Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Timothy McSorley]

I think praising an organization like Hamas in order to call for more political violence is incredibly problematic. Speaking from the position of our organization and from the law, in Canada, it is not illegal. I believe there could be a debate around the discussion and the presentation of terrorist organizations in public spaces, bit it isn't a criminal activity to say something like that.

Personally, I would not call for something like that. I would not say something like that. Any incitement to violence, I believe—

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

What about “Globalize the intifada”? If people are screaming “Globalize the intifada” at a public rally, would you say that crosses a line?

[Timothy McSorley]

Intifada can have multiple definitions. There haven't only been violent intifadas. I believe it would have to be taken in context of the way it was being said. If it is being done in a context of calling for violence against individuals then I would be opposed to it, clearly.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you. Thank you to all witnesses for this very interesting conversation. Thank you for the time that you took today to appear at the committee. I wish you well.

We will take about a five-minute break to switch over to the second panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Good afternoon, everyone.

This is our second panel of witnesses for this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice.

I will dispense with my sometimes lengthy introduction, where I list all the instructions. Those using Zoom to participate in the meeting surely must know how to access the interpretation service.

I ask everyone, especially those here in the room, but also those participating by video conference, to avoid shouting into the microphones and keep a distance equivalent to the length of one hand between the microphone and their mouth when speaking, to try to spare these faithful interpreters who enable us to hear testimony in both official languages.

With us today, we have, from the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada, John Sikkema.

He's the director of law and policy.

We have with us by video conference, from the Barreau du Québec, Marcel‑Olivier Nadeau, president of the Barreau du Québec, lawyer Eva Sikora, as well as Nicholas St‑Jacques.

We have, from Canadian Hindus for Harmony, Vijaykumar Jain, director, who is here in person.

Welcome.

Finally, we have Noah Shack, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

Welcome to all of you.

Each group will have up to five minutes to deliver opening remarks. We have four distinct groups, so that leaves us with no more than 20 minutes for opening remarks. Therefore, an effort must be made to keep things quite short. As needed, I will interrupt the witnesses.

I must inform Mr. Fortin and all the others that sound tests have indeed been conducted.

With no further ado, Mr. Sikkema now has the floor for five minutes.

[John Sikkema, Director, Law and Policy, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members.

It's my privilege to appear on behalf of the Association for Reformed Political Action, ARPA, where I serve as legal counsel.

Thank you all for your thoughtful review of this bill. My remarks today will focus mainly on the hate propaganda provisions of the bill. Our written brief, which you may not have yet, also addresses the proposed hate crime and intimidation offences.

ARPA is a Christian, non-partisan, policy and legal advocacy organization with considerable experience as a friend of the court in charter cases. ARPA believes that every person has inherent dignity as an image-bearer of God and that we have a moral duty to honour each others' reputations. That duty is reflected in our laws on defamation and criminal libel, among other areas. That moral duty applies not only in relation to individuals, but to groups as well.

Legally, however, group libel is more complicated. As our Supreme Court has identified, one danger is that laws meant to stop malicious attacks on a group's reputation and basic social standing could be used to silence criticism of beliefs or practices associated with the group.

Let me illustrate the difference. The late atheist wit and writer Christopher Hitchens said that the Christian doctrine of vicarious atonement was evil. That is a core Christian doctrine, but Hitchens was expressing a moral and, one would even say, a theological opinion. He was rightly free to do so. Today in Canada, people are being accused—often by government officials—of promoting hatred simply for expressing moral or political views.

My own organization, ARPA, was accused by the mayor of Hamilton of promoting hatred because we put up a sign that said, “LetKidsBe... [End] medical transitions for minors.” The city had it taken down.

The city also claimed that another sign from a different group, which said that women are, by definition, female also had to be censored due to hate speech concerns.

Earlier this month, the British Columbia legislature condemned ARPA as hateful for opposing medical transitions for minors and for supporting moderate pro-life laws. One B.C. government MLA even told a very sad story about a same-sex couple being harassed in a public place and then called ARPA and its supporters “the harassers in that story.” It is blatantly false, but I guess it's justified because Christians hold the traditional view of marriage.

