Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to the 11th meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference on October 1, the committee is meeting to continue its study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).

I will skip over most of the introductory instructions.

Everyone knows to take it easy on the interpreters, especially when you're speaking. Don't speak too close to the mic. Make sure, while you do speak clearly, that you don't hurt their ears. There are plenty of ways to sensitize yourself to what should and shouldn't be done. Everyone's experienced here.

Burton, you're here, you know exactly what's going on. You're subbing in. Philip is as well.

I will not go through the regular stuff that I usually go through.

All the witnesses for the first part of the meeting are participating by video conference. I remind them that they can choose the English channel, the French channel or the floor channel by clicking on the appropriate button in the Zoom application.

Since all committee members are here in person, I don't need to ask them to use the “raise hand” function. If you have any issues, just raise your hand, and if it's appropriate, I will recognize you.

Today, we have with us, from the Edmonton Police Service, Nicole Chapdelaine, deputy chief.

From the Christian Legal Fellowship, we have Derek Ross, executive director.

From the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, we have Timothy McSorley, national coordinator.

Welcome to you all.

We do have one witness who had a last-minute challenge and couldn't make it. Fortunately or unfortunately, then, we have three witnesses for this first panel. We'll be able to ask them questions, and we'll probably get to the third round, if we have time, given that we are splitting this into two and a half hours.

I remind the witnesses that they have five minutes for their opening statements, followed by questions from members of the committee.

I'll start with the Edmonton police force.

Nicole, welcome. You have five minutes. If that goes over, then I will remind you. I'll afford you a few seconds to conclude, if you do go over. Please do try to keep it to five minutes.

Thank you.

The floor is yours.

[Nicole Chapdelaine, Deputy Chief, Edmonton Police Service]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the critical issue of hate crimes and to provide insights from a law enforcement perspective on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act.

As deputy chief of the Edmonton Police Service, EPS, I oversee the investigations and support services bureau, which includes major investigations, the hate crimes unit and the protest liaison unit.

Hate crimes require appropriate deterrence and public denunciation, given the fear and harm that the hate crime offender seeks to instill in our community. Bill C-9's proposed framework incorporates key legal principles for police in a balanced democracy, recognizing offender rehabilitation, denunciation and deterrence alongside expanded abilities for police to keep our communities safe.

Edmonton is a fast-growing, welcoming and diverse city. To keep all citizens safe and secure, our service supports all of Bill C-9's recommendations.

I will now review my support for Bill C-9's proposed amendments.

The removal of the AG consent for hate propaganda offences is an important change supported by our service. Police agencies can investigate these crimes while working with the Crown prosecutors. Police are required to weigh and balance information separated from evidence and objectively review suspicion of hate crimes from lawful reasonable grounds to lay charges.

The Crown’s crucial role, put into place decades ago, to review all police charges at the higher reasonable likelihood of conviction standards will continue to apply, even with the removal of AG consent. Consistent with all Criminal Code offences, the EPS continues to support this additional level of prosecutorial oversight so police and the Crown remain apolitical from any decision to lay or prosecute charges.

However, from a police perspective, I also recognize that I speak on behalf of a police agency that has a specialized hate crime unit to conduct hate propaganda criminal investigations.

EPS also supports the additional offence of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain specific symbols like the swastika, the SS bolt or symbols of listed terrorist entities. This section clarifies these types of symbols but also reiterates the requirement that police establish that a suspect was wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group in public.

EPS supports the creation of offences of intimidation to provoke fear or obstruction of a person accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes. Again, this clarifies police arrest or detention powers.

EPS strongly supports the implementation of a stand-alone hate crime offence. The current lack of such an offence impacts investigations, hate crime data collection and community safety operations. The following brief highlights our position.

First, a stand-alone section would establish a consistent national definition of “hate crime.” Across Canada, more than 170 police agencies operate with varied definitions or none at all, creating inconsistency, confusion and gaps in accountability. A single codified definition would align law enforcement, justice partners, the Crown and academic research, enabling a coordinated and effective national response.

