Justice Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It is, and I would note that the recommendation had multipartisan support, including from the Conservative Party.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You've also added an obstruction offence, in addition to the intimidation offence that the committee had recommended. Recommendation 15 states, “That the Government of Canada consider removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the provincial attorney general in order to prosecute certain hate crimes.”

Minister, is that in the bill?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes. Again, that recommendation was supported by multiple parties, including both the Liberal and the Conservative parties.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Recommendation 16 states, “That the Government of Canada take steps to ban the display of symbols of terrorist organizations that are listed under the Criminal Code.”

Minister, is that in the bill?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

At the risk of repeating myself, it's in the bill, and again, I reviewed the recommendation with sincerity and realized it had multipartisan support at the time. I'm disappointed to see the tune has changed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Recommendation 17 states, “That the Government of Canada work with police forces across the country to develop a standardized definition of 'hate crime' and 'hate incident.'”

The standardized definition of “hate” that was referred to in that recommendation, essentially, is in the bill as well. Is it not coming from Supreme Court jurisprudence?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Absolutely.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let's look at the fact that, for the last period of time, there have been a lot of people, myself included, who have criticized the words that have come out and the failure to act. Is this bill, then, not exactly what has been requested, in terms of actually acting in respect of what the federal government can do within its own jurisdiction to respond to the incredible rise in anti-Semitism and other forms of hate in the country?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly. That was a major motivator to take action in the first place. I should say, Mr. Housefather, thank you for your work on the committee and more broadly to advance measures that would combat hate in our communities.

The process of developing this legislation relied heavily upon the work of parliamentarians from different parties to inform the final version of the bill. We did not seek to turn this into a partisan affair. My hope was that this would cruise through the parliamentary process with the support of all parties in the House. I still hope we can get to a place where that remains the case.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I certainly do, too.

Minister, I want to ask you about something that's part of the bill but a bit auxiliary to it. In this country, there are different jurisdictional issues, which the committee ran into when we were doing this report.

The Bloc Québécois has raised the issue of provincial jurisdiction a number of times.

Many of the issues that have preoccupied people, and the demonstrations that have happened, including demonstrations on October 7 in Toronto and Montreal, shutting down Concordia University, involved what many believe to be disrespectful actions versus necessarily illegal ones. You said something very, I thought, apropos at your press conference, about setting a tone from the top on what this country expects versus what is illegal, but politicians have to set a tone on what we don't think is Canadian as our values. Could you repeat a bit of what you said at that press conference?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly. Canadians want to see leadership when it comes to treating one another equally. Canadians want to see leadership when it comes to combatting hate in our communities. We wanted to play a leadership role by introducing legislation that would criminalize behaviour that crosses a high degree of moral culpability, that threshold to bring something into the criminal context.

However, we should, similarly, recognize that there are many acts that we may find offensive that do not constitute hate for the purposes of the Criminal Code. We should nevertheless endeavour to condemn those acts, because the impact of the failure to speak out against hate in our communities is still a negative impact that our fellow Canadians feel. We need to demonstrate leadership, not only through our legislative action, but also in our words and deeds when it comes to condemning acts of hate or discrimination, whenever they take place. I think it's incumbent upon all of us, regardless of party, to speak out and to advance measures formally and informally that will have that impact, demonstrating that all Canadians belong in this country.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think one of the frustrations has been that existing laws have not been enforced by municipal police, by those authorities on the ground. The point has been made that while the federal government should tell them to enforce the existing law, of course the federal government has no power or jurisdiction to tell local police how to operate, operationally, on the ground in our cities, whether it's Toronto or Montreal or elsewhere.

Do you not believe that this law is sending a signal to provinces and municipalities and police as to what the federal government is expecting in terms of a tone from the top and in terms of enforcing the law?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It does two things. It sets the tone, as you've indicated, but it also makes it technically easier for police to do their job when it comes to laying charges by providing clarity in the definition and removing the procedural step of requiring the consent of the provincial attorney general, both of which will add to the tone-setting exercise the bill may represent by making it technically easier to lay charges in the real world.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being with us today.