The member's statement, to be clear, defamed and vilified Reformed Christians as criminal harassers, which seems like a way, frankly, to stir up hatred against this group, while at the same time accusing these Christians of promoting hatred for the views that they hold. I trust that I don't need to point out the hypocrisy.

This kind of ideological bias is what the Supreme Court warned about in Keegstra and which Parliament must guard against here.

Bill C-9, with respect, risks blurring the long-established definition of hatred. If the goal is simply to codify the common law, then the bill should mirror the stringent test set out in Keegstra and Whatcott. Those cases cautioned against two key errors, among others. The first is focusing on the content of what is said rather than its anticipated harmful effects. The second is focusing on the feelings or views of either the accused or the victim group.

Bill C-9 risks both errors. First, it uses “hatred” in one place to the refer to the feelings that the accused intends to promote in others—part of our established test—and in the new hate crime offence, it uses “hatred” in reference to the accused's own feelings and motives.

Second, the bill's clarification clause blurs whether courts should consider the feelings or views of the identifiable group using the words “solely”, “hurting”, “humiliating” or “offending”.

ARPA therefore recommends that the committee either remove both the definition of hatred and the clarification clause to make clear that the common-law standard still applies or amend both to clearly reflect Keegstra and Whatcott.

Hatred could simply be defined as an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

The clarification clause could say that a statement is not criminal because it is considered “offensive”, “repugnant” or “distasteful”, or because it “ridicules, belittles or...affronts the dignity of” a group. Those are both phrases taken from Keegstra and Whatcott.

Because of the analytical pitfalls I have noted here—and others that the court has warned about and that you've heard other witnesses highlight—the requirement for Attorney General approval remains.

As an intervenor in a hate speech case, I noted the Crown making some troubling arguments—again, going to the substance of the views, the person's moral views, rather than to what they're trying to promote, the emotional reaction they're trying to promote in others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Sikkema, you're at time. I will ask you to wrap up in a few seconds.

[John Sikkema]

Sure.

Our main concern is that the bill set a sufficiently clear standard to protect groups from deliberate, vicious libels without creating a potential weapon for ideological censorship.

Thank you, Chair and members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to the representatives of the Barreau du Québec for five minutes.

[Marcel-Olivier Nadeau, President, Barreau du Québec]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting representatives of the Barreau du Québec to testify on Bill C‑9.

Given the sharp rise in hate crimes in Canada, mostly those with racist overtones, the law must provide courts with effective tools to combat hate, while respecting the principles of fundamental justice and Canadian constitutional requirements.

Bill C‑9 is a continuation of Bill C‑63, which was introduced in February 2024 and on which the Barreau du Québec also made recommendations. We are pleased that some of them were included, including removing the possibility of life imprisonment for hate-motivated crimes.

Overall, Bill C‑9 presents a more nuanced regime than the one proposed in Bill C‑63. That said, a number of fundamental issues remain, and that's why the Barreau du Québec would once again like to contribute to the discussion.

Let's start with the definition of hate. We agree with the principle of codifying a definition of this concept. On the one hand, it would encourage reporting by giving communities a clear understanding of what is prohibited. On the other hand, it would help all stakeholders, including police officers, to act based on well-defined rules.

However, we have reservations about the definition that was retained in the bill and inspired by the Whatcott decision. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the constitutionality of a provision to prohibit hateful publications in a civil human rights context.

We maintain that, in criminal law, the key decision is the Keegstra decision, which was rendered in 1990 and the analysis of which was repeated in the Mugesera decision in 2005. In those decisions, the Supreme Court interpreted the concept of hatred with respect to the provisions of the Criminal Code, specifically, and held that it “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

In order to reduce the risk of challenges to the constitutionality of this provision given the stark distinctions between the criminal law context and the civil law context, we suggest that the bill adopt this definition.

The bill also makes it a hate crime for an individual to commit an offence under the Criminal Code or any other federal law while being motivated by hate. We invite Parliament to reconsider introducing this new offence into the Criminal Code, which has the effect of creating a parallel prosecution regime to the one currently in effect.