Second, it would allow accurate and reliable data collection to help reduce hate crimes nationwide. Police often record hate crimes under general offences like assault or mischief, making them difficult to track. A dedicated section would permit Statistics Canada to better capture offences, improving federal and provincial data for police-driven public security.

Third, standardized reporting would help identify repeat offenders, extremist networks and emerging hate threats, allowing police to proactively reduce crime with appropriately allocated police resources.

Fourth, reliable data supports evidence-based policing and fair allocation of funding. Governments cannot fund criminal issues that are not objectively measured. Better data informs government policy, Crown prosecution, investigations, prevention programs, victim support and community initiatives.

Fifth, establishing this section would increase public trust. Codifying hate crime as a distinct offence sends a clear message: Hate crimes against marginalized groups will never be tolerated in Canada.

Sixth, this codification would reaffirm Canada’s democratic values of equality, inclusion, respect for diversity and human rights. Hate crimes target individuals and the very principles that sustain Canada’s social cohesion.

Finally, this change would enhance police and Crown education and provide clarity to the courts. A clear legislative framework ensures consistent and informed justice across all provinces and territories.

Canada’s hate crime laws have been historically reactive. Bill C-9's changes would mark the difference of proactive and preventative steps forward for everyone involved in criminal justice.

In closing, EPS supports the objectives of Bill C-9. Strengthening our legislative framework, improving data integrity and intelligence sharing, enhancing hate crimes prevention and rebuilding public trust benefits everyone.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Deputy Chief.

It's over to you, Derek. The floor is yours.

[Derek Ross, Executive Director, Christian Legal Fellowship]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. It is a privilege to appear today on behalf of Christian Legal Fellowship, CLF. Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives on Bill C-9.

CLF is a national association of over 750 legal professionals working with faith communities and other groups across Canada. CLF is also an NGO with special consultative status with the United Nations. It has intervened as a friend of the court in over 40 cases involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including in Whatcott, where the Supreme Court cited CLF's submission in its unanimous decision.

Let me start by affirming that CLF shares the government's desire to combat all acts that propagate and normalize hatred. We wish to ensure that initiatives like Bill C-9 are both effective and constitutionally sound. That requires a carefully tailored approach in defining exactly what is being criminalized and in what circumstances.

The Criminal Code, as you know, contains the most severe penalties in our legal system. The stakes are high in finding the right balance. It means the difference between someone's liberty and incarceration. In this context, when it comes to defining hateful expression, we need to ask some hard questions. When should someone be imprisoned, separated from their family and from society, and branded a criminal because of the words they speak or the views they express? What might we deprive our communities of? Whose voices might be silenced if we don't strike the right balance? What legitimate ideas might never be heard if people are afraid to speak up for fear of being prosecuted as hateful when they aren't hateful at all?

At the same time, how do we deal with the concerns we just heard about with the growing animus in our country, particularly that which is directed towards minority religious groups? How do we deal with the very real harms that flow from that animus? These are important questions that this committee is wrestling with, that this bill is wrestling with and that we all are wrestling with. It is absolutely crucial that we get this right.

It is often said that the law is a teacher. People will learn and look to laws like this one, especially when it comes to our public discourse. In fact, the Supreme Court recently recognized that allegations of hatred are often used in public discourse, and used in ways that well exceed their narrow meaning within the legal system. When it comes to the criminal law, we need to have a clear understanding of what we mean by hatred and why it is a legitimate subject for criminal intervention.

Hatred of people is evil. Public manifestations of that evil are appropriately addressed through the criminal law. Other aspects of hatred ought to be addressed through different avenues, such as educational, mental, spiritual and community supports. Criminal intervention is justified only when someone takes action, or what the Supreme Court has called “extreme manifestations” of hatred. It is important that we always recognize why that is. It's not because we find certain views offensive, as repugnant as we might find them. It's not because we object to what people think or feel. It's the mode and effect of expression, not the expression itself or the content of the expression itself, that the law must target. The Supreme Court has been very clear on that point.

