Evidence of meeting #9 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.
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
The answer is yes.
What I've said is that the current, proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal. In my view, they send a signal to those who would be minded to commit these offences. They assist law enforcement in giving priority to them and they enhance sentences for it, but they do not criminalize conduct that is not already criminal.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today and for providing your insights on this important piece of legislation.
My question will be directed to you, Ms. Hallett.
First off, as a former school board commissioner and as a mom of three kids, I want to commend the work that teachers do on a daily basis. I profoundly believe that education starts at a very young age. I think it is important, as you stated, that we provide our kids with a very safe environment that is conducive for them to learn, to explore and to have an exchange of ideas, values and thoughts.
With that being said, teachers across Canada are seeing more hate and intolerance in schools. In your opinion, how can Bill C-9 reinforce the values that we see in the majority of our schools, which are safety, respect and inclusion?
Executive Director, Canadian Teachers' Federation
Thank you very much.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Canadian Teachers' Federation will really be in favour of any legislation that helps to ensure that schools can be sanctuaries where everyone—the students, of course, and also the education workers and teachers—feels safe. They're free from intimidation and harassment.
We're seeing, as has been said many times already in this room, an increasing rise in many forms of hate and violence across the country. We do believe that aspects of Bill C-9, as well as potentially other legislation, which we'll speak about at other times, could really make a difference in ensuring that schools are those sanctuaries. There are international declarations calling for schools to be sanctuary spaces. We don't see that being enacted in Canada.
We really do think that much greater clarity is needed in legislation so teachers can teach provincially and territorially approved curricula free from aggressive, hateful actions and protests, etc., and so that students who may identify with a vulnerable group can be safe going to school. That's one of our biggest concerns.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
From your perspective, how does the law of Bill C-9 complement the work that teachers are already doing in order to build that inclusive spirit in their classrooms?
Executive Director, Canadian Teachers' Federation
As mentioned, we appreciate the specific designation or reference to day care centres in the legislation. There could certainly be more in the legislation related to the K-to-12 school system. Even though we recognize that K-to-12 schooling is provincial and territorial jurisdiction, public safety is federal.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Can you provide examples of what work could be done?
Executive Director, Canadian Teachers' Federation
We can certainly follow up with some specific language if that would be helpful.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Sure. You could submit something in writing to the committee, and that would be looked at. Thank you.
It's over to you, Mr. Sandler.
I want to come back on the questions that were asked by my colleague and this idea of having a criminal offence with the civil component to it. I'm very interested because we want to get this right. We want to make sure the law will have the effects it's supposed to have.
I want to have clarification and a better understanding of the separation of the two. In your opinion, how can we make sure this piece of legislation will address that hate exactly, and that it will be criminal in its nature?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
I think what Mr. Baber was raising with me is the fact that the hate offence, as currently defined, applies to any Criminal Code offence as well as any offence under any federal statute. He raised a concern about whether or not any federal statute would incorporate quasi-criminal offences created under other pieces of legislation and, as such, undermine the purpose behind this, which is to address true crime. I said that, if there's concern about this, the way to address it is by saying that the hate offence section applies to the Criminal Code and to specify the other offences to which it applies, rather than leaving it open to all federal offences that exist.
Let's face it. This is going to be applicable, based on my experience, in 99.9% of cases of Criminal Code offences. That's what you want to strike at—labelling offences as hate offences that are conventional offences under the Criminal Code but also having the hate motivation.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.
Ms. Hallett, Ms. Butler and Mr. Kogan, thank you for taking a stand on behalf of the children in our schools. My wife is a teacher. We each have children and grandchildren, and we are always concerned about the disastrous news coming out of our schools. Thank you for what you are doing.
Mr. Sandler, I have a few questions and I would ask you to answer them quickly because, as you know, time is fleeting.
According to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, “everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty” of an offence. Subsection 319(2.1) says the same thing for someone who “wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust”. These two provisions, which prohibit incitement to hatred or antisemitism, are accompanied by a defence whereby “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…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 provision exists for subsection (2.1).
