Justice Committee on Nov. 6th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 12 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of October 1, 2025, we are meeting to continue our study of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).

As with prior meetings, we're presenting now in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I will warn members and witnesses that there is a slight delay in the translation. If you notice it—particularly members—please raise your hand if there is a problem. We believe it is barely noticeable. It's just that the technicians have noted that there is a delay between the French and English and the English and French. It's not the translators themselves. It just seems to be something going over the system right now. If you are asking a question in English and getting an answer in French or vice versa, I will permit a delay that will go over and above the time, just simply so that people can have the benefit of having their question fully understood and the answer fully understood.

Sound tests have obviously been done. I ask those participating in the meeting in person or online not to place the microphone too close to their mouth and not to speak too loudly. This helps protect the health and safety of interpreters and prevent acoustic incidents. We certainly do not want to cause any problems for the team that has to interpret in both official languages.

People on Zoom in particular, everyone here is familiar with the format. I will allow direct questioning of witnesses. You do not necessarily need to go through me, although if there are some problems, I will ask that people do go through me.

People on Zoom, use the “raise hand” function that you are very familiar with by now. Obviously, there's also a function for your language of preference: English, French or the floor.

Just for the benefit of housekeeping and the vote that's going to occur at 5:15 p.m., I did have a brief discussion with the vice-chair and the Conservatives. There is a preference for people to be in their seats. Normally we could vote online and save time, but obviously because of the importance of this vote, I think members prefer to be in their seats. That will impact the questioning of the second group of witnesses, which means that if we do things right and if we go over the bells—with unanimous consent—for about 10 or 12 minutes, we can get a full round of questioning in on the second panel of witnesses. Then again, I need unanimous consent to go over past 6:30 p.m., but if we all resume here rather promptly once we have voted, I can accord time just to finish off perhaps even a second round of questioning, if that works. However, I need unanimous consent of the group to do that.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

It's totally understandable, but we'll do what we can. We'll thank the second group of witnesses once we go to the bells, and people can be on their merry way, and we won't go past 6:30 p.m.

I will go quickly, given the time. I will stop the first round a little early so that we can get on to the second round.

For the first panel, we have with us, from the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, DeRico Symonds, director of engagement and justice initiatives.

He is participating in the meeting by video conference.

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation, we have Christine Van Geyn, litigation director.

From the Ligue des droits et libertés, we have Lucia Flores Echaiz, lawyer and Lynda Khelil, spokesperson.

From the Canadian Bar Association, we have with us Kyla Lee, lawyer, who is participating in the meeting by video conference.

I remind you that each witness has five minutes to make their opening statement. I will be very strict about speaking time. We will then move on to the questions from the committee members.

I extend our welcome to our witnesses.

Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr. DeRico Symonds.

You have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[DeRico Symonds, Director, Engagement and Justice Initiatives, African Nova Scotian Justice Institute]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is DeRico Symonds. I'm an eighth-generation African Nova Scotian, and the director of engagement and justice initiatives at the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute, or ANSJI, rooted in Nova Scotia. ANSJI was established to confront systemic injustice and anti-Black racism. It advances justice reform, supports victims of hate and discrimination, and promotes equitable, inclusive institutions and safe communities across Nova Scotia and Canada.

We recognize Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, as an important step towards updating the Criminal Code to better protect vulnerable communities. It acknowledges the rise in hate crimes and the need for stronger legal protection, yet the bill's current framework is too narrow.

I want to draw attention to its major gaps for Black Canadians—its terrorism-centric approach to hate symbols. The bill omits the noose, one of the most recognized symbols of anti-Black terror. The noose evokes centuries of racial violence. It continues to appear today in schools, workplaces and public institutions, and it is used to intimidate and silence Black Canadians.

Additionally, it is our belief that the Ku Klux Klan, or the KKK, also meets the Criminal Code definition of a terrorist entity. Its actions—lynchings, bombings, cross burnings—were designed to intimidate the public through violence motivated by white supremacist ideology. Its influence continues to surface in extremist movements and hate crimes today. Excluding the KKK, while listing its ideological successors, creates a gap that undermines both moral and legal coherence.