I would like to discuss certain aspects of Bill C‑9 with you, but I will begin with something that stands out to me. It seems that the provisions in Bill C‑9 to combat hate and anti-Semitism, and so forth, already exist in the Criminal Code. I know it is not worded exactly the same, but there is already a provision that makes it a criminal offence for anyone to advocate or promote genocide, for example. It is in section 318. Subsection 319(2.1) deals with inciting hatred, promoting hatred, as well as anti-Semitism. There is also a section 430 offence for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. I will not list them all, but most of the situations that Bill C‑9 seeks to legislate already exist.

Can you tell me why you felt it necessary to introduce a bill that essentially takes these same situations and makes them crimes by giving them different wording and a different section number?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. There are new intimidation and obstruction offences, for example.

It is essential to understand that when a new hate-crime offence is created, the penalties change. When an offence is motivated by hate based on skin colour, for example, serious penalties are needed. We must also recognize that this affects not only individuals, but also the entire community.

I would also like to talk about the new offence of wilful promotion of hatred.

Maybe I'll say it in English, because I have limited time and I don't want to take yours.

We wanted to recognize that sometimes the tool you use to commit a crime makes it more serious. You can think of assault and assault with a weapon. It still would have been criminal before you used a weapon, but it recognizes that the harm can be greater with the tool that you use.

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

Does that mean that the existing Criminal Code offences were not already sufficient?

For example, the promotion of hatred is already a criminal offence, and there is a penalty for that. You can say that you are adding six months or removing one month, but this will not change much.

However, you will no doubt recall that during the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to eliminate the religious exemption defences in subsections 319(3) and 319(3.1) of the Criminal Code. Anyone charged with promoting hatred or anti-Semitism can claim to have a good defence if they spoke in good faith about a religious text that they believe in.

Does that not seem more useful to you? I do not see it in Bill C‑9.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That is possible. I invite the committee to hear from witnesses on that, and if the majority of members agree to make this change, I see no problem with it. However, when I looked at the current exemption, I understood that it requires someone to speak in good faith in order to invoke it. However, when a person invokes religious reasons to justify incitement to murder, they cannot be acting in good faith.

That said, I am open to recommendations from the committee, which may propose amendments to the bill.

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

Thank you, Minister, but I would have liked to see this in the bill, because it seems obvious to me, and we could have avoided spending part of what little time we have in committee to revisit something that is obvious.

I will read paragraph (b) of subsection 319(3) of the Criminal Code:

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

It seems clear to me that this defence has no place in the Criminal Code in 2025. I would have hoped that this would be your view as well.

At a press conference, I believe that you said there were about 5,000 hate crimes a year. Do you know how many prosecutions were brought for these?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I don't have the numbers of prosecutions in front of me. We'd be happy to provide that information on the back end or perhaps with officials in the second half.

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

In your opinion, Minister, were as many prosecutions brought as there were hate crimes committed?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I expect not.

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

I expect not, too.

I wonder if the religious exemption defence has anything to do with the fact that there have not been as many prosecutions as crimes committed. The Crown prosecutor, who has to decide whether or not to institute proceedings, must surely wonder whether their client will have a reasonable defence or not.

I suggest that you consider the issue of the religious exemption defence. That would be a good idea for the future.

I do not have much time left, so I would ask you to answer quickly. Do you think that the Criminal Code definition of the word “hate” proposed in Bill C‑9 is justifiable, too broad or too narrow?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think that the definition we're proposing strikes the right balance.

We wanted to respond to calls from law enforcement for the need for clarity, but this was not an attempt to change the definition that existed from the jurisprudence that came from the Supreme Court of Canada. It was designed instead to provide clarity to those who are actually enforcing the law on the ground based upon the existing body of case law.