The criminal law is concerned when someone takes action—action to mobilize others to deny a group's intrinsic dignity, or to treat them as lesser beings; action that effectively dehumanizes others; and action that is ultimately a rejection of a basic compact of our community life together. That is what should be targeted. Expressions that fall short of that threshold, offensive as they might be, should not be criminalized.

While there's a legitimate role for the criminal law in combatting hatred, the law must be carefully tailored to those goals. We have identified three primary concerns with Bill C-9 in this regard. I will just quickly summarize them, in conclusion.

First, there's the definition of hatred. The term hatred, in any context, is highly susceptible to subjective interpretation and must be defined more precisely than it is currently in the bill.

Second, the new and proposed motive offence requires clarification for a number of reasons, which we can get into. We suggest in our written brief that this offence should focus not on an accused's internal emotional motivations but on whether an accused commits an offence with the intent to incite hatred. Again, how we define hatred is a crucial issue here.

Finally, there should be explicit recognition of the freedom to discuss and criticize beliefs, opinions or practices in good faith. This clearly would communicate that disagreement is not detestation. That is also consistent with the defences contained in subsection 319(3), which should be also retained to help ensure that the legislation complies with the charter.

A clear line must be drawn between, on the one hand, expression that seeks to vilify groups and, on the other, expression that simply seeks to challenge ideas. Substantive amendments are needed in Bill C-9 to help achieve that demarcation and strengthen the government's efforts to combat hatred in line with the charter.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

We'll go over to you, Tim, for five minutes.

[Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for this invitation today.

I'm here on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, ICLMG, a coalition of 45 Canadian organizations from a broad range of sectors. ICLMG was founded in 2002 to serve as a watchdog around the impacts of Canada's national security and anti-terrorism laws on civil liberties.

Our coalition has observed with distress the increase in hate-based violence across Canada over the past several years. We believe that greater measures must be taken to address instances of hate-based violence, but that such measures must be targeted and specific and must ensure that they do not unduly impact the civil liberties or charter rights of Canadians, including those who the measures are sensibly meant to protect.

Unfortunately, several measures in Bill C-9 fail that test. We share the concerns of the 37 other signatories of an open letter led by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that pointed to detailed and substantial problems with Bill C-9 and that ultimately called for it to be withdrawn and revisited.

While we share the overall concerns expressed by our colleagues today, I would like to focus on one particular area of the bill. We are concerned with the provisions in clause 4 of the bill that would create a new offence of “wilfully” promoting “hatred against any identifiable group by displaying” certain symbols in public. These new provisions pose a significant threat to freedom of expression by granting broad and discretionary powers to police and by basing the determination of which symbols are included on a flawed terrorist-listing process. Moreover, the provisions are redundant and, therefore, unnecessary.

With regard to that last point, the “wilful promotion of hatred” is already a Criminal Code offence. It is understood that the determination of wilfully promoting hatred can already include the use of particular symbols, including those of listed terrorist entities. The only difference would be that the wording will place greater emphasis on the use of a symbol in the commission of a hate offence.

This leads to our second concern: that the wording of this new offence creates the serious risk of police making discretionary decisions related to what constitutes a symbol “associated with” or “used by” a listed terrorist entity.

Over the past several months, we have seen heated arguments and accusations that certain symbols associated with protests in support of Palestinian human rights are hateful, are associated with a terrorist entity, or both. Peaceful and lawful protests have been unjustly accused of fomenting hatred, based on the signs and slogans that they carry or chant.

