Justice Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[Owen Ripley]

Thank you for your question.

Generally speaking, when considering prosecution, we look at whether there is a reasonable possibility that the offence in question is punishable on summary conviction. This rule is applied across the country.

In conducting such an analysis, prosecutors will determine the elements of the offence that must be proven and whether it is possible for a person to raise such a defence.

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

You are probably aware of the events that took place about a year ago, when an individual named Adil Charkaoui gave a speech in Montreal inciting hatred against Jews and calling for the extermination of every last one of them, and so forth.

I cannot recall the exact words that he used, and I do not want to put words in his mouth, but it was a speech that everyone I know considered hateful and unacceptable. Everyone was convinced that this individual would eventually be prosecuted and found guilty. However, the Crown prosecutor decided not to prosecute.

In your opinion, could the religious defence provision currently in the Criminal Code have played a role in the Crown prosecutor's decision?

[Owen Ripley]

I will say that I am not in a position to tell you what was part—

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

I was asking your opinion. I realize you're not the one who made that decision.

In your opinion, did that Criminal Code provision influence the decision to proceed with charges in that case?

[Owen Ripley]

It's not up to the federal government to make that determination. We certainly encourage the government to create criminal offences.

Yes, I've read journal articles about this situation. As I said earlier, the situation was analyzed. I imagine the goal was to determine whether the elements—

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

Sorry to interrupt you, but I only have the floor for a few more seconds.

What I'm understanding is that you don't know and you don't really have an opinion.

Ms. Wells, do you have an opinion about this?

[Joanna Wells]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin, through the chair.

Our role here, as you know, is to support the government and to share information about what Bill C-9 would do. We are not well placed, as Mr. Ripley said, to opine on prosecutorial decisions that have been made or might have been made in other cases.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

We'll start the second round of questions.

We'll start with Mr. Lawton for five minutes, then go to Ms. Lattanzio for five minutes as well. Mr. Fortin will have two and a half minutes, and Mr. Baber will have five minutes. If we stay on track, Mr. Chang will have five minutes too.

Mr. Lawton, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, officials, for being here.

Mr. Ripley, I'm assuming you're aware that the Liberal government has agreed to recognize the state of Palestine. Now, we know that Hamas, which is the de facto government in Gaza, waged the brutal October 7 attack on Israel. We know that in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority regularly gives financial contributions to the families of terrorists.

Now, really, by the Canadian government's definition of a state sponsor of terrorism, could someone be charged under Bill C-9 for waving a Palestinian flag under the symbols ban?

[Owen Ripley]

With respect to the offence related to symbols, what it would be necessary to show is that it is a listed terrorist entity. In this case, for example, Hamas is a listed terrorist entity, and the symbol in question would have to be associated with that terrorist entity. For example, the flag of Hamas would be such a symbol.

The flag of Palestine, for example, though, is not a symbol that would be likely to meet that threshold.

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

It would not be likely, but it could, for example, if the government designated it a state sponsor of terrorism.

[Owen Ripley]

Maybe just to take a step back—

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

It's okay. I'll move on and reclaim my time, but I appreciate that.

Ms. Wells, I understand you're a senior counsel in the criminal law policy section. How many people are in the department's criminal law policy section?

[Joanna Wells]

I don't have the exact number, but there are a number of lawyers.

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

How many, as a rough percentage, were involved in Bill C-9?

[Joanna Wells]

I think we have a core team of four lawyers with some support from some other counsel, paralegals and analysts.

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

Were you working on Bill C-9 full time for the last several weeks and months?

[Joanna Wells]

We had varying responsibilities, but it has taken a fair bit of time.

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

Was it more than dealing with bail...?

[Joanna Wells]

I don't deal with bail, so my time hasn't been spent dealing with bail. It's not my area of expertise. For my colleagues who deal with bail, it's also, as you can imagine, a very busy area of policy development.

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

Would you say that Bill C-9 has taken up more of your department's or your section's resources than dealing with reforming or fixing the broken bail system?

[Joanna Wells]

In my position, I don't have the data around hours spent on various files.

I don't know if Mr. Ripley would like to take that.

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

It hasn't been a priority that has come to you as a government priority.

[Joanna Wells]

I would defer to Mr. Ripley as the senior associate deputy minister.