Recent incidents in Nova Scotia show that this hate is not history but reality. In 2024, individuals wore a KKK costume to a Halloween gathering in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. In 2023, two teenagers in Chester Basin, Nova Scotia were charged after waving a noose at a Black family. In 2020, a sign reading “Redneck Hangout” with an image of a noose was found in Queens County, Nova Scotia. In 2019, footage I observed documented KKK recruitment activity occurring in a Halifax, Nova Scotia workplace. These are reminders from Nova Scotia that anti-Black racial terror persists in Canada.

Bill C-9's consideration of amendments to remove or to limit the Attorney General's signing authority in hate-related designations poses risks for Black communities. The Attorney General serves as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that prosecutions and designations are guided by public interest and ministerial accountability. Removing this oversight would decentralize discretion to police and Crown agencies—institutions that have well-documented histories of systemic racial bias.

In Nova Scotia, the Wortley report of 2019 confirmed that Black residents were six times more likely than white residents to be street-checked by police. In such contexts, shifting unchecked discretion to frontline enforcement could only reproduce systemic harm, not prevent it. According to the Department of Justice Canada, “In 2022, police-reported hate crimes motivated by hatred of a race or ethnicity increased by 12%, whereas the percentage of hate crimes specifically targeting the Black community increased by 28% (more than [double]).”

Without AG oversight, decisions to investigate or to prosecute under hate-related provisions could occur without sufficient checks and balances, risking further marginalization of communities that are already overpoliced and feeling underprotected.

To close, I respectfully submit four recommendations.

The first is to expand the definition of prohibited hate symbols to include the noose and the KKK insignia, such as a white pointed hood and a burning cross.

The second is to list the KKK as a terrorist organization under section 83.05.

The third is to establish independent community advisory panels to work alongside Attorney General oversight. These panels can ensure that decisions about hate symbols, terrorist entities and hate-related acts are informed by those with lived experience, as well as by experts and academia, and that they're not made solely with government or law enforcement frameworks. Conceivably, it would be something similar to the cross-cultural round table on security.

The fourth is to have meaningful consultation with Black communities and organizations when developing a more inclusive list of prohibited symbols and terrorist entities.

Ultimately, a meaningful combatting hate act must confront hate in all its manifestations, including the intimidation of Black Canadians, which we still experience today. ANSJI looks forward to collaborating with Parliament, and with all parties and partners, to strengthen this bill and to promote genuine community safety and justice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Symonds.

We'll go to Ms. Van Geyn for five minutes.

[Christine Van Geyn, Litigation Director, Canadian Constitution Foundation]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity today to appear on Bill C-9.

My name is Christine Van Geyn. I'm the litigation director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending Canadians' constitutional rights and freedoms.

We at the CCF have been involved in landmark free expression cases at the Supreme Court, including Whatcott and Ward. We brought the successful legal challenge to the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022. We provide free public education on constitutional law. I have also authored three books on the subject.

Now, I want to be clear at the outset: Hate is wrong. Hate causes real harm in society, and hateful conduct, especially violence and threats, must be confronted, but the criminal law is our most powerful state tool, and it carries the highest stigma and the most serious consequences for liberty. It must be used with great restraint, especially in matters touching expression, belief and political or religious discourse.

Bill C-9 expands the criminal law into the realm of expression in ways that risk unjustified violations of the charter right to free expression. It lowers the threshold for hate propaganda offences, removes safeguards against politicized or abusive prosecutions, introduces vague new offences and risks chilling lawful debate and protest in Canada.

Our constitutional tradition is clear: Freedom of expression protects even offensive and disturbing speech, and even hateful views, unless they cross a very high threshold.

Courts have always treated this as a question of where limits on protected speech exist, not on whether the speech is protected at all. That high threshold exists so Canadians can freely discuss controversial ideas, especially on sensitive political and moral topics, without fearing criminal sanction. Bill C-9 lowers that threshold and expands criminal liability in ways that threaten legitimate expression, dissent and protest.

Our primary recommendation is that Parliament withdraw Bill C-9.

In the alternative, I propose six amendments that could reduce, though not eliminate, the risk that Bill C-9 would be found to be unconstitutional.

First, the bill introduces a new statutory definition of “hatred” that departs from the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. For over 30 years, the court has required hatred to mean the “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation”.