The current provisions of the Criminal Code already make it possible to prosecute hate crimes by considering the motivation of hatred at the sentencing stage. The new provision proposed in the bill introduces a paradigm shift by erecting hate as a component of the offence itself. We question the appropriateness of creating a new hate crime prosecution regime that would coexist with the current regime. For the reasons set out in more detail in our brief, we believe that this is an ineffective measure that could undermine the principles of parity and harmonization of sentences.

The Barreau du Québec proposes instead to amend the existing provisions of the Criminal Code by enhancing sentencing tools in order to achieve the objective, which is to crack down on hate crimes.

Finally, we'd like to point out that three of the new offences proposed in the bill are likely to raise issues of compatibility with the exercise of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. First, the new offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols in a public place may restrict the right to free speech. Second, the two new intimidation offences relating to access to a building used for religious worship, among other things, could restrict free speech and freedom of peaceful assembly.

While the courts recognize that these fundamental rights are not absolute and can be limited, a restriction like this must be minimal, proportionate and accompanied by sufficient safeguards to avoid undue infringement.

However, it's not solely up to the courts to ensure that this balance is maintained. It is also up to the legislator, from the moment the provisions are drafted, to clearly define the scope of the offences and defences, in order to achieve the objective of cracking down on hate crimes, while minimizing the risk of a constitutional challenge.

With that in mind, we recommend that the legislator pay close attention to the comments made by the various groups that will be heard during the consultations on the bill. These stakeholders, including fundamental rights groups, will be able to provide concrete examples of situations in which the new offences could interact with the legitimate exercise of protected rights.

We believe that, at the conclusion of these consultations, it would be appropriate to conduct a new review of the scope of the new offences and the exceptions provided for. Based on the comments received during the consultations, this exercise could help better define the application of the new offences and ensure their constitutionality.

Obviously, we've included other comments in our brief. We're now ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. President.

We'll now go over to Mr. Jain with Canadian Hindus for Harmony.

Please go ahead.

[Vijaykumar Jain, Director, Canadian Hindus for Harmony]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me an opportunity to come here and share our concerns on Bill C-9 on behalf of Hindu and Jain communities.

I have made a written submission that is in French translation at the moment. I will submit a letter, and it has been co-signed by 70-plus Hindu and Jain community organizations across Canada.

I'm here to raise two concerns with the bill. The first one is the usage of the word “swastika” in hate references in this bill.

Before I start, I must say that we support all the efforts of the Government of Canada to address hate crimes in Canada. We stand in solidarity with all communities, including Jewish communities, that are facing hate crimes in Canada. At the same time, we welcome the usage of facial-neutral terminology such as any identifiable groups in proposed subsection 319(2.2) in the bill that shows that the bill intends to address hate against all of the identifiable groups, including Hindus.

However, our concern has been the usage of the word “swastika” in hate references and its association with Nazis in this bill. “Swastika”, as you know, is a Sanskrit word, and its meaning is the prosperity and well-being of all. The word is used extensively in Jain, Hindu and Buddhist religious texts, prayers and rituals. Usage of the word “swastika” in hate references deprives Jain, Hindu and Buddhist Canadians of their religious rights to use the word in their prayers.

When it comes to the association with Nazis, let me make an academic exercise. There is no word for “swastika” in Latin or its derivative European languages. Hitler and the Nazis never called their symbol “swastika”. Their word was hakenkreuz or hooked cross, and we understand that in this bill the word is used as Nazi hakenkreuz, which is good. However, at the same time in this bill there is also the association of the word “swastika” with Nazi. Associating the word “swastika” with the Nazi symbol or anti-Semitism spurred misinformation and confuses Jain, Hindu and Buddhist learners about their scriptures.

We have a deep concern about associating the word “swastika” with Nazis. We have approached many organizations and provincial governments to remove the word “swastika” from hate references. In my written submission, I have provided several examples. There were eight examples where we contacted provincial and regional governments as well as the police in a variety of places, including leading Jewish advocacy groups, that removed the word “swastika” from hate references. They use the correct term, the Nazi hakenkreuz, which should be banned.

I also gave examples of other places, such as the State of Victoria in Australia, that passed legislation. In their legislation, they banned Nazi hakenkreuz; however, they made an explicit exception for the word “swastika” and how it should be used.