Under this new legislation, police can make a determination, in the middle of a march or protest, not just of what constitutes a symbol associated with a terrorist entity but also that it's being used to wilfully promote hatred. There will continue to be pressure on police to stop and arrest anybody carrying a symbol that they may believe is “used by” or “associated with” a terrorist entity, whether that be a Hamas or Hezbollah flag, a kaffiyeh or a disputed slogan on a sign.

This is made more complicated by the fact that police would be empowered to make the decision that a symbol so nearly resembles the symbol associated with a terrorist entity. For example, would Arabic writing on a sign that a police officer believes is similar enough to writing found on imagery used by a listed terrorist entity give rise to grounds to arrest the individual? This confusion would, of course, apply to all listed entities and could impact protests from a broad range of communities.

These issues raise important questions of guilt by association or the tarring of entire movements with suspicion. We have seen this throughout the last 20 years of anti-terrorism measures and acutely over the last two years during protests or rallies in academic settings or even in parliamentary committee meetings.

Given the severe potential for overreach, along with the stigma of being accused of committing a hate crime, we believe that this law will create a significant chill on free expression and dissent.

Finally, we are also troubled by the fact that the symbols in question are based on the terrorist entities list, which itself is a problematic tool. Serious issues with Canada's terrorist entities listing procedure include the imposition of serious financial and possibly criminal consequences on the basis of unaccountable, secret, executive listing decisions; the use of secret evidence; and the absence of adequate avenues for challenging listings and obtaining redress. Decisions to list or not list can also be political in nature.

New criminal offences, especially those that themselves invite discretionary decision-making, should not be founded on a process already demonstrated to raise significant constitutional concerns.

As mentioned above, this is simply one of the many areas of concern with Bill C-9. Beyond removing this section, we agree that the bill should be withdrawn and the government's approach revisited.

Thank you very much, and I look forward to the questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. McSorley.

Members, we have a good chunk of time. I'll read out the names for the first round.

Mr. Lawton, Mr. Chang and Mr. Fortin will have six minutes each. Then it will be five minutes for Mr. Lawrence and Ms. Lattanzio, two and a half minutes for Mr. Fortin, and finally, five minutes for Mr. Brock and five minutes for Mr. Housefather.

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

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

Am I starting? I can't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You can switch over if you want to. Switch over with MP Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your attendance virtually and your participation in this important study.

Time permitting, I would like to ask questions of all three. I will start with Deputy Chief Chapdelaine.

Thank you for your appearance. I've had the privilege of attending your city a number of times over the spring and summer, and I met with the acting chief at the time, I believe, and also the president of the Edmonton Police Association, predominantly to talk about bail issues and sentencing issues.

We never really got into the protests and hateful demonstrations that have plagued this country over the last several years. When I do my tours across the country, I get a lot of mixed reviews from community members and stakeholders about the differences displayed by police services in relation to how they deal with these types of protests.

I'm not going to mention the jurisdictions, but I've actually had a couple of jurisdictions that have basically said that they take their marching orders from the local municipality, and that if the local municipality has a political persuasion to allow these types of events to occur, they've been instructed to act not necessarily as sworn-in police officers, but more or less just as peacekeepers.

I've had numerous examples brought to my attention of open acts of criminality, and the police simply are not charging. I would like to know from your perspective what is happening on the ground in Edmonton.

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

In regard to that, we have built up in Edmonton a large community of members who work specifically with multiple communities around these kinds of events. Obviously, our direction to our membership is not driven so much by the municipality, but by ourselves as executives here, and what our expectations are about treating all people equally by protecting the grounds that people have for freedom of speech, but ensuring it's done in a manner that is respectful of others.

I know that with EPS and our ability to have a very active hate crimes unit, compared to many other police jurisdictions, we work closely with our hate crimes unit and with our police liaison team, who work with some of the protests when these things come up. They have built relationships with communities so as to understand when these things are going to happen. When people are going to have events, particularly in Edmonton, we have them at our provincial legislative grounds. We work closely with people to ensure that's done in a safe manner.