Bill C-9 dilutes that standard. It removes key limiting language and shifts from detestation “and” vilification to “detestation or vilification.” It removes the requirement for extremeness. If Parliament chooses to legislate a definition, it must mirror exactly the standard that has already been upheld by the court, because anything less risks a finding of unconstitutionality.

Second, the bill removes the requirement for Attorney General consent before laying hate propaganda charges. That safeguard exists to prevent politically motivated or ideologically driven prosecutions in this uniquely sensitive area of law. Removing it invites arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement. It even opens the door to private prosecutions, however rare, weaponized for political ends.

Third, the bill creates a new stand-alone offence for hate crime offences, layered on top of other existing offences, including non-criminal regulatory offences. This creates a risk of duplicate punishment, prosecutorial overcharging and plea pressure. Hatred is already a sentencing aggravating factor, and that approach preserves proportionality while protecting freedom of expression, so it should remain that way.

Fourth, the bill prohibits certain “hate symbols”. Now, to be clear, these symbols are vile, but banning them outright risks driving hateful beliefs underground, where they are harder to confront, and risks sweeping in political protest speech, however misguided or offensive. The current law already captures symbols when they are used to wilfully promote hatred.

Fifth, the bill adds new intimidation provisions related to religious and cultural spaces. Intimidation, harassment, mischief and blocking access to buildings are already illegal. The solution to unlawful blockades is to enforce existing law.

Finally, we urge Parliament to retain the defences in subsection 319(3), including the defence of “good faith” religious expression, because removing that protection, combined with removing Attorney General consent, would chill legitimate religious debate and moral discussion. Courts already have applied that defence narrowly. It has never been successfully invoked, but its existence has been central to the court’s conclusion that the law is constitutional as it is.

Hate cannot be legislated out of the human heart. What the criminal law can do—and what it should do—is prevent violence, threats, harassment and intimidation.

When we criminalize opinions, we risk making martyrs out of hate-mongers and driving vulnerable people towards hidden spaces of radicalization rather than exposing harmful ideas to the disinfecting force of truth and public criticism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Van Geyn, could you please sum up?

[Christine Van Geyn]

Yes. I'm done.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

We will now hear from the representatives of the Ligue des droits et libertés.

Ms. Flores Echaiz and Ms. Khelil, you have the floor for five minutes. You can share your speaking time.

[Lucia Flores Echaiz, Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the members and staff of the committee.

My colleague and I thank you for the opportunity to share the Ligue des droits et libertés’ perspective on Bill C‑9.

The Ligue des droits et libertés is an independent, non‑partisan organization founded in Quebec in 1963 to defend and promote human rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Flores Echaiz, just a moment, please.

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

Mr. Chair, there was no interpretation in English and the interpretation in French was terrible. There was an echo and the sound was choppy, to the point that I couldn’t keep up. There is clearly a problem.

As a francophone, I find it important that the statements of francophones be properly understood by our anglophone colleagues. It works both ways.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Flores Echaiz, there is a problem with interpretation, but it is not your fault. We will try to solve the problem.

It's the same in English.

Ms. Flores Echaiz, you have the floor.

[Lucia Flores Echaiz]

I will start over from the beginning.

My colleague and I thank you for the opportunity to share the Ligue des droits et libertés’ perspective on Bill C‑9.

The Ligue des droits et libertés is an independent, non‑partisan organization founded in Quebec in 1963 to defend and promote human rights.

We recognize that the intention behind the bill is commendable. Hatred and intolerance toward groups that have historically been victims of discrimination are indeed a problem that must be addressed through various means. However, we do not believe that the provisions in Bill C‑9 offer effective tools to combat this problem. On the contrary, we believe that they represent an unjustifiable infringement on rights and freedoms, particularly the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association. We therefore ask that you not adopt Bill C‑9 for the reasons detailed in our brief.

First, with regard to codifying a definition of hate in the Criminal Code, we believe that the wording chosen risks lowering the threshold carefully established by the Supreme Court.

Second, the proposed offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols raises a number of issues for us. Our primary concern is the link to Canada’s list of terrorist entities. The Ligue considers that the current process for designating this list is opaque, undermines freedom of association and expression, and does not offer adequate procedural guarantees, while the consequences are extremely serious.

