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.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Minister, thank you for being with us today.
Bill C-9 makes reference, specifically with hate symbols, to public spaces. Does that include the Internet?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Generally speaking, the law will apply equally online and in real communities.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
The bill will affect what people can say and write on the Internet.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It will, in the limited circumstances where there is the wilful promotion of hatred against someone.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
It will apply to the Internet. The Internet is within the jurisdiction of—
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It would be possible that someone could commit a hate crime on the Internet, certainly.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Building off Mr. Baber's points about the lower threshold for the definition of hate speech, there is under this law, assuming Bill C-9 passes, something that might not be legal to say today on the Internet, or it might be legal to say on the Internet now but could be illegal in the future under Bill C-9, could it not?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
No, that's entirely inaccurate, and I say that with no judgment on your perspective, but let me explain.
The only circumstance in which you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law would attach to behaviour that is criminal today but would be punished less severely.
The symbols piece that you pointed to, for example, is attached only to the wilful promotion of hate. This is not a blanket symbols ban. The wilful promotion of hate is a crime today, but we want to recognize a distinct charge where that same behaviour uses certain symbols of hate to bring a higher degree of culpability, so there is no new human behaviour that would attract the scrutiny you're talking about.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I understand, but I'm building off the discussion earlier on the definition.
Is it your view that the change in wording—and there was a change in wording; you made a deliberate decision to change the definition that was spelled out in Keegstra and reaffirmed in Whatcott—will not capture anything beyond what is currently captured right now by the hate definition?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
The definition was an attempt to codify, and the reason that there was a—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
This is a yes-or-no question, Minister. Is there at all a lower threshold or a broader net on hate in Canada after Bill C-9, if it passes?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
My view on the definition question—because I would give a different answer to you on the offences—is that it codifies the same behaviour that is there today, and it was meant to provide clearer guidance to law enforcement, in the Criminal Code, to apply the existing standard that has been recognized by the Supreme Court.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
The same arguments that are being used by you and your government to push Bill C-9 to protect people against hate—which on the surface sounds incredibly noble—are the same arguments that have led to the United Kingdom having police literally knocking on people's doors over their tweets, so what guarantee can you give Canadians that we are not headed down that very road, especially in the context of other priority areas identified by you and your government, such as the online harms act, which was introduced twice, actually, in the last two Parliaments?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
This legislation is not identical in kind to the reforms that have been put in place in the U.K. We've actually looked at their experience and seen that there are real challenges with how it has played out.
For example, we have a different approach, whereas some jurisdictions around the world have adopted a more blanket “glorification” that could attract the scrutiny of liking a Facebook post, for example. We chose a different path. We instead tried to be very clear that we would not interfere with the charter rights of Canadians to freely express themselves but at the same time would make it easier to lay charges where hate crimes are committed today.
To the extent that you think there is a better way to clarify and codify the existing definition, do know that I believe in Parliament, and I don't care which party comes forward with these amendments if it creates multipartisan buy-in to codify the test. That's okay by me.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Can you guarantee that if Bill C-9 passes, no Canadian will end up being charged because of something they've posted on Twitter or Facebook?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Well, if they commit the crime of wilfully promoting hatred against another person—
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
A crime with a definition that you're changing....
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
—it's possible that they could be convicted for wilfully promoting hate online today, so certainly I would hope that if someone commits a crime in the real world or online they would face the appropriate criminal penalty if in fact it's captured by the code.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
We had in my riding a very disturbing case a few weeks ago, where someone had mowed a hakenkreuz into their lawn and was charged under the existing Criminal Code definition. They displayed a symbol, and it was found to be wilfully promoting hate.
Law enforcement and the Crown agreed that they could lay that charge. Why is your bill at all necessary, when we already have existing powers which, to Mr. Housefather's earlier point, are simply not being enforced as often as they could be?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
This is an important question that I'll answer very quickly.
When you have the wilful promotion of hate, a person who is convicted of that could still be convicted but also be convicted of a second charge—the wilful promotion of hate using hate symbols—which would attract a greater degree of culpability and potentially a greater penalty, recognizing that the use of hate symbols, when you're wilfully promoting hate, can cause greater damage to both the individual and the entirety of the community.
I don't find these points to be inconsistent with one another, but instead that behaviour could potentially face an additional charge with a more serious penalty, because of the manner in which a person chose to promote hate to cause more damage to an affected community.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Minister, for being here today.
In recent times, we've seen attacks on religious institutions, places that are sacred to people of faith who worship somewhere where they are supposed to feel safe and secure. They often do not.
You have spoken about them being able to safely access these places of worship and community centres as well. How will the new intimidation and obstruction offences make that a reality?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Part of ensuring Canadians are able to be who they are and to live freely as citizens of this country is ensuring that they can make choices about how they live their lives day-to-day, including how they practise their faith or participate in their community. A big part of that is how we gather, celebrate special occasions and share cultures and traditions with one another.
We have seen real-world challenges where groups who may have started out as innocent protesters have escalated their behaviour over time, where they in fact may physically block people from attending the institutions that allow them to be part of their community or conduct themselves in a way that is specifically designed to threaten another person taking part in the activities that take place within those spaces.
The spaces in which we gather in a country as diverse and as multicultural as Canada are a big part of our cultural identity as a nation. We believe that the spaces that allow communities to fully celebrate their cultures and traditions deserve a degree of protection, and we have found, in my view, an elegant solution that allows us to use the federal tools at our disposal to offer protections that allow Canadians to choose for themselves how they spend their days.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Perhaps you could provide some clarification, please, because there has been misinformation on this bill, that it bans protests near religious or cultural sites. Can you tell us what this bill can do to protect the right to peaceful protest? There has to be a balance.
