Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

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

Thank you to all of the witnesses for taking the time to join us today.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Ross.

You were asked by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Fortin, and also by our chair, Mr. Miller, about the religious defence, to use the term embedded in section 319 of the Criminal Code.

Just to confirm, you are against any removal of this defence from the hate provisions of the Criminal Code. Is that correct?

[Derek Ross]

Yes, that's correct, precisely because they've been important in upholding the regime as constitutional.

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

In a number of debates in society, we have sometimes seen public opinion shift. We've seen what is held by society at one point in time changed sometimes in five years, in 10 years, in 50 years. We need to be able to have discussions on contentious issues to do that.

One example that came up in this committee's hearing last week was the way that we're discussing gender and sexual identity right now. One of our previous witnesses said that they could actually see a case in which Bill C-9, with the lower threshold for what constitutes hate, could lead to criminal charges against someone for going against whatever the Liberal orthodoxy is on gender.

Would you agree with that concern?

[Derek Ross]

I think that is a concern, whether it's on that particular issue or on any number of social issues on which Canadians hold very sincere, strongly held views.

If we define hatred too imprecisely, then it does create the risk that it could be used to capture not just the speech or the modes of expression that the Supreme Court has been concerned with, but also specific ideas that we might find repugnant or offensive, and be used to apply hatred in a colloquial sense, as opposed to in a criminal sense, to speech.

That is part of what it means to be in a democratic society: It means being exposed to opposing views.

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

Since 2021, there have been at least 123 churches in Canada that have been either burned or vandalized. This is something former prime minister Justin Trudeau said was fully understandable. His principle secretary, Gerald Butts, also said it was "understandable". That's a direct quote.

What's your view on the way we view hate in the country somewhat selectively?

[Derek Ross]

I think it's really important when we talk about this legislation that we want to ensure the Criminal Code works to protect all religious communities in Canada. That's what the charter requires: that every faith group is entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.

We don't want to make this about my group versus your group; it's about ensuring that every group has the same protection.

Thank you, Mr. Lawton, for bringing attention to some of the very profound concerns that we and many others have about the number of churches that have been burned to the ground in Canada. We are equally concerned about attacks and vandalism directed at synagogues and mosques. This is an issue that we all recognize is a problem in our country. That's why we're here.

This isn't something we want to ignore. The question is this: What's the best way to address it? That's what we speak to in our written brief.

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

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

Mr. McSorley, you alluded to flaws that you see in the terrorist-listing process. I want to understand where you're coming from on this a little more clearly.

Do you view what happened on October 7 as a terrorist attack?

[Timothy McSorley]

It was committed by a listed terrorist organization, and we denounced very vocally any attack on civilians and have spoken out that there should be an immediate ceasefire.

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

Do you personally view it as a terrorist attack?

[Timothy McSorley]

I believe it was an attack on civilians that can't be justified and that should be viewed as a grave concern, but we've also seen retaliation that outmeasured the violence on that particular day.

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

The moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel in your answer is interesting.

Do you personally believe Hamas belongs on the terrorist list in Canada?

[Timothy McSorley]

I don't have a personal opinion about which organization should be on the terrorist list. Our position as a coalition—and that's who I'm here to speak on behalf of today—is that a terrorist entity's listing—

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

Will you denounce Hamas right now as a terrorist organization, yes or no?

[Timothy McSorley]

It's listed as a terrorist organization. That's what I'm here to speak to on behalf of my organization and our coalition. I'm not here to say yes or no to whether the government is wrong for its determination, but rather that the listing itself is a problematic process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. McSorley.

Over to you, Mr. Housefather, for five minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Chief, would you agree with me if I characterized this law as adding new offences that give you additional tools in the tool box, clarifying certain existing provisions of the Criminal Code that will assist you and your officers in clarifying when to charge somebody, and giving you direction in the sense that it is telling you the government views these hate-related offences as very important?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

Absolutely; I would say yes on all three points.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Do you agree that these new intimidation and obstruction offences will be helpful to you and your officers in understanding the prioritization of charging people who are blocking access to places of worship, community centres, etc.?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I think they provide more guidelines for our members. When they are responding, I think it gives them more understanding of what they're dealing with and more opportunity to make some decisions.

Right now, I think it's left to an individual to come up with what they think they're dealing with and try to mitigate things, which, at times, takes too long because they don't understand and they don't know where to go with it, so things continue to carry on. We could deal with things in a much quicker manner if we had a better idea what we're trying to deal with.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I want to ask a question that comes up frequently. There are people trying to argue that since the existing Criminal Code provides for multiple offences, the police aren't charging under those offences and, as a result, this new law isn't needed.

Would you disagree with that claim?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I would disagree with it. I think there's nothing wrong with parliamentarians disaggregating sections for the clarification of crimes. We do it already. We do it with assaults, sexual assaults and frauds. It's there right now, so it exists, and this is no different.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You'd also agree, counter to what has been claimed by a couple of people, that the federal government has no ability to direct the Edmonton Police Service as to what to charge or not charge or tell your officers what to do or not do. Is that correct?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

That's correct. At the end of the day, we abide by the Criminal Code, but we still have discretion, and we still need to make decisions based on the totality of every event that we respond to. It's not as simplistic as that. We have lots of checks and balances, and we have relationships with our Crown prosecutors in these spaces to ensure that we're making the right determination about how we proceed.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It would also be, for example, like in Montreal. There's a public safety commission of the agglomeration of Montreal that is the regional government that runs police. That would be the entity, the municipal authority, that could give you general guidance as to what intentions it has related to policing. Is that correct?

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

That's correct. We have a police commission that works with us. It doesn't necessarily get involved with the operations, but there is an oversight with us, as well as lots of provincial oversight when it comes to police conduct.