Evidence of meeting #14 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
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'd like to call this meeting back to order, please.
Yes, Mr. Brock.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
On a point of order, I'm just seeking clarification in terms of timing. I know that we have resources today until 11:30. I also heard from a reliable source that you plan on sitting tomorrow. I'd like you to confirm the time we're going to start and the time that we're going to finish.
I also heard from that reliable source that there will be a full sitting on Thursday, starting as early as 8:30 in the morning and concluding at midnight. I'd like clarification of that, as well as sitting this Friday.
I wasn't aware of the start time or the concluding time, but we all have other commitments outside this committee room, not only with respect to our commitments to our parties, but also our commitments to our ridings. Obviously, travel arrangements will need to be adjusted if that, in fact, is accurate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Your sources are better than mine, clearly. We have asked for additional resources.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Again, that's interpretation, but fair comment.
We've asked for additional resources. I don't know where we've landed on that, but I'll give you an answer by the end of the meeting.
Look, I have commitments too. We all have commitments, and I'm going to try to accommodate all of that, but it just reinforces the urgency. The sooner we get this thing done...we can avoid all those problems, if necessary. I will find out where things stand as the meeting progresses, because we do have some time this evening to sort that out.
This brings us back to the meeting. When we left off, Mr. Baber, I think you proposed an amendment, but Mr. Brock was on the verge of proposing a subamendment.
Where are we on that?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
I don't know if the subamendment is properly before this committee. I had the impression it was not.
If it is not, I'm prepared to withdraw the subamendment in its entirety and proceed with Mr. Baber's amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
My understanding is that it is not appropriate.
There are two ways to proceed. Mr. Baber can withdraw his, and you can introduce yours, or we can vote on Mr. Baber's, and then it's up to you what you do with yours, depending on the outcome of that.
Are you not proceeding with your subamendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, so we're on Mr. Baber's amendment.
Does anybody want to speak to it before we move to a vote?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay, we're going to go to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This takes us to new LIB-2.
To clarify, if you'll recall, last time there was some issue with page numbering. LIB-2 was originally on page 11. It's now on page 12, and the reference number is 13784838.
I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Housefather.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Chair, because this was discussed in the same context as Mr. Baber's CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4 amendments, and we parked those until the end, I would like to do the same and park this, to be discussed in conjunction with Mr. Baber's amendments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. I'm told that would require parking—to use your language—other proposed amendments, and we'd have to move to clause—
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
That wouldn't make sense, Mr. Chair, with respect. Can I just understand that? There is no line conflict with my amendment, LIB-2, and any other amendments. It's simply language to be inserted after something. There should be no reason that it would prejudice any other amendment from moving forward.
The only thing that wouldn't be able to move forward is a vote on all of clause 4, which would have to wait until my amendment was heard. There would be no line conflict, and it should not preclude any other amendment from going forward.
I'd ask you to rereview that with the legislative clerk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
There's uncertainty, Mr. Housefather. We can move forward to clause 5 and then go back to it, or we can proceed and address any problem that arises as a result.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I'd like to understand that, again, Mr. Chair. There are other amendments to clause 4 that do not have a line conflict with LIB-2. Why could those amendments not be dealt with in their proper order? We can park LIB-2 until the end and simply not vote on the entirety of clause 4 until we come back to LIB-2 and Mr. Baber's amendments. That's all I'm asking.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. We're going to suspend for just a couple of minutes to get clarity.
Liberal
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for this indulgence. I was hoping to have more discussions about this.
You will remember the last meeting when we talked about the wilful promotion of terrorism. I strongly agree with Mr. Baber that this should be in the Criminal Code. He presented amendments about where this clause should be, which is the terrorism section, but I don't feel it would be receivable in light of this bill. I think it will have to be withdrawn. I had other issues with it, so I put forward my own. It should be in the hate section, where it would be proper, but it's like putting a round peg in a square hole.
I had some discussions with the Minister of Justice, and I'd like to read out his letter to me. He said I could share it with the committee. It says:
“Dear Anthony,
“Thank you again for the thoughtful way you have engaged with Bill C-9. I appreciate your willingness to work with us in what has been an understandably intense and emotional debate.
“I share your concern about the glorification of listed terror entities in Canada, and I agree with you that the status quo is not good enough. I am committed to a serious, focused examination of how Canadian law should better address the glorification of terrorism.
“As the amendments proposed were not in the initial text of the bill or previously consulted on, I would appreciate more time to properly consult and to respond.