The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism warns against the serious rights violations that can occur when such lists give rise to overly broad and general offences, particularly those related to the display of symbols. We consider that this applies accurately to this provision. Its wording, with its use of vague and imprecise terms, effectively leaves considerable room for arbitrariness in its application. This opens the door to arrest on the mere basis of displaying symbols that may be used, in particular, in the context of peaceful demonstrations.

Thus, it represents an unjustified violation of the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and could also represent a violation of the right to equality on the grounds of national or ethnic origin or religion.

In our opinion, the defences provided for this new offence are more limited than those that already exist in the Criminal Code.

[Lynda Khelil, spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés]

Thank you, Ms. Flores Echaiz and Mr. Chair.

I will continue.

The creation of the offence of intimidation of a person to obstruct their access to a building used for religious worship or other places, and the creation of the offence of obstructing or interfering access to these places, pose significant problems.

The notion of “provoking fear” in a person in order to prevent their access to a place seems extremely vague and subjective to us. It does not appear to respect case law, which recognizes that protesting is an inherently disruptive form of expression that disturbs and interrupts daily life. Disruptive acts that cause discomfort, embarrassment and subjective fears are not likely to restrict the right to protest or picket. The same applies to the offence of “obstructing or interfering” access, which could criminalize a number of disruptive or disturbing behaviours that are constitutionally protected.

Furthermore, the places listed in the bill are countless and difficult to identify. Given that these places are also workplaces, the new offences risk disproportionately penalizing the workers who work there.

In addition, it should be noted that demonstrations may take place in front of locations listed in the bill not because of the nature of the location, but because of the event taking place there.

Given that the Criminal Code already provides sufficient tools for victims of obstruction or intimidation, these new offences are, at best, unnecessary. At worst, and this is what we fear, they actually seek to criminalize acts that are protected by the Canadian Charter. At the very least, they will have the effect of deterring the identifiable groups that are targeted for protection from demonstrating in certain places. In our opinion, such an infringement on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association is therefore unjustifiable.

Furthermore, the creation of a new offence related to committing a hate-motivated offence would undermine the consistency of the Criminal Code, which currently provides that hatred is an aggravating factor in sentencing. The maximum penalties are also being increased excessively, breaking with the principle of harmonization of penalties.

Finally, the proposed elimination of the Attorney General’s consent would not change the practice in Quebec, but we believe it would reduce effective screening elsewhere in the country, increasing the risk of unfounded and abusive charges.

Thank you for your attention.

We are now available to answer members’ questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you both.

We now turn to the Canadian Bar Association.

Ms. Lee, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Kyla Lee, Lawyer, The Canadian Bar Association]

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Kyla Lee. I am speaking on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association’s criminal justice section and its sexual and gender diversity alliance. The CBA is a national association of over 40,000 lawyers, law students, notaries and academics. Our mandate includes seeking improvements in the law and the administration of justice. The criminal justice section represents both Crown and defence counsel from across Canada, giving us a balanced perspective on criminal law reform.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, addresses a deeply concerning rise in hate-motivated conduct across our communities. We support the intent of the legislation, which is to protect historically targeted groups and to respond to the reality of hate in Canada. At the same time, we believe some provisions would benefit from clarification to ensure that the bill achieves its purpose without unintended consequences for charter-protected rights and without unintended consequences for the historically marginalized people it seeks to protect.

The first is with regard to the definition of a hate-motivated crime offence. The definition of “hatred”, while derived from the Supreme Court of Canada’s Keegstra and Whatcott jurisprudence, becomes confusing in the bill’s clarification. The proposed subsection states that discrediting, humiliating, or offending alone is insufficient to meet the definition. This language, when taken out of context from the case law, risks narrowing the concept in a way that will cause uncertainty in prosecutions and defences alike. Hate crimes inherently discredit and humiliate their victims. Clarifying that those elements are insufficient creates ambiguity rather than guidance. We recommend removing or redrafting this proposed subsection to more accurately reflect the jurisprudence.

