[Owen Ripley]

I heard the exchange about whether these changes are necessary and whether there are existing tools, and I'll maybe deal with it in a couple of parts.

With respect to the new intimidation and obstruction offences, they are clearly responsive to an issue that is top of mind for Canadians right now, which is the way that certain places of religious worship and cultural centres are being targeted, such as Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques.

I think we have all seen the evidence of that in the news stories, so those offences are a response to that and—at the end of the day, if Parliament passes the bill—a recognition that this kind of behaviour is serious and needs to be responded to in that manner by police and prosecution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Ripley.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ripley, earlier I asked the minister a question about the number of hate crimes that there may have been in the past year, as well as the number of prosecutions, and he did not have the figures.

Are you able to answer that question?

[Owen Ripley]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Fortin.

Unfortunately, I do not have those figures with me.

As the minister mentioned, there is data on the rise in hate crimes.

We have noted that you wish to know whether there are any figures on the number of prosecutions that have been initiated. We will see if we can provide a written response to that question.

I imagine you are aware that one of the challenges we face in this area is that it is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, we will see whether we can provide you with an answer.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Ripley, I would like you to provide me with details on how things work on the ground.

Right now, when the police deal with a case of incitement to hatred, for example, whether it be an anti-Semitic statement or something else, they approach the Crown prosecutor and ask whether they can prosecute the individual in question. The prosecutor considers all of that, takes a number of factors into account and decides whether there is a case to prosecute, depending on whether or not there is an effective defence or something like that.

In your opinion, in the case of an anti-Semitic crime or hate crime, can the religious exemption defence currently mentioned in subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code play a role in the decision to prosecute or not?