In your opinion, should this defence be removed from the Criminal Code or should it be retained?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
The answer is this: When we originally argued this case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the court relied upon the existence of those defences to uphold the constitutionality of the hate propaganda sections.
I have some concerns about how the religious defence is being interpreted because it's over-interpreted in such a way that people think it gives a defence to religious expression when it doesn't, based upon the words “in good faith”. I'm very sympathetic to your position that the defence should be omitted and that wilful promotion of hatred should remain constitutional, notwithstanding its omission. However, I'm concerned it would reopen the constitutionality of the provision.
It's with some reluctance that I respectfully disagree with removing the section, though I'm very sympathetic to why it should be removed, in your view.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
About two years ago, in October 2023, Imam Adil Charkaoui made a public statement in Montreal. I will quote his words: “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!”
In your opinion, do such statements contravene the provisions of the Criminal Code?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
He committed at least two offences. There's the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, and he also committed the offence of inciting hatred against an identifiable group likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
I heard the position was taken that he was expressing a view on a religious subject. That's nonsense. The defence would not be available to him. It wasn't made in good faith, and it was simply the wilful promotion of hatred. It was no defence that he also used the term “Zionist” as opposed to “Jews”. He was using it as a proxy for “Jews”, and frankly, it was a profound and disturbing call for the extermination of Jews and should have been treated as such by the police.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Overall, in Bill C‑9, there are a number of positions or issues with which I agree, but they are already in the Criminal Code. You discussed this with my colleagues who asked you questions before me.
In your opinion, isn’t passing a bill that repeats what is already in the Criminal Code a bit troublesome, even counterproductive, since it opens the door to interpretations that may not have been intended? In principle, legislators don’t call for something without reason. If we specifically prohibit something, we may be allowing something else.
Don’t you think this way of legislating is a bit counterproductive?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
I don't, but I have to look at each of the sections.
When you look at the hate offence, for example, that is something that is being added which is new, because it is labelling the offence in a different way from the way it is currently labelled. By the way, it's completely consistent with even the more limited use of the criminal law in the United States. They have hate offences in the same way as is being proposed here.
The reason the labelling is important is that a lot of the hate-mongers are repeat offenders, and it's important that the criminal record labels their prior offences in a way that prosecutors and police know that the prior offences were hate motivated. That is not always apparent from looking at the record, and it provides for enhanced penalties if the Crown proceeds by indictment. For me, that's not duplication.
In terms of intimidation and obstruction, because I know your time is limited I'll answer very quickly to say that it is already criminalized by other offences. For me, the message I am getting from police is that if we specifically deal with it in the context of access to places of worship and other places, that will give greater priority and attentiveness on the part of the police to utilizing these provisions effectively.
I recognize the duplication. I would normally agree with you that we don't simply duplicate for the sake of duplication, but for me I think there is some important messaging through the use of those provisions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
We'll do a complete second round starting with Mr. Lawton, and then Mr. Housefather, Mr. Gunn and Mr. Chang. In the third round, I'll do some slicing and dicing to come up with something reasonable, so I'll get back to everyone on the complex math involved.
Mr. Lawton, please begin.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Silver, you alluded to the importance of political leadership. I actually agree that in the context of Bill C-9 we have to look at the broader context of hate and its origins.
I am assuming you would be aware that in August, there was an open letter signed by several Liberal members of Parliament condemning the rise of anti-Semitism.
What do you make of the fact that only 31 Liberal MPs, a very slim minority, signed that letter?
October 23rd, 2025 / 5:50 p.m.
Director of Policy and Projects, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
The engagement by members of Parliament from across all party lines in combatting hate is something that is appreciated by the centre I represent, and we take an all-party approach to our commentary on matters before the House.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I'm sorry. I'm not sure if you heard the question, sir. I asked what you think of the fact that in August, only 32—I apologize—Liberal members of Parliament signed the letter denouncing the rise in anti-Semitism.