Justice Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Your time is up.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

That completes the first round of questions.

In the second round, we have five speakers. We'll have Mr. Baber first for five minutes and then Mr. Chang for five.

As planned, Mr. Fortin will have two and a half minutes.

We'll then have Mr. Lawton for five minutes and then MP Dhillon.

Mr. Baber, the floor is yours.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Minister, I represent one of the larger Jewish communities in the country. It's a community to which I also belong. Over the last decade of Liberal government, hate crimes against the Jewish community have more than quadrupled. I believe that your appearance today is evidence of your government's failure to protect the Jewish community. To add betrayal to injury, the Prime Minister rewarded the worst terrorist attack in our lifetime with the recognition of a terrorist state, so please don't pretend that you're doing us any favours.

What I am seeing is that unless Bill C-9 is amended, it will criminalize and prosecute speech that isn't criminal right now.

Let's get into it.

For 35 years, we used the Supreme Court's definition of hatred from a case named Keegstra. It is an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

You say that you're trying to codify the Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the definition that you propose in Bill C-9 is “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. You removed the words “intense and extreme nature” from the Supreme Court's definition.

Why are you trying to lower the bar to charge and convict people of hate speech? Is it to criminalize speech that Liberals don't like?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

No.

I'm just curious. In the preamble to your question, you indicated that there is additional hate speech that may not be criminal. Are there are certain examples of hate speech that you think should not be criminal?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

No. I'm saying that we have a clear definition of hate speech from the Supreme Court. It's a definition that your government is trying to dilute through Bill C-9.

Why are you diluting this definition by eliminating the words “of an intense and extreme nature”?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

When I review the definition of hatred, not just in the Keegstra decision, but in the Whatcott decision as well, it's clear to me that vilification and detestation are extreme manifestations. To the extent that you have a different interpretation, know that the intent of the legislation was in fact to codify not only those specific sentences in the decisions but also the different factors that the courts would have used over the years to identify.

Should the committee feel that the legislation would benefit from a different reflection of the test that the Supreme Court has laid out, do know that this would not be a deal breaker for me, particularly if it would earn multipartisan support and send a signal to Canadians that all parliamentarians want to combat hate in their communities.

This was not an attempt to dilute the definition. It was an attempt to make good on the spirit of that definition and provide clarity to law enforcement.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

It is doing exactly that. In fact, the court in Whatcott has referred and reaffirmed the definition of Keegstra. I'm scared that you're going to use your proposed definition against Canadians and against members of the Jewish community. Your proposed definition is so broad and ill-considered by the courts that it's probably unconstitutional. Should Canadians expect, like in the videos we're seeing out of the U.K., that police are going to be knocking on their doors in the middle of the night for a Facebook comment?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Absolutely not, and I think the suggestion is patently far-fetched on the face of it.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

All right.

Bill C-9 will remove the requirement for the consent of the provincial attorney general to prosecute hate speech. The previous attorney general said that that consent is a required safeguard. I heard your position during debate, that in the future you may have a political attorney general who will withhold consent to lay hate charges. However, if the attorney general can be political, then certainly a Crown attorney can also be political, and a police officer can be political, and their judgment could be clouded, politically. They can potentially bring hate charges when it isn't appropriate and ruin someone's life. Have you considered that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I've considered many aspects of this. I'd like to start with the problem that we're trying to solve. We heard loud and clear from affected communities that charges were not being laid and justice was not being served. Stakeholders and, in fact, the justice committee—including multipartisan support, including from your party—have supported this particular change.

In addition to the argument you've put in place, I also hold the view, with the extensive body of case law that has emerged over decades and informed the actions of law enforcement, that the additional safeguard that the AG consent once provided is not as necessary today as it would have been back then. We wanted to solve the problem to ensure it was easier to lay charges, so law enforcement can apply the law independently when they see hate in their communities, in an effort to stamp it out everywhere.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

It will be especially easier with your diluting the definition of “hatred”, but what's even more scary is that private prosecutions will also be exempt from attorney general consent. Now, yes, the Crown may withdraw or stay charges, but the complainant could appeal either the Justice of the Peace's or the Crown's decision to stay the charges and drag an innocent person into divisional court on judicial review. Do you really fail to see how allowing private prosecutions for hate offences without the attorney general's consent could be weaponized against innocent Canadians, including members of the Jewish community?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Baber, the time's up. Perhaps one of your members can pick that question up later.

