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.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Exactly. It would be context specific.
Exactly. It would be context specific.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
For example, somebody yelling and screaming slogans such as “globalize the intifada” and carrying terrorist symbols of an organization like Hamas that say “globalize the intifada”, would be one thing, versus somebody simply putting a symbol in a museum or somebody putting a symbol somewhere to teach somebody about that. I understand you can't pronounce on any of this—nor can any of us, because it's all context specific—but there is a reason these exceptions are there.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Absolutely, and the circumstance you gave would obviously be differentiated from, for example, teaching kids in our schools about the Holocaust, where they learn about the impact that these symbols had that caused an entire nation to turn against an entire group of people, leading to millions of Jews being murdered during the Holocaust. These are important parts of our history to understand, but they are not important in terms of protecting the ability to use them to foment hate against others.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I totally agree.
Minister, there was something else in public comments you had made—I believe it was at a press conference—about the idea of how the intimidation and obstruction offences that we can put into the Criminal Code are different from the things municipalities and provinces can do in terms of having bubbles around these types of buildings, because they have zoning powers that we do not have. You had also said that you might be reaching out to municipalities to inform them of what their powers are, such as through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents municipalities. Is that something you plan on doing?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In fact we've had significant engagement leading up to the tabling of this legislation, but we have a continuing conversation with municipalities, through FCM and other channels, to ensure that they understand where their authorities lie to regulate what behaviours may take place in the space. We have a rather blunt instrument in that regard—in this instance, the Criminal Code—but we still think it could be deployed to touch hateful criminal behaviour, no matter where it takes place, including around our religious institutions and, more broadly, in our communities.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I will just finish off by saying, Minister, that I think this legislation sets an example by the federal government and will make Canadians safer by giving additional tools in the tool box to police and prosecutors that they've requested. Not only that, but it also sends a message to provinces, municipalities, police and universities that we believe they should be enforcing their rules and the law.
I thank you for being here today; thank you for your comments.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's my pleasure. Obviously it goes without saying that there's no one level of government that's responsible for combatting hate. Federal governments, provincial governments, municipalities and Canadians more broadly have a responsibility to be better neighbours. We cannot fail one another in this country and expect to overcome the challenges we're facing. It's time that we change our approaches and recognize that we have to speak up to end hate in our communities at every level of society.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, Minister.
As agreed, we have MP Idlout online, and she has five minutes.
The floor is yours, Lori.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee for including me on this important study.
I will be asking three sets of questions in three different topic areas.
I first want to say that I very much appreciate that Canada is such a diverse country. We have great diversity. This diversity is from a country that was founded from stealing and taking from indigenous people. Indigenous people were on these lands before Canada became a country and decision-making and governance were taken from us.
My first question is very much related to the treatment of indigenous peoples.
Just so you know, Minister, I am going to ask all my topical questions in one statement, just to ensure that I get all my questions on the record. If you don't have enough time to answer my questions, I hope that the committee allows you to provide the rest of your responses to the committee in a written format.
My first topic is on trusting police to not abuse their power. New Democrats are concerned with giving police more subjective power to lay hate crime charges. Our main concern is about trust.
On a separate but related issue, Wet'suwet'en land defenders were criminalized. Nunavut land defenders were on the verge of being criminalized. Why? It was because they were protesting government decisions. These are examples of the deep levels of distrust of police forces in indigenous communities.
You will recall that about a year ago at this time, the Speaker granted my request for an emergency debate on law enforcement, because the RCMP had enforced colonial and genocidal policies to oppress indigenous people for decades.
In about a week in 2024, between August 29 and September 8, Canadian police killed six first nations people. Racialized people in this country have a similar experience with law enforcement. This bill requires that Canadians trust that the police will know when an action is motivated by hate and when it is not.
Could the minister respond by sharing what safeguards protesters will have that ensure that law enforcement does not use these new powers to criminalize protesters?
On the second topic, the stigma related to being charged with a hate crime, hate is already an aggravating factor under the Criminal Code. This bill lengthens existing Criminal Code violations based on hate. In addition, the new offence puts the consequences of hatred at the beginning of the judicial process instead of at the end, when the sentencing judge has all the evidence and the accused has received due process. Being charged creates stigma as it is. This bill has the potential to create more stigma, which is troubling, especially when charges are dropped.
Does the minister agree that keeping the attorney general's consent in the process is an important safeguard to ensure that the justice system does not get flooded with increased charges in the already overburdened justice system? Does the minister agree that we do not need to create more stigma and more hate in Canada?
On the final topic, vague language, New Democrats are concerned about vagueness in this bill. We know that once broad definitions are codified, they can easily be weaponized against groups. For example, how will intimidating behaviours be interpreted by the police? In its current form, this bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent.
We remain disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The failure to include this aspect in the bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada.
This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people. Can the minister explain why this bill does not address the threat of the growing white nationalist movement in Canada?
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, MP Idlout.
Minister Fraser, you won't have any time to respond to this, much less in a meaningful way, but you could undertake to provide written answers.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Certainly. I'm willing to answer now, if you would like, or I can comply with the request to provide written answers.
Liberal
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Lori, thank you for your questions. The committee has requested, due to time, that I respond in writing rather than in person. I'll be happy to offer my thoughts on your very specific questions.
It's good to see you, as always.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
It's a procedural point of order, yes.
Thank you, Chair.
We are concerned about the minister's earlier testimony to Mr. Housefather. He seemed to relay testimony that would have been given in camera. Unless the minister can provide any basis for that testimony right now, I would reserve the right to come back on this issue as a matter of privilege.
I'll give you an example. We have a transcript of the proceedings. Very early on, Mr. Housefather asked a question of the minister. He said:
Recommendation 10 states, “That the federal Parliament consider creating a new intimidation offence under the Criminal Code to more clearly and directly protect entrance to and exit from community buildings...places of worship and community centers, in addition to existing offences that may apply in situations where such buildings are being blocked.”
Minister, is that in the bill?
The minister responded:
It is, and I would note that the recommendation had multipartisan support, including from the Conservative Party.
The minister was not part of the justice committee and would not have been privy to this confidential information unless it had been shared directly by a member of the justice committee. This is a serious breach of privilege. It is a serious breach of confidentiality.
It is extremely misleading for both Mr. Housefather and the Minister of Justice to conclude—this is just one example of many examples where the conclusion has been drawn—that this had the full support of the Conservative Party. No one mentioned that the Conservative Party filed a dissenting report. In the dissenting report, there was a strong statement that while the Conservatives supported most of the recommendations, there were other recommendations we did not agree with, hence the basis of the dissenting report.
On the issue of this breach of confidential information that was taken in camera, I'd like to hear from the minister how he acquired that information.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, MP Brock.
It isn't up to the minister to respond, unless he wants to right now. I am more than willing to take this under advisement and review the blues. As you well know, the report was submitted to the House—with your dissent, I suspect, as is customary—but I am willing to review it.
You raised a point of order, not a question of privilege, but you obviously reserve the right, in your discussion, to raise that question of privilege at any point in committee and to do so at a later date. After we've reviewed the evidence, unless anyone else wants to speak on this point of order, I'll take it under advisement and refer it to the committee.
Conservative