As a community, we are recommending the change of the wording in Bill C-9 under proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(b) where it says:

The Nazi hakenkreuz, also known as the Nazi swastika

We recommend removing the Nazi swastika from that section.

Further, we understand that the bill intends to cover exceptions for swastika for religious purposes through defences under proposed paragraph 319(3.2)(a). However, this generic wording is not sufficient enough, considering the widespread conflation of the word “swastika” and the lack of awareness.

We request to add explicit exception, as done in the legislation in the State of Victoria, Australia. The fact sheet associated with this legislation indicates that exceptions for the cultural and historical significance to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and other faith communities remain unchanged. It is not against the law to publicly display the swastika, which may be mistaken for the Nazi hakenkreuz symbol, for genuine cultural or religious purposes.

Further, we recommend that the federal government educate communities, police personnel, and media to use the correct terminology. The above measures should address the concern of Hindu and Jain communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee, for hearing our first concern.

If time permits—if I have a minute and the chair approves—I can present my second concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

You have 40 seconds, Mr. Jain.

[Vijaykumar Jain]

Thank you.

We welcome the “facial neutral” language in the bill that is addressing hatred against all identifiable groups. However, the communication that was sent out from the justice committee on September 19 makes explicit note of addressing anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and homophobia. It excludes Hinduphobia in the communication.

There have been rising incidents of Hinduphobia in Canada. When such communication goes out and we see that Hinduphobia missing in it, our community feels that hatred against the Hindu community has been ignored. We request the inclusion of Hinduphobia in such communications.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Jain.

Mr. Shack, welcome. Please go ahead for five minutes.

[Noah Shack, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you.

I'm grateful to be here with you today representing vibrant Jewish communities across Canada that contribute immensely to Canadian society, and advocating for a brighter future for Jewish communities and all Canadians.

Since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks on October 7, we've witnessed an alarming surge in hate, extremism and violence across Canada. Numbers alone cannot capture the full picture of what we're facing—schools shot at, synagogues firebombed, community members stabbed and assaulted, and terror plots targeting our community. These are not isolated incidents. They're the result of growing extremism, open support for terrorism and radicalization. What was once confined to the dark corners of our society is now found on our streets, in our workplaces, in schools, on university campuses and in our neighbourhoods.

No less concerning has been the erosion of trust in our justice system and the ability or willingness of our institutions to hold those who break the law accountable. It shouldn't take a catastrophic tragedy for authorities to act against those fanning the flames of violence in our country—the kind of violence we saw recently in Manchester, Boulder, and Washington, D.C. The terror plots uncovered in Canada should make it clear that we are one intelligence or law enforcement failure away from a horrifying incident here at home as well. This is why we are urging parliamentarians to set aside partisan differences, work together toward consensus and refine this bill to maximize its impact. This is essential not only to strengthen our laws but also to send a clear message to Canadians about who we are and what we must to do safeguard this incredible country that we share.

Action is needed to address the hate, harassment and intimidation that has targeted our community over the last two years. In Montreal an aggressive mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked the entrances to the Jewish community centre, damaged property, yelled “Death to Jews” and barricaded 100 community members inside, with no one permitted to enter or exit. The police did not remove them.

Here in Ottawa, anti-Israel activists gathered not outside the Israeli embassy but outside a seniors residence at the local Jewish community centre, a home for Holocaust survivors and seniors with dementia. For hours, family members attempting to visit their loved ones faced protesters screaming “Go back to Europe” and “We want bullets and missiles”. The police did not remove them.

In Toronto, hundreds of anti-Israel protests have blocked commuters, public transit and even emergency vehicles at which symbols of banned terrorist entities have been proudly displayed. Police arrested an individual for flying the flag of a banned terrorist group, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, but charges were withdrawn by the Crown because it “cannot prove the mental element of this offence, namely the intent to incite hatred against any one or group by displaying this flag”.

A Toronto man charged with 29 criminal counts, including promotion of genocide, arson and vandalism targeting the Jewish community, found in possession of multiple firearms, loaded firearms and a switchblade knife, was immediately granted bail.