Thank you.

Mr. Chang.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, Burnaby Central is one of the most diverse communities in Canada. In 2022, someone shouted at me at the Metrotown SkyTrain Station. He said, “What are you looking at, Asian? If you want to F-word, go to Davie Street.” As someone who has personal experience with discrimination based on my ethic background and sexual orientation, I'm deeply concerned about the rise in hate crimes. However, I believe it is equally important to ensure that Bill C-9 upholds and respects our charter rights.

Minister, we have seen a troubling rise in hate-motivated incidents across Canada. Could you explain how Bill C-9 directly addresses the growing threat and why now is the right time for this piece of legislation?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you. I too take very seriously the need to protect the rights of Canadians, but I take a broader view of what that includes. In my view, it should include the right to actually live freely in your community, not just to have rights ascribed to you on paper. When we see hate take place in our communities and choose not to take action, we are complicit in hate's continuous fomentation. I, for one, don't think that's acceptable.

The changes that we're making to the criminal law are going to add real protections for communities of faith going to their places of worship, their community centres and their schools. For people more broadly, they are going to know there will be additional charges for specific crimes of hate if they are in fact targeted on the basis of their race or their sexual orientation, and that there will actually be changes made to the law so they are not a paper victory but are likely to lead to more charges. In turn, that deterrent effect will mean that fewer instances of hate play out in their communities.

This is about changing the real-world experience of people who should not be subjected to hate in this country. I think it's incumbent on all of us to actually have that frame when we're adopting laws or considering what amendments we may propose to them.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, we know that schools and youth spaces have increasingly become targets of hate-related incidences. How will Bill C-9 help ensure that students, educators and teachers are protected from intimidation and hate?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It's really important. Although this conversation has largely played out around themes of protection of religious minorities, it has a much broader application. Schools that are designed for a particular identifiable group in Canada would certainly benefit from protection on the intimidation and obstruction offences, but we also wanted to make sure that we capture hate more broadly, so that if someone is targeted—regardless of whether it is a school or a particular religious community, a particular community of interest—they would nevertheless have the protection of the law where a criminal act is committed against them on the basis of some immutable characteristic belonging to an entire group of people.

This additional protection, whether it's in our schools, in our grocery stores or on our university campuses, is going to heighten the degree of protection that Canadians actually enjoy in their communities, no matter where they find themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, the Criminal Code currently requires the Attorney General's consent before prosecuting hate propaganda violations. Bill C‑9 proposes to remove this prior consent.

I would like you to explain to me what this prior consent is used for, in your opinion.

Also, why do you want to eliminate it?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

At the time that the hate provisions were put in place, there were arguments made that formed their way into law that offered an additional degree of protection. The argument would have been to ensure that crimes had that second layer of approval before charges were laid.

In my view, given the fact that the world has changed, that the law has become clearer over the many decades since the Keegstra decision in particular, and that law enforcement has gained experience, you no longer have that same need. As a result of the rising prevalence of hate crimes in our communities, we've heard from communities more frequently that this is a problem that's getting in the way of charges being laid.

I would make one final point—not to eat up your time, and if I need to extend by 30 seconds, I will—it's important to understand that provinces maintain the ability to implement precharge screening at their discretion, should they wish. British Columbia, for example, does that for efficiency purposes. Other provinces could have the ability to do the same.

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

Thank you, Minister.

I am not the only one who sees this prior consent as a way to guarantee seriousness, if you will, when it comes to prosecutions of hate propaganda.

If it were removed, would that not then allow an individual to bring multiple—I would not necessarily say “frivolous”—actions that the Attorney General would not have consented to had prior consent been required?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think this touches on a question that one of the previous questioners put forward. It's important to keep in mind as well the difference between public Crown prosecutions and private prosecutions.

There's a judicial screening process that will be in place to prevent the kind of frivolous or vexatious litigation that may exist, but when it comes to the Crown's application of the law, the law enforcement's application of the law in communities, I believe that they have the ability, based on the extensive body of case law, based on decades of experience and based on training supports that are made available, to effectively police the laws as they're written on paper, so that the outcomes we're seeking in communities can be fully realized by Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

That is your time, Mr. Fortin.

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

So I understand that there is no good reason to remove it; it was useful.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a different point of view, but okay.