Evidence of meeting #11 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 religious.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you so much.
That will help me get right into the next question, which law enforcement keeps getting asked about, with regard to removing the Attorney General consent requirement to help police act more swiftly. How important is it for frontline officers such as you and your team to be able to proceed quickly when dealing with hate-motivated offences?
Deputy Chief, Edmonton Police Service
I think the quicker we can move through these things, the less time it takes for us to sit there and wonder what's happening. Obviously, again, it's going to be as quick as it is working with our Crown prosecutor partners around what this looks like before we lay these charges. When you add layers of approvals, it slows things down. There have been times when we've laid some charges and it's taken up to 18 months. It continues to have an impact on the communities and those who are affected by this. Regardless of the outcome of the AG decision on it, it's quite impactful for both sides. The quicker we can make the appropriate decisions....
I think there are checks and balances along the way, and investigation and consultation with prosecutors, to ensure that the evidence exists for these charges. Although the AG consent has been in place since its introduction to the Criminal Code in the sixties, there's been an increase in accountability and improved procedures since that time. Currently, proceeding with charges rests solely on the decision right now of the AG. Removing that allows us to move that a bit more quickly, and I think has less impact on those involved.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
You've actually answered two of my next questions. It does show victims that hate incidents are taken seriously and dealt with immediately.
You keep speaking about interacting with them. I guess you see a lot of psychological harm as well. Just because it's not physical doesn't mean that psychological harm is absent from this whole scenario. Am I correct?
Deputy Chief, Edmonton Police Service
That's correct. We've actually seen a shift, in the last year and a bit, moving from just the psychological harm—and that is always going to exist—to the addition of physical harm. We're seeing an increase, specifically in Edmonton, in 2024 and 2025—that we've noted. I think the psychological will always exist, because that exists whether or not there was violence involved in it. However, now we're seeing more violence occurring in the events that we're investigating.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
I want to thank you so much as well for citing, during your testimony, something beautiful. I tried to capture the words, “Hate crimes against marginalized groups will never be tolerated in Canada.” I thank your force for looking at that in this way. It's very meaningful, very impactful.
You said something about the definition of hate crimes being absolutely necessary because it standardizes reporting and helps the police to proactively prevent such crimes because they're not subject to confusion among different police forces: There will be one definition across Canada. Can you please elaborate on that? Thank you.
Deputy Chief, Edmonton Police Service
Like I said, when we speak about the more than 170 police agencies that, right now, operate with different factions of hate crimes units, we don't have all of the same sorts of resources and funding available in each small agency.... In Edmonton, we know we have a strong hate crimes unit. However, we also know, from meetings that I and my team sit at across Canada, that, when it comes to these discussions, we see lots of variability around how people treat these and interact with people, and why not having a defined definition—one that actually grounds us about what this is—leads to more of the issues that I'm seeing from my peers presenting here today, regarding that impact on both sides, whether it's the person who's speaking out or the person who's receiving what's being said. I think that, if you have a definition, that grounds us, across Canada, about what this means. It's only going to serve everybody involved much better.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you, Deputy Chief.
Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses who are with us today. My first question is for Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross, I understand that you represent the Christian Legal Fellowship. I want to talk to you about a provision of the Criminal Code, namely section 319.
Subsection 319(1) prohibits inciting hatred against any identifiable group and subsection 319(2) prohibits promoting hatred against any identifiable group. However, there are exceptions to these provisions in the Criminal Code. One of the exceptions specifies that no person shall be convicted of an offence under the subsections in question, including:
(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…
Mr. Ross, I'd like you to talk to us about this exception. In your opinion, does a religious defence like this belong in the Criminal Code? If not, should we take the opportunity afforded by Bill C‑9, which seeks to curb hatred, to remove these two exceptions from the Criminal Code?
Executive Director, Christian Legal Fellowship
Thank you very much for the thoughtful question, Mr. Fortin. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with you on this because it is a really important issue.
The defence that you reference in paragraph 319(3)(b) has been really important in the court's consideration of the entire anti-hatred framework in section 319. In fact, this defence, and the other defences in subsection 319(3), have been pivotal in demonstrating to the courts that the legislation does strike the right balance and doesn't intrude too far on citizens' rights to freedom of opinion and expression. If this defence, or the other defences for truth, as examples, were removed, we would be concerned that could undermine the constitutionality of this regime and the careful balance that has been struck.
