Justice Committee on May 25th, 2026

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

You're taking some liberties with the perspective that I've shared.

I'm not condoning an incitement to violence. What I'm suggesting is that when you're dealing with a group of individuals who may make comments that could potentially constitute a hate crime in this country, having the sitting Attorney General discuss what outcome should result from a given set of facts is dangerous behaviour.

I think it's important that the justice system operate independently of my office. Our system has been specifically designed to ensure that this independence exists permanently in this country. I think it would be uniquely unhelpful if we adopted the practice that you see in certain other jurisdictions in the world of having elected officials suggest what the appropriate criminal penalties would be for individual cases. We have a different and better system.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I wasn't asking what the appropriate penalty should be. I was asking if you believe that incitement to violence should be an arrestable offence.

You're familiar with my private member's bill, Bill C-257, to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. During clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9, MP Housefather brought amendments to essentially affect the passing of my bill but then subsequently withdrew them. The Association of Chiefs of Police has explicitly endorsed the passage of such a bill to address a significant deficiency in the law.

Will you work with me to adopt the passage of my bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorist activity or terrorist groups?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First of all, I want to thank you for drawing attention to Mr. Housefather's work on this particular issue. He's been a champion for his community and for the Jewish community across Canada, and I want to say “thank you” with him present in the room.

With respect to your bill, I don't want to prejudge what outcome would result, but the reason I wasn't comfortable including it in the previous piece of legislation is that we hadn't done the same policy work on the issue that you've just raised that we did on the measures that were included in the bill.

To the extent that this committee or other committees wish to identify the best path forward, I think that would be a useful exercise, but I don't want to suggest that there's a preordained outcome in terms of a given issue in advance of that policy work being done.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Well, surely, if Mr. Housefather's amendments were before this committee, then there was some work done. I know that the MP for Eglinton—Lawrence has done some extensive work on this issue as well.

Just to confirm the timeline here, I brought forward Bill C-257 to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorist activity or terrorist groups. Subsequently, in Bill C-9, we saw almost identical language from MP Housefather. We went back to negotiate changes to his language, and I understand that he was subsequently instructed to withdraw the amendments.

Could you please tell me why the department blinked? Why did we not pass these amendments in Bill C-9 if they were already on the floor? Why was Mr. Housefather made to withdraw these amendments?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Look, I'm not aware of the.... You described it as the department “blinking”. I'm not aware of any moment in time when this took place, and individual committee members will have discussions with one another and with other actors within the government. I would disagree with your characterization. I don't think I have the authority to make any of my colleagues do anything, if that was the insinuation.

What I meant to say when I offered my explanation earlier was that after last summer, before we came back to Parliament in the fall, we spent a considerable amount of time and energy conducting deep policy work to understand the expected outcomes of different changes that we were proposing to the Criminal Code in Bill C-9. I have confidence that the measures included therein, with the benefit of amendments, including those from this committee, are going to help combat hate in this country and make our community safer.

With respect to the item that's included in your private member's bill, that wasn't part of the set of issues that we examined to the same degree and with the same rigour as we did before Parliament resumed in September of last year.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Baber.

Welcome, Ms. Miedema, to the committee. I'm going to give you the floor for six minutes.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone, and thanks for having me. This is my first time at the justice committee.

As a fellow Atlantic Canadian caucus member, I'm really happy to see you here, Minister Fraser, and to talk a bit about what I think must be a pretty happy part of your portfolio, which is being the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

I've heard a lot from my constituents in my riding of Halifax on the importance of crime prevention, inclusive community spaces, public safety and building really thriving, strong and resilient communities. I know that you're soon going to be responsible for managing some of the funding delivered from the direct delivery stream of the build communities strong fund, which I'm really excited about. I think it's going to really help our local organizations and partners across this country in building strong communities.

Can you please tell us a bit more about who will be eligible for this funding and give details about the process to apply?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you. It's rare that I get an ACOA question, and you're right that we still find all issues we get to work on rewarding, no matter how difficult, even if they may not be happy issues, to use the phraseology that you've chosen.

First of all, before we get to the mechanics of the build communities strong fund, there's a message that was left with me years ago. It was during a visit to Iqaluit for work, and one of the gentlemen who works for the government was talking about an aquatic centre that was put up in the community. The community had a big discussion about whether it should go forward. He said that his wife had said something to him, which he shared with me: When it comes to kids, you either give them something to do or they give you something to do.

When you make investments that improve the quality of life in your community and allow people to participate fully, engage with their neighbours and deploy their energy to something that's useful or even healthy, you end up seeing that communities become safer places. I've talked to police chiefs who have told me that when you have facilities in the communities, you create a culture in which people are out in the streets, enjoying their community. That's not just a symptom of a safe community but a cause of a safe community, because people who would target a particular residential neighbourhood and see kids out playing in the streets and parents watching over them tend not to go to those neighbourhoods.

To answer your specific question at the end of your intervention, we expect that we'll very soon have an opportunity to roll out a particular component of the build communities strong fund that is focused on smaller community infrastructure.

We've had different iterations of this during my time as a member of Parliament, including Canada 150 and subsequently the Canada community revitalization fund. It can help with larger-scale pieces of infrastructure, such as community halls, recreational facilities and cultural facilities, but it also helps with accessibility upgrades, such as a new ramp or an accessible washroom at the local hall.

What I find is common among the projects that we've supported is that they offer a space for the entire community to congregate, enjoy new services, get to know their neighbours and participate in some shared activity. This is one of my favourite programs across government, and to be able to administer it on behalf of Atlantic Canadians is something I'm very much looking forward to.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much.

