Thank you, Mr. Housefather.
I hope that our Liberal friends will afford the same co-operation and spirit with which I bring these amendments.
The original Bill C-51, which made it into the Criminal Code as part of the Harper government, had already provided for some form of criminalizing the promotion of terror. Nonetheless, in 2017, the Justin Trudeau government repealed vast parts of Bill C-51, therefore creating a gap in Canada's criminal law that effectively permits the wilful promotion of terror.
I think that quite often, when we see this on Canada's streets, we confuse it for what is clearly incitement to violence. Members of this committee have previously heard me say on the record that when someone chants “viva viva intifada” or “globalize the intifada”, in effect what they're doing is inciting violence. However, it appears that law enforcement is reluctant to press such charges.
However, we see terrorist headbands. We see flags. I note that on at least two occasions charges were laid in the GTA with respect to flags—those of listed entities—and later those charges were stayed.
At the same time, we hear open encouragement on the streets, at the University of Toronto and at McGill University inviting students and residents to glorify terrorism and to glorify the events of October 7. In my view, that is incompatible with Canadian society and that should be incompatible with Canada's criminal laws.
That's why I'm proud to have introduced Bill C-257 to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, specifically the wilful promotion of terror, terrorist activity, a terrorist group or the activity of a terrorist group.
Before Mr. Housefather interrupts me, I have been pleasantly surprised to learn that LIB-2, brought by my friend Anthony Housefather, seeks to do something similar, and that is to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism or terrorist activity. I thank my friend for liking my idea and perhaps for sharing his own sentiment that wilful promotion of terrorism should not be permitted on Canada's streets.
I'd now like to turn to a technical discussion. I'm grateful to the officials for being here, as my friend and I have some questions and concerns with respect to how such legislation should be advanced in Bill C-9. It appears that both sides agree that it should proceed in one form or another.
I have sought diligent advice from the legislative drafters who drafted Bill C-257, which was first read on November 17. There are a number of key distinctions between Bill C-257 and what are essentially amendments CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4.
In fact, if the chair would permit me, I would effectively move amendments CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4 all together. I'm not sure if that is the right process. If it's the will of the committee, then I believe we can do that.