Justice Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[Brandon Silver]

I would trust that any member of the House, given the opportunity to comment, would condemn anti-Semitism. In my own experience engaging with members of the House, I see that to be the case, that condemnation of anti-Semitism is something that should be above partisan politics, and...the strong support from all parties in the House on the matter.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Wonderful, so not signing a declaration condemning anti-Semitism is a bit of a problem. I'm glad we got there, Mr. Silver.

Your organization's founder, Irwin Cotler, actually advised Mr. Anthony Housefather, a Liberal member of Parliament, to leave the Liberal caucus over anti-Semitism in the Liberal Party. Do you agree with Mr. Cotler's advice?

[Brandon Silver]

I'm here representing the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. You might want to consider addressing any questions about Professor Cotler's views on any particular electoral matter to him directly. I'd be pleased to comment on any aspects of Bill C-9.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

You did mention political leadership as being important. Do you think there has been leadership from the Liberal Party on anti-Semitism in the last two years?

[Brandon Silver]

The references to political leadership were with regard to what tangible—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I appreciate that. Do you believe there has been leadership from the Liberal Party of Canada in condemning anti-Semitism in the last two years, yes or no?

[Brandon Silver]

What we call for here is for government members of Parliament to—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

That is a yes or no question, Mr. Silver. Are you declining to answer?

[Brandon Silver]

In condemning anti-Semitism, there is a need for—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Okay. I reclaim my time, sir, if you're not going to answer.

I'd like to turn to you, Ms. Hallett.

You mentioned protecting teachers against hate. Your concerns and engagement on Bill C-9 are in regard to what you're identifying as being directed at teachers. Is that correct?

[Cassandra Hallett]

That's partially correct. Our concern is for everyone in the public school system—teachers, students, education workers. We're deeply troubled by a rise in hate against students from vulnerable groups, as well as educators from vulnerable groups.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Have you read the Government of Canada's report, “Antisemitism in Ontario's K-12 Schools"?

[Cassandra Hallett]

I have not read that specific report. However, I have read many reports on increasing violence in schools, and I have been part of many resources to create safe, inclusive spaces for our schools.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you.

One of the take-aways from the report is that, of the thousands of incidents, a great many of them are anti-Semitic incidents. One in six anti-Semitic incidents involve teachers or school-sanctioned activities.

Does it concern you that teachers and schools are actually involved in perpetuating hate against students?

[Cassandra Hallett]

Any perpetuation of hate is a concern. I would not comment more on a report I haven't read and one statistic that's been pulled out of context for me, but I can assure you that the vast majority of educators across this country are doing their level best to create safe, inclusive environments for all of the students in their care, and they deserve the same as educators.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

What do you believe should be available to students and families dealing with anti-Semitism when the person of authority, the teacher or the school, through a sanctioned activity, is responsible for it? That's what this report gets to, and I do hope you'll take a look at it afterwards.

[Cassandra Hallett]

I will.

I won't speak specifically on Ontario matters as we are a pan-Canadian federation representing the teachers' unions and educators across the entire country, but I can, again, assure you, as an educator myself, that in every province and territory, there are mechanisms in the teaching profession, in public schools, just as you find in other professions. If someone is out of bounds, so to say, if their conduct is inappropriate, if they, as the example you're citing, are inciting hate, then there are mechanisms for follow-up, appropriate channels for addressing that, for complaint, for discipline.

Please don't think that's any different than for another issue. Absolutely there's recourse if someone is conducting themselves inappropriately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Hallett.

Next is Mr. Housefather for five minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much to the witnesses.

I note that three of the different witnesses, Mr. Sandler, Mr. Kogan and Dr. Butler, appeared before our committee last year on the anti-Semitism study, and that Bill C-9 puts into effect many of the recommendations from the justice committee on the anti-Semitism study.

I would also note that the letter that was referred to by my colleague Mr. Lawton actually endorsed each and every one of the recommendations from the anti-Semitism study, some of which Mr. Lawton doesn't endorse, so he would not have signed that letter. I don't think it was a simple condemnation of anti-Semitism. It was actually a detailed request to government to implement measures, many of which are reflected in this law, Bill C-9.

Mr. Silver, do you agree that, regardless of whether some of these measures in Bill C-9 would essentially reformulate certain elements in the Criminal Code, they send an important message to police and to prosecutors, and an important message to provinces and municipalities that these are important to the federal government within our sphere of jurisdiction, and that we want them to act? A lot of the complaints have been that they are not acting. An example would be the intimidation and obstruction offences. Do you feel that using the intimidation and obstruction offences will assist police in actually charging people who are blocking access to buildings?

[Brandon Silver]

A fellow witness, Mark Sandler, gave a very compelling and comprehensive response to some of those matters, which I would indeed echo. From a deterrent standpoint, there's the signalling to those in breach of the law that it adds to their record. Also, there's the signal it sends to law enforcement and to partners at every level of government that this is a matter that should be a priority. There is a requirement for enhanced enforcement that has been a large part of the problem until now. That is why I made my reference to how political leadership—and also, with some specific recommendations about the FPT, the federal, provincial and territorial meetings of the relevant ministers and their counterparts—at every level of government has not been sufficiently utilized for hate speech matters, and whether, for questions of enhancing enforcement and coordination, a specialized working group could be created after a meeting.

Surrounding the questions of attorney general consent, it's presented as a zero-sum game between the current clogged system, where there's not enough movement on approvals and removing it altogether. However, perhaps the FPT meetings can also be a forum for enhanced co-operation among levels of government, on approvals of prosecutions by the AG. I think there are other alternatives that can be offered to ameliorate the situation in terms of providing the relevant consent at the federal level and in partnership with the provinces, territories and even the municipalities.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You don't agree that the careful line that has to be drawn between the interplay of sections 2 and 1 of the charter to limit freedom of expression in certain contexts—I think you expressed it very well—is violated by the clauses right now that are in the bill.

[Brandon Silver]

I would add that there are other relevant sections of the charter as well—section 15 on equality, section 27 on multiculturalism. There are multiple charter values that come into play, and quite consistent Supreme Court decisions throughout several decades that uphold the narrowly tailored restrictions regarding hate speech, and which actually align with not only section 1 being a valid restriction, but also uphold the other sections of the charter that espouse core Canadian values.

To your earlier question on obstruction, on hate symbolism, there is an additional component of very specific, proscribed symbolism. That is new, and it's important. I emphasized in my remarks why these symbols incite hate and are anti-democratic, and that is an important addition to existing criminal restrictions.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

My last question is for Mr. Sandler.

You agree that Bill C-9 should proceed, that it's important and that law enforcement will get a good lesson from Bill C-9 to actually enforce provisions that they previously, we all agree, had not been enforcing—perhaps the new ones and old ones.

Can I ask you about removing the words “hateful intent” as well, in terms of the delimitations on flying the terror symbols? What exactly would you propose be changed? What would you remove, exactly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Mr. Sandler, respond very briefly, or you can submit a written response.

[Mark Sandler]

Very briefly, if you see my written submission, I've set out a series of proposals that would more clearly tie the symbols to terror activities, and it would be a free-standing offence that wouldn't require proof of all of the elements of wilful promotion of hatred. I've set that out in more detail in my written submissions, Mr. Housefather.