“Thank you again for your leadership on these issues and for your collaboration as we work to get Bill C-9 right and to address the broader legal gaps you have identified.
“Please feel free to share my request with the committee if desired.”
This is the last I have from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice. Out of courtesy to him, I will not put forward the amendment. I will give him the space and latitude to come forward with a consultation, and then hopefully a legislative fix, which I hope will arrive before Mr. Baber's private member's bill. If not, I will support moving Mr. Baber's private member's bill to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I appreciate the predicament Mr. Housefather is in.
We currently have a situation where there is a desire for a comparable piece of legislation on each side of the aisle. It's a rare occurrence in this place, and it's the right policy at the right time.
I understand we have a process issue here that we can't get around. I anticipate that the Conservatives will put out a motion to expand the scope of this bill at some point to try to accomplish the ability to pass the Baber amendments—CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-4—and therefore have this placed correctly within the terrorism section of the Criminal Code. I hope there will be consensus on the other side for this.
I appreciate your comments and your effort, Mr. Housefather, very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, both.
That takes us to BQ-3.
I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Fortin.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bill C‑9 is part of an effort to legislate against hate, a fight I support 100%. I think that is pretty much the same everywhere in the House of Commons. There is already a provision in the Criminal Code that proposes to combat hate, namely section 319. In a nutshell, it prohibits or considers it an offence to promote hatred or anti-Semitism, in subsections (2) and (2.1) respectively. However, there is a problem with one of the defences provided for in subsection (3) of section 319. It states:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
The same can be read in paragraph (3.1), which refers to paragraph (2.1).
The problem with this defence is that it creates a situation where someone can commit acts or make statements that would otherwise be prohibited under section 319 of the Criminal Code, but which may not be prohibited if they are based on a religious text. In our view, this is an exception that has no place in our legal system in Canada.
I will refer to an example that has been given a few times, but which is worth looking at again. Last year, preacher Adil Charkaoui, in front of an audience listening to him, prayed to Allah to identify the enemies of Gaza, to exterminate them and to leave none behind. I don’t remember the exact words. It was a speech that clearly incited hatred and for which we expected the Attorney General to take legal action. However, no legal action was taken. We suspect that the Attorney General, upon reading section 319, realized that in a trial, this individual would benefit from a defence based on paragraph (3)(b) or paragraph (3.1)(b) of section 319 of the Criminal Code.
If Bill C‑9 aims to effectively combat hatred, we believe that this religious exception should be removed from the Criminal Code. Amendment BQ‑3 therefore proposes, as a first step, that clause 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following after line 12 on page 2:
(1.1) Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is repealed. (1.2) Paragraph 319(3.1)(b) of the Act is repealed.
These are the two provisions that allow for a religious defence for an offence of incitement to hatred, in the first case, and for an offence of incitement to anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial, in the second.
Secondly, the amendment proposes that the bill be amended by replacing line 19 on page 2 with the following:
journalism, education or art, that is not con‐
Line 17 of page 2 reads as follows:
No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.2) (a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest;
The prohibition of symbols has already been discussed.
We understand that the use of a symbol that would normally constitute an offence is considered legitimate if it serves a purpose related to journalism, education or the arts, and that there is a defence based on this exception. However, the existence of an exception for the use of a symbol for religious purposes seems to us, once again, to be contrary to the intent of Bill C‑9, which is to prohibit hatred.
Hate is something detestable, no pun intended, that must be eradicated from our society. In our opinion, when the Criminal Code prescribes offences related to the promotion of hatred, it should in no way allow a defence based on religious pretexts. Regardless of which religious text one reads, whether it be the Bible, the Koran, the Torah or any other, religion should never be interpreted in such a way as to allow the incitement of hatred. By reproducing provisions in the Criminal Code that allow for religious defences, we are creating confusion and sending an undesirable message that religion can be used to incite hatred.
I submit that this is not the case. Nowhere in any religious text, whether Catholicism, Christianity in all its forms, Islam or Judaism, is it stated that inciting hatred is a good thing. Unfortunately, not everyone reads these texts in the same way. It would be truly detrimental if, by passing Bill C‑9, we allowed religion or religious texts to be interpreted in such a way that they enable their adherents to incite hatred or anti-Semitism.
I therefore propose that we adopt amendment BQ‑3 to remove from the Criminal Code the religious exceptions currently found in section 319 and those proposed to be added in Bill C‑9.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Mr. Fortin.
I have Mr. Brock and Mr. Baber.
Mr. Lawton, was that from before or was that on this?