Second, we have concerns about the new offence of intimidation or obstruction of access to certain places. The sections agree that people must be free to access places of worship, education and community life without fear. Our concern lies in the breadth of the proposed language. The actus reus “obstruction” and “interference” is undefined. This could encompass peaceful protest or assembly, particularly surrounding complex issues for which there is no clear political or social consensus. Section 2(c) of the charter protects the right to peaceful assembly. Without clearer wording, individuals engaged in legitimate protest near such sites could face prosecution simply because their presence or expression causes discomfort. We suggest that Parliament more precisely define what constitutes unlawful obstruction or interference to make it clear what conduct specifically is being addressed. Parliament should also strengthen the exemption for “communicating information”.

Third, we have concerns regarding the provisions surrounding the display of terrorism or hate symbols. The intention, to prevent glorification of hate and terror, is indisputably laudable. That being said, our concern is proportionality and certainty. Only two specific symbols, the Nazi swastika and SS bolts, are enumerated in the Criminal Code. Leaving the determination of other prohibited symbols to regulation is simply inadequate. This offence directly engages freedom of expression rights. As such, fulsome parliamentary debate, study and discussion are necessary to ensure that anything specified as a hate symbol is properly and thoroughly considered. We need look no further than our neighbours to the south to see ways in which a government’s regulatory power can be misused to quash free speech. We also recommend that the offence require proof that the symbol was displayed for the purpose of promoting hatred. This ensures that legitimate educational, religious or artistic displays remain protected, consistent with the bill’s own defences.

The CBA sections share the government’s goal of addressing hate-motivated violence and intimidation. Our suggestions aim to make these new provisions both effective and constitutionally sound, targeting conduct that spreads real harm while safeguarding the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of our democracy.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their opening statements.

For the six-minute round, we'll start with Mr. Brock for six minutes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for your attendance and participation.

Without limiting and without reflecting on the seriousness of this particular study, there was a decision released by the Supreme Court of Canada last Friday that is very disturbing on its facts and its implications moving forward for those being prosecuted with child sexual exploitation related offences. For that reason, I'm asking for the indulgence of the witnesses while I intend on moving a motion.

Mr. Chair, this motion was put on notice this past Monday, November 3, in both official language. I wish to read the motion into the record at this time. I move:

That, given that the Supreme Court of Canada removed mandatory minimum sentences for offences related to child sexual exploitation, and incorrectly ruled that these mandatory minimum sentences were cruel and unusual;

And given that the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, as well as the Leader of the Official Opposition in Manitoba, have all publicly called for the use of the notwithstanding clause to overturn this decision;

The committee call on the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reinstate these mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual exploitation, and that this be reported to the House.

Unfortunately, the decision itself is some 70 pages long, and approximately one page of those 70 pages is actually devoted to a description of the facts that were read into the record and accepted by the original trial judge in the finding of guilt. I think it's important that this committee and Canadians who are watching these proceedings truly appreciate the heinous nature of the facts the Supreme Court of Canada was faced with.

For the record, I will be reading from paragraphs [9] and [10] of the decision. The decision is known as the Quebec Attorney General v. Senneville.

Paragraph [9] reads:

Louis-Pier Senneville pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)(a)...) and to one count of accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1)(a)). He admitted having been in possession of 475 files, including 317 images of children constituting child pornography. Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors. Mr. Senneville admitted that he had acquired these images through specialized sites and that he had possessed them for 8 months. He accessed these images for 13 months. Mr. Senneville is a former soldier who was 28 years old and had no criminal record at the time of the sentencing decision. The decision noted that he cooperated with the authorities and complied with strict release conditions.

Paragraph [10] reads:

Mathieu Naud pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography...and to one count of distribution of child pornography.... He admitted having been in possession, for 13 months, of 531 images and 274 videos of child pornography, most of which were of children from 5 to 10 years of age being subjected to sexual abuse, such as fellatio and vaginal and anal penetration, by adults. Mr. Naud used specialized software to access that material, make it available and wipe out any traces of it.

This decision was released last Friday. From last Friday until earlier this week, there was absolute deafening silence from the Liberal government, particularly Prime Minister Carney and his justice minister, Sean Fraser. In fact, Prime Minister Carney was very active on his social media over the weekend, including last Friday, highlighting all the photo ops of him in Asia on his trip. There was not one mention of a decision that has rocked this nation. As for justice minister Sean Fraser, there was absolutely nothing until confronted in the House by opposition members asking for his immediate use of the notwithstanding clause.