Enforcement matters, but without clear laws to drive consistent enforcement, we can expect more of the same, and even greater threats to public safety. We welcome Bill C-9 and recognize the need to improve key aspects. With the right amendments, the bill can achieve its objectives and earn broad consensus support.

Specifically, we urge committee members to consider the following.

The creation of a stand-alone hate crime offence rightly makes hate motivation an integral element of the crime, not merely a factor considered at sentencing. This provision should be added to the list of offences that trigger reverse onus in bail hearings, ensuring that hate motivation is considered at bail to protect Canadians from high-risk offenders. It's not a replacement for the existing hate mischief provision, which applies to offences motivated by bias, prejudice or hate, and which is regularly used as an effective tool by police. The repeal of this provision would deprive law enforcement of that effective tool requiring a higher threshold for enforcement, and it should be retained.

Bill C-9 rightly codifies a definition of hate, but this definition should mirror that established by the Supreme Court of Canada for both clarity and consensus. Attorney General consent for hate propaganda offences too often results in cases disappearing into a black hole, eroding the trust in and the functioning of the justice system, but the intent of this safeguard has merit. The committee should consider alternatives to complete removal that would streamline the process; advance transparency, timeliness and accountability; and guard against vexatious prosecution.

Finally, we welcome the bill's intent to address the display of terror symbols. These symbols inherently promote the hateful violence of listed terrorist entities and should be prohibited, period. We recommend the addition of a wilful promotion of terrorism offence that would address—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Shack, could you conclude, please?

[Noah Shack]

—the concerning radicalization we're seeing across the country.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Members are familiar with the format.

We will go to you, Mr. Lawton.

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

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

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

In November 2024, CIJA wrote a letter to the government in the wake of rampant anti-Semitism across the country—riots, even. There were five actions in it. I won't go through them all, in the interest of time, but I'd invite you to submit a copy of it to the committee for our review later.

I noticed that nowhere on that list of actions for the federal government was the removal of Attorney General consent on prosecuting hate crimes, changing the definition of hate or removing religious protections that exist under section 319; even some of the other measures of Bill C-9 were not in there. What you asked for in that letter was to strengthen the enforcement of existing hate crime laws.

Do you believe there has been an enforcement problem in the last two years with Canada's existing laws surrounding hate, intimidation and mischief as they pertain to your community and your members?

[Noah Shack]

I think the examples that I cited in my testimony speak to an inconsistent enforcement of the law. Provisions within this bill would help to clarify and focus law enforcement in some crucial areas.

As I mentioned, our position is that the status quo with Attorney General consent is not functioning as it should. The system would benefit from clear guidelines, requirements and transparency to ensure that Attorneys General are engaging with these crimes and cases with the seriousness that they merit, that they are not allowing any political considerations to enter the fray and that they would move forward quickly. The alternative to that, of course, is ensuring that private prosecutions still benefit from Attorney General consent to ensure those are not abused.

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

I'm glad you mentioned that. I know that CIJA has been subject to incredibly defamatory accusations of basically defending genocide by virtue of being a Zionist organization. I know Jews have found themselves on lists by activists that have been accusing them of a great many things.

Is there a concern on your part that lowering the threshold for hate and making it easier for hate charges to be laid is going to allow the process to be weaponized against Jews, the very people who some of the supporters of Bill C-9 are purporting to want to protect?

[Noah Shack]

As I mentioned, the Attorney General consent provision is there for a reason, and that reason has merit. Unfortunately, the way the system is operating, the status quo is untenable. There needs to be a change. Whether that change is to provide further clarity, transparency and timeliness to the consideration of hate promotion charges, or whether it's to remove it altogether and ensure that it still remains in place for private prosecutions, is something that this committee needs to dive into.

The status quo is untenable, but we need to be very careful about how we move forward.

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

Mr. Sikkema, you mentioned a few examples in which your organization, ARPA, has been subject to, either through media discourse or political discourse, accusations of hate. We have talked about this concern before this committee previously, especially in light of how various human rights commissions in Canada have tried to redefine this and, now, with the government lowering the threshold, that we are going to end up in a situation in which people who may have a view on, perhaps, gender and sexuality, for whatever reason, are going to be targeted by this.

Is that a concern you see with the way Bill C-9 is written?