I am also excited about the launch of the Atlantic Economic Panel through ACOA, which you've taken on since becoming the responsible minister. I think it's great to go from supporting local organizations all the way to exploring a strategy for Atlantic Canada and how we capitalize on the opportunities we have in front of us on defence, trade, transport, etc.

Can you talk to us a bit about the vision you had behind creating this initiative?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly.

For those committee members who are not aware, we've launched a panel of private sector leaders from Atlantic Canada to identify the greatest economic growth opportunities that will help improve productivity in our region, which historically lags behind.

The three maritime provinces find themselves ranked at 58th, 59th and 60th in terms of productivity per capita among states or provinces in North America. We need to do better. This is what motivated me to run for office in the first place, and having the advice and perspective of private sector leaders whose reputation is unassailable is going to help identify the biggest opportunities.

Some of the conversations I've been having adjacent to the panel—which you would see in Halifax, MP Miedema— are remarkable. Think of what Halifax is doing in defence. It's not just the shipyard: NATO, in looking for a defence innovation accelerator, chose Halifax. The start-up community—not just in Halifax, but across Atlantic Canada—is remarkable in the defence space.

Obviously, primary industry continues, with forestry, fisheries, agriculture and mining, but we have massive opportunities to increase exports and to embrace AI in particular as a growth strategy with some of the work that's going on at Dalhousie University in your constituency.

Before I finish, I should mention the renewable energy opportunity, with offshore renewables in particular providing a game-changing economic opportunity like we've not seen in my lifetime. The panel will help shine a light on what these opportunities are and also offer validation based on the panel membership's many decades of collective experience.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

We will move to Mr. Fortin for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, we spoke earlier about what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum and whether the result of 50% plus one is sufficient. I gather from your responses that you consider it a bit premature, at least for Quebec, to answer that question. However, I would like to focus on one aspect.

In Quebec, we have something called Bill 99. This legislation states that a result of 50% plus one is a clear and sufficient majority for a referendum, particularly a referendum on sovereignty.

At the federal level, we have the Clarity Act, which says that this issue is to be determined. It says that a clear majority is required, but it doesn't specify what constitutes a clear majority.

So Quebec says that a clear majority is 50% plus one. Ottawa says that we need a clear majority, but doesn't define a clear majority. In the meantime, we have the various statements that I spoke about earlier from your parliamentary secretary, from you and from the Prime Minister.

I have the following question. What do you think should take precedence? Aside from determining whether it's 50% plus one, plus two, plus twenty, plus one hundred or any other number, what should take precedence between the Quebec legislation—that defines a clear majority in the case of a Quebec referendum—and the federal legislation?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

In my opinion, it isn't up to me to say which legislation is more important.

I think it would be very inappropriate for me, in the absence of a question coming forward, to be declaring which laws would take precedence or how an individual law would be interpreted.

I am hyperaware of the importance and political sensitivity of this conversation in at least two Canadian provinces today. I don't want to do anything that will foment this conversation further, because I believe the removal of either Quebec or Alberta from the federation would be a social and economic disaster for which the country would never forgive itself.

My only interest here—and I wish to deploy every ounce of energy I have—is to make sure that we build a federation that works for Quebeckers, that works for Albertans and that works for every Canadian in this country. Every ounce of energy I dedicate to another item that is adjacent to this issue is an ounce of energy that is misplaced, in my view.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Minister. I understand that. Your response obviously aligns with the arguments used in Quebec in 1980 and 1995. I don't need a crystal ball to tell me that, in the next referendum, this will continue to be the case. The proponents of federalism will tell Quebeckers that Quebec sovereignty would be, as you say, a financial disaster. In 1980, they said that we would lose our retirement pensions and so on. Clearly, these arguments will be debated during the referendum campaigns.

However, the purpose of my question today is to say that, before embarking on a referendum campaign, I think that we need to know the rules of the game. On the one hand, Quebec has legislation defining what constitutes a clear majority. It's a fact. It isn't hypothetical. On the other hand, the federal government says that a clear majority is needed, but it doesn't define what that means. In this situation, what should take precedence? Does the federal government need to comply with Quebec legislation?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I received basically the same question. I'll provide the same response. Without a referendum question in the real world, I think that it would be a bad idea for me to make any projections regarding the outcome of these discussions.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, but this—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It's a debate that exists in Quebec—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, Minister. However, as you know since you used to sit here with us, our time is limited. I have just over a minute left.

Minister, I want to know whether the federal government intends to comply with the Quebec legislation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Again, Mr. Fortin, it isn't up to me to state a preference for federal or provincial legislation. Any government must comply with legislation in general. However, it wouldn't be appropriate to make a statement without a real question.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

There's a real issue, Minister. We have legislation in Quebec City and legislation in Ottawa. Both can be interpreted without contradicting each other.

If the federal government says that it wants clarity, that it wants a clear majority and that it will accept that the clear majority defined by Quebec is sufficient, I'll have an answer to my question. It's a clear question. It isn't hypothetical. What's your answer?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

No. I don't agree with you.

It's very important to me that we don't start engaging in an interpretation of varying laws that may never come to pass—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

It's your legislation, Minister. The federal government's legislation states that a clear majority is required. So you're the one who must interpret it. This is your legislation, so how do you interpret it? What does a clear majority mean? Do you acknowledge the right of the provinces to decide this?

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

There's time for a quick answer, Minister. That's all the time.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I think at this stage it's actively damaging to have an anglophone from Nova Scotia projecting upon a discussion that is playing out in different provinces. If it comes to be that there is no question on this, though that would be my strong preference, I think this conversation should be first and foremost played out in the jurisdictions that have concerns about their autonomy within a united federation, versus seceding from Canada altogether.