We've heard, as I've indicated, through the nature of the motion how various premiers and other leaders have reacted. To be fair to Sean Fraser's office, there was a spokesperson who did utter a statement on Friday denouncing child abuse and exploitation generally. The statement remained noncommittal on whether the federal government intended to challenge the ruling.

A recent article states:

In Fraser’s home province of Nova Scotia, meanwhile, the provincial Attorney General and Justice Minister Scott Armstrong issued a blunt rebuke on Saturday, calling the judgment “deeply troubling” and demanding action.

“Nova Scotians should be able to expect that sentences for those who commit horrible crimes will protect the public and not leave victims feeling more vulnerable,” Armstrong said in an official government statement released on Saturday.

“This ruling raises serious questions about whether the punishments will truly reflect the severity of these offences and the pain they inflict. Mandatory minimum sentences send a clear message that exploiting children is among the most serious crimes, and will be treated that way.”

Armstrong added that he would share his “grave concerns” with Fraser and urge Ottawa to “take action to ensure our justice system continues to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children and youth.”

Further on, the article states:

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre each condemned the decision in separate posts on X.

“This decision is outrageous,” said Premier Smith in an X post shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision was rendered and made public. “The possession of child pornography is a heinous crime, and even a one-year minimum sentence is already far too lenient.”

Smith says she is “calling on the Federal Government to immediately invoke the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to overturn this ruling and ensure the protection of our children.”

In an X post similarly timed to Smith’s, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said: “I can’t believe it. The Supreme Court ruled against one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the possession and access to child pornography.”

Like Smith, Ford also called for the federal government to intervene, saying that “the Notwithstanding Clause was designed to protect the will of the people” before demanding that the federal government “overturn this decision immediately.”

Poilievre went further, pledging legislative action if elected and calling the court’s decision “dead wrong.”

“Child-porn users must face mandatory prison time. The Supreme Court ruling today removing those penalties was dead wrong,” the opposition leader wrote on Friday before promising that a future Conservative government would “use the notwithstanding clause to protect the rights of children by locking up child-porn users with mandatory prison time.”

In one of today's papers, there is a heading on a story which reads, “Fraser wrong, use notwithstanding clause in wacky child porn ruling”.

The article states:

If ever there was a court ruling calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause, it’s the debacle issued by the court last Friday. And yet the Carney Liberals are saying they won’t overturn that politically motivated and poorly thought out decision.

Justice Minister Fraser was asked about using section 33 of the charter to override the court several times on Tuesday, and said he said that he would not do it. In a shocking 5-4 decision last week, the majority ruled that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year was cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of the charter. They did so not by ruling on the case before them—and I highlight the facts that I read out—but by inventing a new possible case to arrive at their politically motivated conclusion.

Justice Mary Moreau, who released the majority decision, invented the reasonable hypothetical of a 17-year-old girl texting a nude image of herself to her 18-year-old boyfriend, who then shared it with another 18 year-old who held onto it for a while instead of deleting it. Justice Moreau said that, in this case, a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography would be cruel and unusual and violate section 12 of the charter; therefore, she ruled that the mandatory minimum had to be struck down in all cases.

The ruling, starting with the reasonable hypothetical, is insane. No prosecutor is going to bring those charges in the made-up case that Moreau used to justify her actions.

I'm going to pause right there, Mr. Chair, and remind this committee that I enjoyed an almost two-decade career as a Crown prosecutor. I can inform you that what the Supreme Court of Canada didn't touch at all is the use of discretion. The unrealistic scenario that Justice Moreau used in that decision, in my view, would never see the light of day in any criminal court.

Police have discretion. They are the first line of intervention when matters are brought as a potential breach of our Criminal Code. In the circumstances before them, I can't imagine, as a former prosecutor, any police service charging this particular individual with one count of possession of child exploitation material. There are other charges available to the police service in those circumstances. Even if the police service of jurisdiction had decided to lay a charge and bring it to my attention or that of any Crown attorney in this country, I doubt very much that we would exercise the discretion, because it's a hybrid offence, to immediately proceed to prosecute by indictment seeking a minimum one-year penalty. It is ridiculous, and it is extreme.

