Justice Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

MP Dhillon, it's over to you.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to start with Professor Alford.

With police reporting over 2,200 crimes already this year, do you agree that Parliament has some duty to ensure the safety of people and to ensure that there is peace in our society?

[Ryan Alford]

Well, there is a hierarchy of responsibilities for the government.

I would say that, generally speaking, when people talk about a rule-of-law state, they're talking about a constitutional state in which the primary responsibility of the government is to observe the constitutional limits for anything that it might want to do. It would be very easy to address crime by rounding up suspects and executing them without trial, but we can't do that within our constitutional state because of the existing constitutional limitations. Observing those limitations is deemed to be of higher importance than addressing any problem, however pressing.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

You spoke about the possibility of parts of the bill being struck down, and that, in the past, you testified and something like this occurred.

What would you propose we do as parliamentarians and people who are here to protect society and make laws? What do you suggest, given all the hate and violence that's taking place these days?

[Ryan Alford]

My suggestion is that, when you want to create legislation, you have to understand it's only going to stand if it's indeed constitutional. There's no purpose in passing legislation that, as soon as it encounters a constitutional challenge, will be struck down. If you want to address this issue of hate, you have to craft legislation that conforms to the existing limitations and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In this case, I would just say that, at minimum, you have to go back to the definitions in the bill, particularly those found in proposed subsection 319(7), as proposed by clause 4, and have it reflect quite accurately what is said in the leading cases of the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly Whatcott—as I and Professor Pardy have highlighted.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

My next question is for Ms. Al-Azem.

We've seen a rise in hate-motivated threats and vandalism against mosques, synagogues and other religious institutions and cultural centres.

How meaningful is this legislation for those communities that simply want to gather and worship in peace?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

I very much appreciate your question.

Again, I can understand that the ambition behind this legislation may be very noble in attempting to address hate.

To Professor Alford's point, if you do it in a way that goes beyond what you're setting out to do and infringes upon people's free speech rights, that is a huge concern for all community members, including the community members we're purporting to protect.

I would also note that, as far as the Muslim community goes, I see, day in and day out, the cases that come across my desk. Just this past week, there was a violent assault on a Muslim woman in Toronto. She was viciously beaten on the streets of Toronto. Unfortunately, those kinds of obstruction provisions don't address a lot of the real-life cases that come across my desk. I think this is where it's very important to go back, have meaningful consultation and make sure we strike the balance and get the right type of legislation moved forward.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

It's all about balance, but if these consultations took place, what would you do differently? What would you suggest differently?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

For instance, 319(2.2)(c), the concerns there about confusion and resemblance, that should not make it's way forward. You can't even train your way out of something like that. You can't train law enforcement out of something that is ambiguous in the way that it's even defined. It effectively criminalizes confusion. I would start by removing those very obvious concerning portions.

There should be real consultations with civil society community members, whether that means looking at the definition, making sure we get that right balance, or making sure that what we're proposing actually addresses the real causes we're seeing of hatred, and that we don't unduly restrict people's legitimate rights.

As the CCLA pointed out earlier, there should be legitimate rights to free speech, free expression and free assembly.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you so much.

I don't have any other questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am grateful to Ms. Bussières McNicoll and the other witnesses for being with us today.

Ms. Al Azem, I would like to know what you think of the religious exemption. Bill C‑367 was introduced to eliminate from the Criminal Code the two defence provisions in paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b), which allowed the wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism if an opinion was based on a religious text.

Do you think these exemptions, these defences, should remain in the Code or be eliminated?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking about the defences for these types of hate-related issues. I really appreciate your question because I didn't get the opportunity to get into some of my concerns about the defence set out in this bill. It includes the defence for the display of symbols for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, which is not contrary to the public interest.

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

I'd like us to focus only on the religious exemption for now, Ms. Al Azem. Are you familiar with section 319 of the Criminal Code? If not, I'll change the subject or speak to a different witness.

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

Yes.

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

Okay, so you know what I'm talking about. Briefly, what is your opinion on eliminating these defences from the Criminal Code? Do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

I'm not going to have enough time to flesh out my points in the time I believe I have left, but in terms of defences, generally, they do need revisiting. The part whether it's contrary to public interest may address the concerns you're trying to raise. I would further state that there's no defence for academic interest, and there's no defence for political speech or protest—

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

Pardon me, Ms. Al Azem. I don't want to be impolite, but I have to interrupt you because we don't have much time.

I would like to ask your opinion on the following. About two years ago, in the fall of 2023, in Montreal, Imam Adil Charkaoui publicly stated: “Allah, do something about these Zionist aggressors. Allah, do something about the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them, and spare none of them!”

I would like to know your thoughts on that kind of statement being allowed in Canada.

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

I'm sorry. I didn't quite hear the end because of the translation. Could you please repeat?

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

Yes, I can repeat the quote, but the clock is ticking, and I don't want to repeat it many more times. In October 2023, Adil Charkaoui said: “Allah, do something about these Zionist aggressors. Allah, do something about the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them, and spare none of them!”

Do you think such statements should be allowed in public in Canada?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

If I understand what you're saying, I believe the public interest piece does address what you're saying. Do I think that religious text should be criminalized? No. I think that's what you're trying to get at.

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

You don't think that should be a crime, and you think it should be allowed. Do I have that right?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

I don't believe that religious texts, including the Bible, the Torah and the Quran, should be criminalized, no.

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

Ms. Al Azem, I'm not asking you if the Bible is a criminal text. My question was about the quote I read to you twice.

Do you think such statements are acceptable in public in Canada?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

I'm actually not familiar with that statement or the context of that statement, so I wouldn't be able to—