Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Nicole Chapdelaine]

I absolutely think these kinds of things help people. I think this is going to create a certain level of comfort for people to understand that we're all working the same, to meet the needs and to create some definitions and parameters around what this is and what this means to us as Canadians and in our role as police officers in this space. Any time we can have any conversation around this to set those standards—good, bad or otherwise—is very important.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Chair, isn't this the first round?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

No.

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

Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. McSorley.

Bill C‑9 would prohibit obstructing or impeding access to a place. There are already prohibitions of this nature in the Criminal Code, and more are being added.

In your opinion, Mr. McSorley, is that likely to conflict with the right to protest? I'm thinking, for example, of students at a CEGEP who would like to protest, for whatever reason. Could demonstrating on the grounds of a CEGEP, university or any other place contravene the new prohibitions?

[Timothy McSorley]

Thank you for the question. Just to be precise, I will answer it in English. I'm sorry, I know that I also speak French, but I really want to be precise in my answer.

I would say that there are significant concerns around how the new obstruction and intimidation provisions could impact protests in general. There are concerns around whether or not a space within a campus that may be for a religious or cultural purpose and that would be protected under this legislation could be interpreted to apply to a broader aspect of the university or the campus. That's something that we think needs to be more specifically addressed and regarded.

The other concern we have is that we know that spaces that may be devoted to and used by particular communities can also be used for a wide range of areas. That's reflected in bubble-zone bylaws that have been said to apply to the regular business of a place of worship or a cultural centre. We would be concerned about a blanket application of a block on the right to protest, because they could be non-religious or activities not related to the protected nature of the building and that would then block the ability for individuals to engage in protest.

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

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the prohibitions that currently exist in the Criminal Code to not interfere with access to a public place are sufficient. Is that correct?

[Timothy McSorley]

We believe that they would be sufficient, yes.

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

Therefore, we should not pass this part of Bill C‑9. Have I understood your opinion correctly?

[Timothy McSorley]

No, we do not believe that it should be adopted.

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

Thank you.

I had another question, but my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Lawton, it's over to you. We'll do a full five minutes for you and then Ms. Dhillon.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. McSorley, when we were speaking earlier, I was hoping that I'd be able to dispatch with my questions very shortly, but evidently this is going to take a bit more time here.

You identified in your testimony a key concern you had with the provision of Bill C-9 dealing with hate symbols to be what you termed a “flawed...process” in listing terrorist entities. If you believe the process is flawed, do I take from it that you believe there are people on the list of terrorist entities who do not belong there?

[Timothy McSorley]

That's a good question.

We believe that the process is flawed. Our role—and we have not reviewed every single entity that's on the terrorist entities list—is to determine whether or not they should be there.

One example I could give is that FARC, in Colombia, was previously a revolutionary force engaged in violent activities and is now part of a peace process, yet remains listed on the terrorist entities list. We think that's part of the flaw in the fact that it's difficult for organizations to challenge it, because the evidence is kept secret and the decision-making process itself is secretive

We think that administrative listing processes are the problem. The government can determine whether or not there should be sanctions against certain organizations for the activities they undertake, including organizations they deem to be terrorist organizations, but we are deeply concerned around how the listing process itself works.

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

Do you believe that ISIS belongs on the list?

[Timothy McSorley]

Again, they've engaged in terrorist activities. They engage in violence. We believe that the government is right to set sanctions. We don't believe that the listing process is an effective tool.

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

Do you believe that al Qaeda belongs on the list?

[Timothy McSorley]

I'll give you the same answer. There are terrorist organizations that engage in violence and should be sanctioned. We have problems with the listing itself.

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

Thank you. You just acknowledged that ISIS and al Qaeda are terrorist organizations. How about Hamas?

[Timothy McSorley]

Hamas has also engaged in activities that have been defined as terrorist activities. We believe that any act of political violence is problematic. The government has decided to determine that they are a terrorist organization, and we have problems with the actual listing itself.

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

I'm just struggling to understand here where you would draw the line when we are talking about organizations that have committed in plain view acts of terror and that have as their charter a desire to eradicate the Jewish people and the Jewish state.

Anyone who's watched my work on this committee knows that I am a very firm believer in freedom of expression. I have been very critical of Bill C‑9 for, I believe, infringing on that but, if we are not able to have a conversation that calls terrorists terrorists, I don't see how we're going to be able to deal with some of the bigger questions facing this committee and facing society.

This is a very simple question. Do you believe that October 7 was a terrorist attack, not how governments view it, not how the Canadian government is viewing it. Do you believe it was a terrorist attack?

[Timothy McSorley]

I believe that it was an act that would fall under the definition of terrorism. It was a terrorist activity, but we have problems with how the government views how Hamas or any organization is placed on the list, and the listing process itself is a problem.

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

Do you believe—

[Timothy McSorley]

The definition overall that simplifies the idea of what is considered terrorism leads to discrimination and leads to the tarring of entire communities engaged in protest, for example, against human rights abuses as being linked to a terrorist organization.