Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much. Your clarity has been really appreciated.

Mr. Ross, can I ask you a couple of questions?

I appreciated the way you approached Bill C-9, in terms of offering amendments and general guidance, as opposed to saying that the bill isn't a good idea at all. I don't think that is what you believe.

Do you support the new intimidation and obstruction offences? For example, in my own riding, in March or April of last year, I had a situation where demonstrators surrounded our Jewish community campus, where the offices of the federation are, as well as the Montreal Holocaust Museum and the Jewish Public Library, and they didn't let people enter or leave the building. They stood on private and public property for hours.

Would you agree that it is a problem, and that these new intimidation and obstruction offences will assist to tell police that they should be charging in events like that?

[Derek Ross]

I certainly agree that those, and many other examples, are hugely problematic. You're absolutely right that we do not categorically oppose the bill. We support the intentions, motivations and objectives of the legislation. Like I said, our goal is to see this bill be effective and be constitutionally sound.

When it comes to the specific interference and obstruction offences, we do have some concerns about their potential breadth. We would share some of the concerns that have been raised by other groups, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, about what constitutes interference and about the way that it might capture conduct that it doesn't even necessarily intend to capture.

We'd also point to a number of other provisions that already exist and that should be utilized to address precisely the situations you've described. I know this is a question that's been raised elsewhere. There are existing mechanisms, so whether it's through the new bill or through existing mechanisms—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sorry, but I have limited time. I don't mean to interrupt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Your time is up.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

My time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ross, in two and a half minutes, I'm going to somewhat repeat the same line of questioning, if I may.

For argument's sake, let's say I convert to a religion other than mine and that religion is based on a religious text, whether it's called the Bible, the Torah or whatever, that says that another group of individuals, such as Montrealers or Christians, are evil creatures that must be exterminated. Suppose, then, that I convert to this religion, for all kinds of reasons, and I convene a conference at which I ask the Lord to eliminate all Christians, who are evil creatures, and not to forget any.

In your opinion, would that speech be protected under the current provisions of the Criminal Code? Would it be acceptable to say that in Canada?

[Derek Ross]

No. Any speech that's calling for death or violence, or for extermination of people, clearly constitutes incitement, promoting hate. That's a threat. That's intimidation. Those are captured by the Criminal Code.

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

Okay, but the Criminal Code says that “[E]very one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred” or, according to another provision, “wilfully promotes hatred”, is liable to imprisonment, but if it's done based on a religious text, that's an acceptable defence.

I know that the example I gave seems rather extreme to us, but it appears to correspond to what I read in the Criminal Code: I am relying on a religious text under which I take the liberty of promoting or inciting hatred.

Do you see a difference, though?

[Derek Ross]

Yes. Again, the example you're giving specifically calls for violence. It calls for extermination. Those types of provisions exist in the Criminal Code that this defence does not apply to.

What this defence applies to, and how it has been interpreted, has been in a very narrow-specific, context-specific analysis, and that's really important to look at.

Whether it's being applied on the ground by authorities and law enforcement in a manner consistent with that strict, narrow interpretation by the courts is another question. It's a legitimate question. Perhaps more needs to be done to create a—

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

What's the difference between that statement and that of Adil Charkaoui, in 2024, who called for the extermination of the “enemies of the people of Gaza”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

There's no time for an answer, Mr. Ross. The time is up.

[Derek Ross]

Am I able to respond to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No, but perhaps you can in a later round of questioning, Mr. Ross. The time is up.

It's over to Mr. Bailey for five minutes.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. McSorley, would you agree that on the definition of “hatred” as written in Bill C-9, were it to be adopted as law, the government or politically or ideologically motivated groups could act in a way that abuses the intent of the law?

[Timothy McSorley]

I have to be clear. Our coalition, our organization, does not.... Our expertise isn't on the definition of “hate”, but we do agree with those, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others, who have raised concerns about whether the definition currently in Bill C-9 is extensive enough.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

By choosing to define “hatred” as the government has, what, in your estimation, would be the difference between the terms “disdain”, “dislike” and “detestation”?

[Timothy McSorley]

Again, I have to say that our coalition.... I have to be specific, because the organizations that I represent have given me a specific mandate on what to speak about, but I can say that, as we've seen with others, they would have concerns with that answer.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Ross, should the government, in Bill C-9, adopt the definition of “hatred” as set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision R v. Keegstra so that the law may be evenly applied and tightly protected from the abuse for political or ideological reasons?

[Derek Ross]

Our written brief—and I don't know if it's been circulated yet—speaks specifically to this issue and the need for clarity in the definition of “hatred”. I appreciate that the government has been very clear that the intent for this definition of “hatred” is to codify the established test, established by the Supreme Court in cases like Keegstra and Whatcott. We would support that.

We would like to see, though, that this definition is incorporated holistically. We are concerned that a number of important parameters have been omitted. We were encouraged, though, to hear the minister invite proposed amendments to address that, and that is what we've done in our brief.

There are three specific prescriptions that the Supreme Court set out in Whatcott that we think need to be made explicit in the bill. I can very quickly identify those three prescriptions.

The first is that hatred must be assessed objectively. Hatred is not assessed based on whether the speaker thought it was hateful or whether a complainant thought it was hateful—

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Quickly, Mr. Ross.

[Derek Ross]

—but rather, based on whether a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances would view the expression as exposing a protected group to enmity and extreme ill will. It needs to be objective.

Second, the term “hatred” is limited to extreme manifestations. These two words, “extreme” and “manifestations”, are both important and need to be added.

Third, the hate speech legislation, the court said, is not to target the content of ideas, as repugnant as one might think they are, but instead, the ways they're expressed and the effects they might have.

The goal is not to censor ideas or compel anyone to think “correctly”; it is to determine the likely effect of the expression on an audience.

Our amendments address all three of those prescriptions.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Ross.

I'm sorry to rush you. It's just that my time is so limited.

If this bill is adopted with the definition of “hatred” as written, will it not just end up back in the Supreme Court to relitigate an already dealt-with concern? Are we kicking the can down the road?

[Derek Ross]

I think that's a very real concern. Unless these amendments are included, unless these concerns are addressed, there is a constitutional vulnerability and certainly a vulnerability to constitutional challenge.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

The point in saying that this is that there is a clear subjective element in evaluating and determining what is stronger, the disdain or dislike, therefore, would you not agree that removing the subjective language in the definition would strengthen this bill and protect Canadians' fundamental freedoms?