The article further states:

There is a world of difference between a 17 year-old girl voluntarily sharing an image of herself with her 18 year-old boyfriend and a 3 year-old being forced into sex acts.

Justice Moreau knows that, but she also philosophically opposes mandatory minimum sentences and invented a case to arrive at her conclusion. It's revolting; it's judicial activism. To use the Latin legal term, usurpatio legis, she has usurped the law and taken over the legislative function by bending the law to her view.

Given that there is no appeal beyond the Supreme Court, Parliament should use the notwithstanding clause in a case like this, but Fraser is saying no. His words are, “We don't intend to override the Constitution to fix the problem”. This is where Fraser and I disagree. Using the notwithstanding clause to overturn this ruling would not be overriding the Constitution; it would be overturning a bastardization of the plain meaning of the charter. It would be telling the judge, five of them, actually, that their job is not to bend the law to their own vision; it is to interpret the law as written. In the immediate term the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause to put these five judges in their place. After that, Parliament should look to draft and pass legislation in guidance for the courts to restrict the use of reasonable hypotheticals.

This valid tool of the court has seen rapidly escalating abuse over the last decade to the point that we arrive at this decision.

Most importantly, Mr. Chair, “In Canada's system, Parliament and not the courts are supreme. It's time for a government in Ottawa to act like that is the case...to protect our nation's children.”

I do want to highlight the comments by Minister of Justice Fraser: “We don't intend to override the Constitution”. The use of the notwithstanding clause, section 33, is part of the charter. There's no overriding here. It's an interpretation that is not worthy of acceptance.

I'm going to be wrapping this up very shortly, Mr. Chair, but I do want to highlight some of the language in the dissenting opinion. I would note that four justices were part of the dissenting group that prepared this judgment. That included Chief Justice Wagner himself.

They basically start off by saying, “Our case law”—meaning the Supreme Court of Canada's case law—“is categorical: a mandatory minimum sentence does not necessarily violate s. 12 of the Charter.”

They state as follows:

The appeal should be allowed. It has not been shown that the minimum sentences provided for in s. 163.1(4) and (4.1)(a) of [the code] constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of s.12.... The impugned provisions are constitutionally valid and operative.

The censure of society and the law must be reflected consistently and rigorously in the sentences imposed on offenders who are guilty of sexual offences against minors. Through the imposition of more severe sentences, the justice system expresses society's deep and rightful indignation. A fit and proportionate sentence is one that is consistent with the teachings of [the Supreme Court's decision in] Friesen, 2020 SCC 9,...and that gives effect to Parliament's intention that sexual offences against children be punished more heavily.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

For the benefit of witnesses, when a member makes a motion like this, we do have to suspend regular proceedings. I have no guarantee that we will get back to questioning until five o'clock, so I do ask for your indulgence as we hear the motion.

I recognize three Conservatives who had their hands up first, starting with Mr. Lawton, Mr. Baber and then Mr. Gill, followed by Ms. Lattanzio.

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

I am really gobsmacked, Mr. Chair, and quite disappointed, that this Conservative motion is necessary.

When this Supreme Court decision came down last week arguing that a mandatory minimum sentence for the possession and acquisition of child sexual abuse and exploitation material was cruel and unusual punishment, I thought that this could be and would be a unifying moment for members of Parliament and parliamentarians of all stripes. I actually had a moment of hope that the Liberal government would do the right thing here and say that this was ridiculous, and that it would reintroduce the law at the first available opportunity by using the notwithstanding clause, a key part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, to assert that Parliament, as the democratically elected body by Canadians, gets to have the final say on this, not an activist judge.

I'll speak very briefly to why the mandatory minimum is necessary in the first place.

The two offenders who were at the centre of this Supreme Court ruling, each of them, had hundreds of images of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, referred to in the decision as “child pornography”. For one of them, 90% of the images were depicting young girls between the ages of three and six years old, some of which showed them “being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors.” The other offender had hundreds of images and videos as well of children from five to 10 “being subjected to sexual abuse, such as fellatio and vaginal and anal penetration, by adults.”

The judge at the trial stage gave the first offender the bare minimum of 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently at his convenience and nine months of imprisonment. The second offender was given a very similar and in fact identical sentence.

