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
Could I interrupt you for one second?
There are a lot of conversations going on around the room, and I'm having trouble hearing Mr. Lawton and the witness, so if people don't mind....
Go ahead, Mr. Lawton. I'm sorry.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
We have to look at other aspects of Bill C-9, in particular the removal, or the potential removal, of Attorney General consent for laying charges. The reason I bring that up is that you in your previous answer, Ms. Breese, mentioned law enforcement discretion as being a key part of this.
If this falls outside of what the Department of Justice is able to comment on, I understand that, but how do we expect law enforcement to make these calls? Sometimes this comes down to, as Mr. Baber alluded to, nuances in the Arabic language that might not be known. Sometimes it comes down to very technical details. In some cases, there is complexity to what is on the list of terror entities in the first place.
I'm wondering if you could explain how these things would intersect with this section and, with that in mind, why we're talking about trying to remove ambiguity.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As a caveat, this is not my expertise, as I'm not in law enforcement, but we would assume that police have tools and training to be able to identify.... You have special counterterrorism units, for example. There are even tools that are publicly available, like databases of symbols, so relying on that expertise of the police, with their tools and their knowledge, is how that factual determination would be made.
I would always bring it back to this: Whatever the symbol is, if you've established that the symbol meets the definition in the offence, it all has to be considered within the broader offence: the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
We heard testimony from a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I can't recall her name precisely, but she posited that this proposed subsection, unamended, basically amounts to a strict liability offence. The act of displaying the symbol itself, irrespective of motive, will be an offence.
For clarity, I'll read the proposed subsection in question:
Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's position was that the wording of this suggests that displaying, in and of itself, is sufficient to say that hatred is being wilfully promoted. What is your view on that?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I would respectfully disagree. I think it's quite clear that this offence, which, as you see in how it's structured, resembles the existing wilful promotion offence. The display of the symbol is to be understood within the broader context of someone who is intentionally and wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. The displaying of the symbol is the communication. It is not a straight ban on symbols, and neither is it criminalizing the mere display of symbols.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
As my last question, did you or anyone in your department advise the government for or against the section that Mr. Brock's amendment seeks to remove, specifically the wording “resembles a symbol”? Did you advise for or against that in your counsel to the minister?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Our role is always to advise the minister on the criminal law in Bill C-9 as it goes through the parliamentary process. Within that ambit, we continue to provide advice on all matters related to the bill.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I'm sorry. Are you claiming or disclaiming responsibility for that wording? You can blame the minister.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
—our role is to provide advice to the minister on issues related to criminal law. The content of that advice is subject to solicitor-client privilege. We're not able to be more specific in communicating the advice that we do or do not give.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You are paid by Canadian taxpayers. Is that correct?
Conservative
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Chair, we heard testimony here at committee from the Edmonton Police Service that I want to put it on the record just so that it's clear for everybody. I looked up their testimony from when they came before us. This is their take on the whole issue of symbols:
EPS also supports the additional offence of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain specific symbols like the swastika, the SS bolt or symbols of listed terrorist entities. This section clarifies these types of symbols but also reiterates the requirement that police establish that a suspect was wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group in public.
I just want it to be on record that the Edmonton police force was very much in favour of this whole section on symbols.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.
Is there anyone else on Mr. Brock's CPC-7? No.
Shall CPC-7 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move an amendment to the same proposed subsection. Specifically, I'd like to amend clause 4 on page 2, in line 6 only, by deleting the words “confused with that symbol” and substituting the words “a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b)”.
Liberal
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Yes. The amended proposed paragraph would be:
(c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b) that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Okay. Does everybody understand that?
Mr. Fortin, do you need a translation?
