Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Noah Shack]

As I said, Attorney General consent was put into the law for a reason and that reason has merit. We're talking about expression crimes. There should be consideration given to that. The Supreme Court has considered that in its rulings on the constitutionality of these provisions.

The challenge is that it's not working and things are not moving through the system, so we have to find a way to ensure that the rights of Canadians are free from hate and the rights of Canadians to speak freely are both balanced and addressed.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Do I have time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You have 45 seconds.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Go ahead, Andrew.

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

Mr. Shack, back in August of this year, 32 Liberal members of Parliament signed an open letter, initiated by Mr. Housefather, condemning anti-Semitism. Thirty-two is a small fraction of the governing body's caucus. The same week, every single Conservative member of Parliament signed a letter condemning anti-Semitism. That's 144 MPs.

Do you believe there has been leadership from this Liberal government in condemning and denouncing anti-Semitic hate?

[Noah Shack]

I would like to see leadership from the entire Parliament of Canada coming out of this process. I would like to see real action taken and a clear message from the broadest possible consensus, driving forward for all Canadians, that we stand against the hate that's targeted my community and others and that it's not part of the Canada we want to see in the future. That's what we need to see.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you both.

Ms. Dhillon has passed her time to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

As Mr. Shack is well aware, and as I made the point to Mr. Lawton when he previously tried to make this implication, my letter—which wasn't only my letter; it was the Jewish Liberal caucus's letter—made very specific policy recommendations endorsing all of the recommendations from the justice committee report last year. It wasn't a simple condemnation of anti-Semitism. Mr. Lawton wouldn't have signed that letter because he doesn't support all of the recommendations in the justice committee report.

I find it hypocritical at best that Mr. Lawton is raising such a point.

Mr. Shack, I have heard from you today...and I do believe you speak for the vast majority of the Canadian Jewish community because some people will say that Independent Jewish Voices don't agree.

Would you say that the groups representing Jews that support the existence of Israel represent over 95% of Canadian Jews?

[Noah Shack]

It's not just me saying so; all available public opinion research data reinforces that the vast majority of Jewish Canadians have a clear and close identification with the people of Israel. There is one Jewish people around the world. The majority of Jewish people in the world live in Israel. That's a clear bond that we share.

Anybody who would suggest otherwise is engaging in tokenism and, frankly, outright racism.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What you're saying to us today is that you do want this bill to be passed and you want all of the parties at this committee to work together to find amendments that would secure consensus on the bill. Is that correct?

[Noah Shack]

That's correct. The stakes are high. This is a serious issue that, around the world, is not just conceptual. This is costing people their lives.

We need to treat it with the kind of seriousness that it requires. We need to come together and find ways to make this work, so that we are speaking with one voice as Canadians, saying that this is not acceptable, that we won't tolerate it here and that we're taking action to address it. That kind of consensus is important.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's because anti-Semitism shouldn't be a partisan issue. Is that correct?

[Noah Shack]

Absolutely. Hate of any kind shouldn't be a partisan issue and we need to all work together on this.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think we're in agreement a hundred per cent on this side on that because we need to work together to make sure that we satisfy the concerns that are there in the bill and make sure this bill passes, so we deal with hate against all communities.

Mr. Jain, I had understood, because I had been speaking with groups from the Hindu and Jain communities, that the real concern was the confusion of the swastika that is the religious symbol with the Nazi image of the swastika. That is why, in the bill, when it refers to the swastika, it says, “Nazi swastika” and then uses the actual German name for that.

I understand the request that you're making, but I do believe the bill was trying to accommodate that by using those words.

Would you recommend we look at exactly the language used in Victoria by the Victorian parliament to create the exception that you're asking for?

[Vijaykumar Jain]

That is correct.

I welcome the use of the words “Nazi hakenkreuz”. It's clearly highlighted there. You're calling to ban it, which is rightful. You use that word there.

Also, the problem there is, in the same line, the wording is “Nazi Hakenkreuz, also known as the Nazi swastika”, and that is problematic because Nazi hakenkreuz is different. There is no such thing as Nazi swastika. You should not associate the word “swastika” with “Nazi”. “Swastika” is a religious, sacred word. It's a Hindu word. It has nothing to do with German or the Nazi party.

This is what we are recommending and what the Victoria state in Australia did. They clearly made a distinction. It's the same thing that the education department did in Oregon, which I mentioned. They have explicit exceptions, which I mentioned in my written submission. It clearly highlights how you add those wordings, and that can take care of this problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, both.

[Vijaykumar Jain]

I'll just add that we need to spend some time and money on educating people also.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Jain and Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Fortin, you will ask the last questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will address the representatives of the Barreau du Québec. Any one of the three may answer my questions.

Currently, hatred is permitted in Canada. It is not elegant, but it is not prohibited either, as far as I know. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A few years ago, the concept of hatred was added to the stage of determining evidence. Bill C‑9 now proposes to make it a constituent element of an offence, specifying that a hate crime will require a greater penalty.

If we pass Bill C‑9, will it still be permissible to hate in Canada?

[Marcel-Olivier Nadeau]

Mr. St‑Jacques, would you like to answer this question?

[Nicholas St-Jacques]

The answer to your question is yes. What you cannot do is commit one of the offences set out in the Criminal Code. In this case, we are talking about inciting hatred or committing other offences that the bill seeks to add to the Criminal Code.

I come back once again to what hatred is. Under the Criminal Code, the definition takes hatred to a higher level in terms of emotions and feelings, and that is what we want. Essentially, we want to prevent these feelings from being propagated by an individual who incites others to commit offences. That is what we want to avoid.

This is not about prohibiting hatred. People may disagree with others for various reasons. What we want to avoid is people committing more serious offences, particularly violent offences against others, as a result of the actions and words that are propagated.

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

In a few seconds—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No; time’s up.

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

Oh, really? I thought I had two and a half minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No, it was just two minutes and a few seconds. I’m sorry.