Without a mandatory minimum, that sentence, which is already in and of itself offensively low, may have been even lower. That is why a mandatory minimum sentence is necessary, and that is why we are calling on this House to reintroduce this legislation with the notwithstanding clause.

I was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. To my knowledge, there are no photos or videos of that, and I hope that will end up being true.

Child sexual exploitation and abuse material does not exist on a computer screen with only the person who possesses it. There are victims—hundreds of victims—of this. There is a market for this. The government needs to send the strictest possible penalty and the strongest possible message in denouncing this.

This should not be a partisan issue. This should be something that every member of this committee—Liberal, Bloc and Conservative—can support regardless of what the Minister of Justice has said on this: that we call on the House to do the right thing and protect children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

We have Roman and then Amarjeet.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This is not only about kids already abused, raped and exploited in these pictures and videos. This is about more kids in the future who will be raped because the courts fail to punish these perverts enough and thereby deter future perverts. We have to go hard on this so that we can kill this industry.

I used to lecture on the charter a bit. I want to talk about the charter here. What was the point of the notwithstanding clause? It was to prevent absurdity. Attorney General Jean Chrétien used the notwithstanding clause to seal the deal on the charter. That's how it came about. He specifically used an example for absurdity that the Supreme Court could come up with. He gave a hypothetical: For instance, what if the Supreme Court found that possession of child pornography was protected under the freedom of expression? That's the example he used. I think everyone in this room, even the Liberals, would agree that such a finding would be absurd. That's not the scenario we have, but it's close.

Senneville pleaded guilty to possession and access to over 300 images of children, mostly girls between the ages of three and six, being sexually exploited. Naud pleaded guilty to possession of more than 500 images and more than 250 videos, most of which were children between the ages of five and 10, many being raped and sodomized.

I'm disgusted by this, colleagues. Striking down the mandatory minimum sentence for each of the two counts is exactly the kind of absurdity that the notwithstanding clause was designed to prevent. I say this as a lawyer in good standing in Ontario. This is crazy. This is precisely why section 33 was inserted into the charter.

I'm tired of the use of these hypotheticals every time the court sees an argument of overbreadth. A first-year law student can come up with a hypothetical that would not make sense and render the law overbroad. Do you know what happens when there's a crazy scenario like the court considered to strike down the mandatory minimum sentence? There's common sense. The police don't charge. The Crowns don't prosecute it.

These guys are monsters. I'm proud of my colleagues and I'm proud of the Leader of the Opposition for clearly saying that we're going to invoke the notwithstanding clause when we're in government to protect these children from these monsters, to prevent this absurdity that the Supreme Court has arrived at. Attorney General Fraser is refusing to invoke the notwithstanding clause. He knows it's appropriate under the circumstances, but then he would have to be arguing against himself in court after the factum he submitted last month.

I ask this of my Liberal colleagues on this committee: Do your jobs to safeguard the law and protect children. Call on this government to invoke the notwithstanding clause and lock up these monsters who, through their actions, contribute to the rape and sodomy of children. Please do the right thing.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Gill, please go ahead.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As my colleagues have mentioned, the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to remove the mandatory minimum sentences for offences related to child sexual exploitation is absolutely disgusting. The court ruled that a minimum one-year sentence for these offenders is “cruel and unusual.” The things that are cruel and unusual are the horrific and damaging acts that these offenders commit against children.

Child sexual exploitation leaves deep, lasting psychological and emotional wounds that can shape the rest of their lives. As parliamentarians, we have the utmost duty to protect innocent Canadians, especially children. That is why this committee must call on the Liberal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn the Supreme Court's disturbing decision and to reinstate mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual exploitation.

The call to use the notwithstanding clause in this case is not a partisan idea. It is supported by leaders from across the political spectrum at both the federal and the provincial levels. They agree that protecting children and not offenders must be our priority.

With this level of support, this committee must do its part. We must pass this motion and urge the government to act, to make it clear that Canada will always defend our children. Canadians across the country are watching and waiting for Parliament to step up. We hope the government will not stand in the way of the majority of Canadians and will choose to defend our children and not those who exploit them.

Thank you, Chair.