The concern, of course—which I understand and am sympathetic to—is that someone might misuse this defence, try to hide behind a religious veneer and use it as a smokescreen to promote hate. That would not be a “good faith” defence. That would actually be a misuse of both the defence and, frankly, of religion. Thankfully, that defence has been interpreted very carefully by the courts to preclude exactly that scenario. The courts have been very clear that this defence cannot be used to cloak hateful expression with impunity—the language they use is “as a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate”—and there hasn't been a single case that the defence has been—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Ross, I'm sorry to interrupt you, I don't want to be rude, but our speaking time is limited, as you know.
I'd like to quote a speech we heard in Montreal last year. Adil Charkaoui said publicly, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, do something about the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And spare none of them!” That speech was submitted to Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions, who decided not to authorize criminal proceedings against Mr. Charkaoui. Many of us were surprised.
Don't you think that the religious exception in section 319 of the Criminal Code may have led the director of criminal and penal prosecutions to decide that Mr. Charkaoui shouldn't be prosecuted for the hate speech he made?
Executive Director, Christian Legal Fellowship
I don't want to comment on a specific prosecutorial decision that was made without my knowing the full context.
Here's what I would say: The courts have been very clear that one cannot simply embed a hateful message in a so-called prayer and expect to receive the benefit of that defence. The courts have specifically said that is not permitted. The good-faith requirement—
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I appreciate that, Mr. Ross. You've already talked about the issue of good faith. It's true that it's important. It's in the wording of the clause. Unfortunately, how good faith is interpreted can vary quite a bit from one individual to another.
My question is more about whether such a provision in the Criminal Code would encourage Crown prosecutors not to seek recourse. We saw that with this statement, in which the individual in question clearly incited hatred by calling on his audience to exterminate the enemies of the people of Gaza. It's understood that he was talking about the Israeli people.
As I understand it, you consider that the issue of good faith preserves us from such restraint.
Ms. Chapdelaine, I have about a minute left. Can you quickly tell me your thoughts on this?
Liberal
Deputy Chief, Edmonton Police Service
As with my friend there, that is something I have no details about.
I have grave concerns about those comments. As somebody in law enforcement looking at that, I would have anticipated it being prosecuted based on the language that was used. Obviously, we wouldn't invest...without the information towards that. I would have concerns about that. You could read into it, in regard to the intention of what is being said there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
I'll use chair's prerogative to ask a follow-up question of Mr. Ross.
As despicable and as unlawful as the statements made by Mr. Charkaoui are—and would be, if they were stated again—we don't know why the prosecution chose not to continue with the charges. Perhaps this is to Mr. Fortin's point.
I want to dig a bit into the concept of good faith, Mr. Ross.
In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for examples, homosexuals. I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence. There should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.
I just want to understand what your notion of good faith is in this context, where there are passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.
Executive Director, Christian Legal Fellowship
Mr. Chair, I don't know that I would agree with the characterization that passages are categorically hateful, especially passages in the Bible. If members of Parliament are of the view that passages of the Bible are hateful, that's something that Canadians should be aware of.
I don't know if that's necessarily what you were communicating there. I think your concern is the way that the Bible might be relied upon or cited to advance particular messages, and that was specifically dealt with in Whatcott. There, the court drew a very careful line between speech that we might view as repugnant or offensive or hurtful versus speech that crosses the line into inciting hatred and promoting hatred and exposing a group to hatred. There's a very different analysis that needs to be employed there.
To answer that thoughtful question of what good faith is doing, what it does is ensure that Canadians can engage in religious dialogue or debate or discussion on very difficult, controversial issues that many Canadians are wrestling with—truth. We have a defence in paragraph 319(3)(a), where truth is a defence, but that doesn't necessarily apply when we're talking about religious truth, because it would be inappropriate for the courts or for the government to opine categorically on whether a particular religious claim is truthful or not. The courts can't decide, for example, whether Jesus Christ, objectively, is the son of God.
What this does is say that when it comes to some of these fundamental questions, we want to preserve room for people to engage in dialogue that is both critical of religious texts and reliant on religious texts—so it works both ways—to try to seek and discern truth without fear of being labelled a blasphemer or a criminal or a hate-monger by those who find their beliefs offensive and would try to silence them.
I hope that answers your question, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Yes, thank you. I would have lots of follow-ups, but I don't want to take away other members' time.
I'll jump to the second round. Thank you for your answer.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
It's the chair's discretion. The chair gets it once in a while. I've been sitting here patiently for 10 rounds, listening to you guys ask the same questions over and over, so I get one once in a while.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Well, it goes to MP Brock in that case, so you'll have to fight it out with him.
Mr. Lawton, I'll pass it over to you for five minutes, and then Mr. Housefather for five.
Then you will have the floor again for two and a half minutes, Mr. Fortin.
Then it's to Mr. Bailey for five minutes, and Ms. Lattanzio, in this round, for five minutes.
It's over to you.
