I'll try for five.
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.
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
Trying is different from doing. I don't think anybody here has been this anxious to get to question period in a long time, but go ahead. I'll give you five minutes, and then I'm going to suspend.
December 11th, 2025 / 1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Harb Gill Conservative Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-9 and the subamendment by Mr. Brock.
Let me begin with the obvious. Hate is harmful, it is corrosive and it has no place in Canada. Anyone who has served in uniform, as I did for nearly three decades, has seen the damage it inflicts on families and entire communities, but here's the part that doesn't fit on a podium or a press release. You can't fight hate with slogans. You fight it with clarity, enforceable tools and legislation that respects both public safety and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is where Bill C-9 falls short.
Police leadership—the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police—has endorsed this bill. They believe it clarifies thresholds and streamlines prosecutions. That's fine. That's the lane they have chosen. I think it's misguided.
What do the rank and file—the men and women who are actually responding to the calls at two in the morning—say? They're telling a different story. Frankly, those who work the front lines often understand the operational realities far more than those issuing press releases. Here are the concerns they raise consistently, privately and with far more candour than you'll ever hear at a podium.
First, they say we already have the tools; we just don't use them. Officers point to the Criminal Code, which I've used many times. It covers intimidation, harassment, threats, mischief and incitement. These laws exist. They work, but they're underused, mainly because leadership is afraid of political blowback.
Second, their complaint is that the definitions in this bill are too fuzzy. Frontline officers know that one misread situation can turn their career into a headline. They don't want that. If the difference between a heated argument and a hate crime rests on vague language, they'll hesitate, and hesitation is the worst operational environment you can create for them.
Third, if the command structure won't support charges under existing laws, why would they support new ones? That is not cynicism. That is their lived experience and was mine. Removing the Attorney General sign-off puts everything on us. That's their complaint. Without that oversight, the constable becomes the choke point and the political lightning rod as well.
Finally, this bill risks policing feelings instead of conduct. I can tell you from experience that officers are trained to respond to behaviour, not to interpret emotional or ideological content in the heat of the moment. These concerns matter. They matter because if officers don't feel confident using a law, it won't be used, and if vaguely drafted legislation is used poorly, it becomes a flashpoint that damages community trust for years.
Let's talk about the communities this bill claims to protect, not the ones in the press releases, but the real communities. Faith-based organizations, churches, mosques, gurdwaras and synagogues have raised serious concerns. Many of them fear that the law's ambiguity could unintentionally criminalize the wrong conduct or chill religious teaching or cultural expression that has never been and should never be criminal. Civil liberties groups have issued the same warning. The charter protects the freedoms of expression, assembly, religion and conscience. When legislation uses broad language, those freedoms become vulnerable to selective or uneven enforcement.
This is not a theoretical risk. This is Canada in 2025. Communities are more polarized, economic pressures are higher, institutional trust is weaker and, yes, government policies over the last 10 years have exacerbated divisions. Rising affordability pressures, social fragmentation and eroding public trust in institutions create the perfect conditions for resentment, anger and eventually hate to grow. You cannot legislate away the root causes of hate. You have to address them. We have to address them.
Bill C-9 does nothing to address the root causes. It broadens offences, removes safeguards and tests the limits of charter rights, all without fixing the underlying cultural and enforcement gaps inside policing itself. Here are the real-world consequences. If this bill is applied unevenly, if one community feels targeted or another feels ignored, tensions get worse, trust erodes further and the very hate we're trying to combat gains more oxygen. That is the danger of poorly drafted law in a fragile environment, which we are living in. Yes, we absolutely need to fight hate, but we need to do it with clear, enforceable laws, proper training, proper resourcing and the courage to use the existing tools we have.
We need to address the social and economic conditions that fuel hate, and we need legislation that does not compromise the freedoms that define this country. Canadians deserve safety and freedom, not one at the expense of the other. Bill C-9 as drafted does not strike that balance. The subamendment proposed by Mr. Brock is necessary to correct the severe imbalance in this legislation. The subamendment is fundamental to our society and our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Thank you very much, Mr. Gill.
We'll suspend now until 15 minutes after QP or votes, whichever is later.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
The meeting is resumed.
Mr. Lawton is the next speaker, but I believe Mr. Brock has a point of order.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Yes, Chair. It's on housekeeping again, to confirm our end time for today and whether we're sitting tomorrow and into next week. Have you received any further word?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm still working on the final details, but I will commit to giving you an answer within the hour. Is that all right?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON
Thank you. Will it be on all three issues?
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
To recap where we are now for a moment, we are debating Mr. Brock's subamendment to my amendment to Bill C-9. I realize that for those who do not immerse themselves in this, it can sound convoluted, but the subamendment I actually welcome. It broadens considerably the protections that I wanted to put into Bill C-9, to refer to all section 2 rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the freedom of conscience and religion; the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; the freedom of peaceful assembly; and the freedom of association. I said when I moved my amendment that it was not in itself capable of undoing the tremendous harm that Liberal members did to Bill C-9 and to, frankly, fundamental liberties in Canada on Tuesday with their amendment eroding religious freedoms from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Look, over the last 48 hours, we tried 17 times, I believe, to emphasize a far less divisive subject that is far more pressing for Canada, one that, as I think was evidenced by some of our discussions earlier, would be far easier to find consensus on among different parties. That's the need to reverse the broken Liberal bail systems that have been causing considerable damage. A point that emerged in question period was that the Liberals are far more invested in dealing with thought crime than actual crime. That's why the subamendment to Bill C-9 is necessary.
I want to go back to the first principles of why this issue has become so central to what this committee is doing right now. I realize that our officials from the Department of Justice have been incredibly patient. I'm so grateful that they're putting the time into this that they are. I'd like to ask about Bill C-9 more broadly. I'll bring it down to the subamendment at hand in a moment.
As is customary with any legislation of this nature, a charter statement is issued. Were either of you involved in either writing or contributing to the work on that charter statement?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's a product of the Department of Justice. Yes, we would have seen it.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
In the charter statement for Bill C-9, there is a recognition of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to liberty, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and another section that's less relevant to this. All of these are potentially engaged by the proposed measures. Other parts of the charter statement are a bit more explicit in saying that some of these freedoms will likely be infringed on by Bill C-9. Is that correct?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The charter statement does not suggest that Bill C-9 would infringe the charter, no.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
The charter statement talks about limitations. It talks about section 1 of the charter, which requires that courts look at reasonable limits on these things. Was removing the religious defence from the Criminal Code under the wilful promotion of hatred ever considered when analyzing the potential constitutional implications of Bill C-9?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Do I take from this that there has been no assessment of the constitutional implications of this amendment? Is that a fair characterization of what you're saying?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The charter statement that was tabled by the minister doesn't speak to it.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Has there been a constitutional analysis, a charter analysis, that the government has done, that the minister has done or that your department has done about this now adopted amendment?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
As a department, we continually support the minister's office in providing legal advice and policy advice on issues relating to criminal law and the charter. On the issue of the religious exemption, the good-faith religious exemption defence is something the department is well aware of and has been engaged on for years as the issue comes and goes. I can't speak to any more detail about what would have been in the advice, but it's certainly something we are aware of.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You used the word “exemption” in your description of it. Does the word “exemption” appear in the Criminal Code anywhere, relating to the religious defence?
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm sorry. I don't think it appears specifically related to the religious defence. It is sometimes a word that we use interchangeably, but maybe I used it incorrectly to describe that.