Evidence of meeting #13 for Justice and Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-9.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I have one last question, if I may, Mr. Chair.
Would this amendment be within the scope of the proposed bill, addressing and tackling the hate crime reforms?
Chantèle Ramcharan
In answering this question, I'm mindful of my role here at the committee. I would say that it is perhaps a question that might be best dealt with.... In terms of an opinion, I can't really provide an opinion on scope.
I can say that the counselling element, the terrorism counselling offence, is essentially what we talked about. It's not included as any clause in the bill.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
This is my last question.
Would you say that this amendment would extend the scope and the definition that we have in the proposed hate crime bill?
Chantèle Ramcharan
It's a different part of the code, essentially. There's no proposal in Bill C-9 to amend the terrorism provisions in the code.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
First of all, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Baber, for these amendments, because I share his desire for a Criminal Code clause that includes the wilful promotion of terrorist activities or the activities of a terrorist group. I share his view that this should be in the Criminal Code. I share his view that it should be a specific offence, and I appreciate his leadership in putting forward a private member's bill on this subject, but I think we all, on both sides of the aisle, who care about having this as an offence, want to put it in Bill C-9, a government bill, to ensure that it becomes law even more quickly. Then we can give Mr. Baber due credit and allow him to put forward a different private member's bill if needed.
The goal is to make this law. I think we should agree on that. I think we differ on just a couple of issues that I would consider the two major issues.
One is that we don't want any amendment that this committee may pass to be struck down by the Speaker as being outside the scope of the bill. Using clauses that are outside of what the bill originally intended to do makes the danger of that much greater. I totally understand why my colleague is rightly saying that this is a terrorist offence and it should go in the terrorist section of the bill, but there was no terrorist section of the bill. To me, adding this as a clause in that section creates a risk that, regardless of how this committee votes.... The Speaker today struck down amendments from a different committee. I would rather see it in the sections of the act that we're amending, to remove or mitigate that risk.
The other question we both have.... I'm sure we all agree that we want this to be upheld constitutionally. I think there are two differences in how we treated the issue. One is that “communicating statements” incorporates private conversations in CPC-2, and LIB-2 does not incorporate private conversations. I think incorporating private conversations creates a charter risk.
I don't know if you folks would want to opine on the potential charter risk of incorporating private statements, but at least in my view, it does. I'll let you come back and let me know if you have a position on it or not, if you're allowed to speak on it. I don't know if you are or not, because if that's legal advice, I understand you can't.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Okay, understood. That's how I would take it.
By the way, let me give due credit to Mark Sandler, who worked with Mr. Baber, who worked with me and who has been a leading voice in this fight against hate in Canada, along with members of an alliance who are all doing exemplary work.
I was originally going to do what Mr. Baber did, which was incorporate the same hate defences in what is essentially a terrorism provision, because that's what was suggested. In the same way that Mr. Baber feels strongly that it should still be an offence, I feel strongly that the defences that are listed as hate defences aren't terrorist defences. Regardless of whether someone thought it was okay on a religious basis, I don't think you're allowed to commit a terrorist act because you have a religious good-faith basis for it.
I think we've drafted it a bit differently. I think we could choose to amend one or the other to try to make it more.... What I am definitely concerned about is the way CPC-1 to CPC-4 are in a section of the act that doesn't come into the bill originally and I'm afraid it would be thrown out. As a result—with great respect to my colleague, whom I truly respect and give him due credit, whichever version passes—I believe it is better to go with the version where we're amending clauses that are already in the bill.
That's my thought, and I'll leave it there. I appreciate the collegiality on this discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
It's back to you, Mr. Baber.
Can I just comment? I'm so pleased to see how well everybody is getting along right now.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
My colleague's comments are noted and appreciated.
If I may, perhaps I could substitute my humble view for the officials' for the benefit of Ms. Lattanzio. At least in my view, counselling a terrorism offence is already in the Criminal Code. Promoting is not. Promoting does not come to the level of counselling. We clearly see a gap with respect to the wilful element and the mens rea. We're talking about speech. I am open to Mr. Housefather's suggestion that we don't need to go there. At the same time, I would hate it if this provision were struck down a block west of here.
Finally, with respect to the scope, I would say.... Look, you have to look at the spirit of the bill. You're talking not just about hatred but about terrorism and terrorist symbols within a hate speech section of the Criminal Code. I would think that this would work by extension. However, in the interest of saving the committee some time, I would think, Chair, that it would be advisable if we briefly suspended to allow for a conversation between my friend and me.
Thank you.
Liberal
November 27th, 2025 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
We've had some discussions with my friend Mr. Housefather. I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to do some thinking, which is why, at this time, I'm going to move to pause, to park the debate on CPC-1 through CPC-4.
I therefore move to stand consideration of new clause 1.1 and clause 2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We'll have a vote on it.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(Clause 2 allowed to stand: yeas 5, nays 4)
(On clause 3)
That takes us to CPC-5.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
When you stand it like that, does it mean that the we would go through every other one of the amendments and then come back to it at the end?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that we're just postponing the debate and the vote on those proposed amendments.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Would it be the last thing we do, after the other amendments?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We would do that before we adopt the title and the bill and all that, yes. We're changing the order.
Okay, so we'll move to CPC-5, which is also Mr. Baber.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Well, since we're doing so well, why stop now?
Could we entertain a very quick suspension? I'll confer with my friends on the other side and with the Bloc, too. If I may, we have three or four similar amendments on the floor before the committee.
Specifically, we have a variation of dealing with the business of removal of the consent of the Attorney General to the commencement of hate-related prosecutions. CPC-5, the Baber amendment, proposes that you cannot lay a hate speech offence, essentially, by private prosecution within the framework of section 504 without the consent of the Attorney General.
Now, I went through the amendments very carefully. I have been able to identify all of the amendments that deal with Attorney General consent, whether it's to all public-related prosecutions, hate speech prosecutions, or just private prosecutions. I have identified them to be CPC-5....
I need to ask to waive privilege of amendments that have not been introduced yet.
Is it okay with you, Monsieur Fortin?
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Ms. Lattanzio, is it okay with you if I speak to your amendments that propose to deal with that, just so we lump them all together?
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
Chair, my understanding is that we're dealing with CPC-5, BQ-1, CPC-8, LIB-3, BQ-4 and CPC-11. There are various proposals on the floor, but I believe that, if we take a quick break, we'll be able to arrive at a fairly quick resolution.
