Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Derek Ross]

Precisely. That's why we recommend a clarifying clause to ensure it's clear not just to the courts but also to those who are interpreting it and trying to apply it on the ground. What do we mean? What meets the threshold of hatred?

In our brief, we propose adding language that says, “For the purposes of determining 'hatred', the court must consider whether, in the view of a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances, the activity in question exposes or tends to expose members of an identifiable group to enmity and extreme ill-will, or seeks to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them to render them dangerous or unworthy, in the eyes of the audience.”

That language is drawn directly from the Supreme Court, and we think the clarification is important and helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, both.

Ms. Lattanzio, go ahead for five minutes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McSorley, protecting Canadians from hate and protecting civil liberties are both very important and vital.

Would you agree that having a clear, narrow definition helps ensure that the law respects both goals?

[Timothy McSorley]

It is very important to have a very clear definition, one that follows Supreme Court jurisprudence. It's incredibly important to have specific language in the laws to ensure they are applied properly.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

You emphasized the importance of freedom of expression in your opening remarks.

Would you agree that, even within that freedom, there must be a threshold—we spoke about this a few minutes ago—where speech becomes so harmful that it endangers others and, therefore, must be restricted at some level?

[Timothy McSorley]

Certainly, we agree with that. We believe language that would incite hatred and violence against individuals, particularly hate-based violence, is a step too far. There need to be restrictions on speech in Canada.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay.

If we agree that a threshold exists, would you also agree that Parliament has a duty to clearly define that line so Canadians know where protection from hate begins?

[Timothy McSorley]

I believe it's the role of Parliament to set those lines. I also believe the courts serve a purpose in determining whether or not those lines meet the standard of the charter. We've seen that in decisions such as the Whatcott decision.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would you agree that Parliament has that duty?

[Timothy McSorley]

Certainly, Parliament has the duty and power to engage in these debates. It's an important conversation to have. We believe Parliament needs to be doing more to address hate-based violence and hate speech. We just have concerns about how Bill C-9 is going about that.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

You're saying that we have a role to play, but I'm being specific. I'm saying that Parliament has a role to define, and draw that line on, the definition of hate.

[Timothy McSorley]

Yes, Parliament has that role and duty. Then it's up to the courts to interpret whether or not it is constitutional. I think it's important to determine in these discussions, as the law is being made, whether we're meeting the framework of what's already been laid out by the Supreme Court.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

If we accept that freedom has limits when it endangers others, isn't it also important and essential that the law make that limit explicit so police and courts can act before words turn into violence?

[Timothy McSorley]

Certainly, the law needs to be explicit, but it needs to be carefully worded and explicit in the sense of not giving broader interpretation to laws that already exist.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

What is your opinion of the definition in Bill C-9? Is that too broad for you?

[Timothy McSorley]

As I mentioned before, we agree with others who have said that there are concerns the definition in Bill C-9 does not meet the same standard that's been laid out by the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, our expertise isn't on where that line should be drawn, but we certainly believe that's an issue to be debated, then set by Parliament and reviewed by the courts.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

If hate can directly endanger Canadians, shouldn't government have a responsibility to draw that line clearly and not leave it to chance or the interpretation of the courts?

[Timothy McSorley]

Certainly, Parliament has the duty and obligation to draw that line.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay. We draw the line so a court does not have to interpret or come back to that definition.

[Timothy McSorley]

I would say that courts often.... We've seen this, for example, in our work on anti-terrorism legislation. There is a role for the courts to interpret whether or not the law, as applied, meets the constitutional standards. No matter what Parliament decides, there is a role for the court and the eventuality that a constitutional challenge could be brought. It is just as applicable for the court to interpret that as it is for Parliament to set the legislation in the first place.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

The line is clear from the outset, from the beginning. There would be no room for interpretation.

[Timothy McSorley]

In our experience, I would believe that the courts, you know.... That is the set-up of our system: that there is room for interpretation by courts about whether or not a piece of legislation—whether it's the definition of hatred or other definitions—meets constitutional clearance. If it doesn't, then the courts will rule, and then it will be up to Parliament to review that ruling and bring in changes to the legislation to ensure that it's constitutional.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Hate crimes often silence voices, so how can clear laws like this empower those voices?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Lattanzio, we won't have time for an answer. Unfortunately, we have to move on to the next round.

Friends, we have time for a full third round. I may have to chop the last two speakers by a minute or so just to ensure a proper transition to the next round, but we have MP Lawrence to start it off and then MP Chang, Monsieur Fortin, Mr. Lawton and Ms. Dhillon to close it off.

MP Lawrence, I'll turn the floor over to you for five minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

First of all, I just want to affirm the important work that I think this committee is doing. Thank you for having me here. Certainly, fighting hate is amongst the most important things we can do in Parliament, so I really do appreciate it.

In that non-partisan spirit, Ms. Lattanzio, if you want to finish off and get the answer from the witness, I'm willing to donate 30 seconds of my time.