Of course, we try to lay out those expectations and to develop what this is going to look like prior to these events. A lot of it comes down to some good planning and making sure that people are abiding by the plan. If there is a need to do any further enforcement, we work through that. We don't necessarily act immediately upon it. We will continue to take that and investigate it if there's a need after that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Chief.

I have limited time, unfortunately.

Is it fair to say that, for those who have crossed the line of criminality with respect to these demonstrations, your service has made arrests that were warranted?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I would say so. We haven't done very many arrests in that regard, but where there have been some, we have looked at what they have been doing and what charges were laid. It may have been, like I said, mischief. It might not have been totally in regard to specific hate crimes, but yes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Do you have the view that there are existing laws in place under the Criminal Code to deal with these issues surrounding the protests and the hate that is demonstrated at the protests, and that the tools already exist and it's not necessarily required that Bill C-9 provide additional police powers?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I'd say yes and no. I think there are laws that exist right now that we utilize because that's what we have to lean on.

I think that some of the changes in Bill C-9 provide the ability for us to lay the appropriate charges and capture exactly what exactly we're seeing and dealing with. That's part of the problem of not being able to communicate what this looks like: we don't have specific charge types that capture this appropriately.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

You said in your opening statement that you're supportive of the removal of AG consent. With respect, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. As a former Crown attorney, I did not think the process was overly cumbersome. It provided the necessary overview mechanism when dealing with laying these unique charges that we often do not see on a regular basis.

But there is a problem with Bill C-9. It has eliminated the Crown oversight with respect to private prosecutions. Do you appreciate the error and the problem that this exists?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I just think that right now, because there is so much grey in this space, that's why there's a need, when we're exploring these kinds of charges, to have that conversation with some more specificity around what these charges are. I think the things that are in place right now to allow for the Crown prosecutors to work with the police to make sure we reach the level that's required can happen and can occur.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Okay.

Time permitting, I'll turn matters over to Mr.—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

That's about five minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Is that my time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Yes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

I don't have time to go to the rest of the panellists.

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I made a mistake and read out the second hour. That's on me.

We'll follow with MP Dhillon.

Then it will be Mr. Fortin's turn.

In the second round, I will indicate which committee members will ask questions.

Mr. Lawton, you'll be starting the second round.

MP Dhillon, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

My first questions are for Deputy Chapdelaine.

Thank you so much for your testimony today . Thank you for relaying the importance, as a frontline officer, of incidents that are occurring in the community and for sharing your practical experience and knowledge with us as well. That is very important, because we keep hearing over and over that words are just words and that hateful words are just words.

Can you please tell us a little bit about the impact of these words in the community? Do you believe they embolden and give those who are inciting violence, and those who are capable of physical violence, the ability and licence to go ahead and commit hateful crimes?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I think right now, to answer your first part, the impact is obviously quite heavy on some of the communities that see and face this. We have difficulty as a police agency when we get into these spaces and try to mediate, for lack of a better term, some of the things that are happening and things that are being said. We also respect that quite often people have their opinions. To use the catchphrase that's used, it's awful but it's lawful.

You know, we're quite attuned to the fact that when these things happen, they have impacts. We're working with those communities to support and have them understand that our role as police officers and police agencies is to protect that freedom of speech but to make sure it's done in a way that is as respectful as it can be. Sometimes we can't reach the threshold that we need. We feel that this bill provides us with some more of that specificity, as I said, around what these acts...and what the hate crimes definition is. It allows us to have a bit more ability, on both sides, to talk about what is acceptable and what is not.

Right now, I think the grey space causes problems for law enforcement. Depending on who is faced with it, they're coming up with their own interpretation of it. We may not go fully to prosecution, but it also does cause harm to people on both sides. We have to interact with them and have those conversations.

So it's very impactful. I think we see it. I think people are seeking some clarity around this so that as law enforcement agencies we can deal with it as best as we can when asked to do the jobs we are asked to do and have signed up to do.