Justice Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay.

Professor Alford, you talked, and rightly so, about there always being a balance. I agree. The charter statement should make clear that this is a clear violation of section 2, there is no doubt. The question is whether it's saved under section 1. There are restrictions on freedom of speech that can be saved under section 1, as Keegstra and other cases have said.

There must be a limit where, for example, my right to freedom of speech blocks someone else from exercising their right to freedom of speech. For example, if I intimidate or obstruct someone from entering into their place of worship so they no longer have a right to practise their religion freely, we can't say for sure how a court would rule, but it is a legitimate decision of the legislator to determine if that would be consistent with a section 1 limitation of section 2 rights.

Would you not agree, Professor Alford?

[Ryan Alford]

I do agree, and I would say the reason I agree is that there we're talking about what people label time, place and manner restrictions that don't talk about the content of the speech. Therefore, it's far more likely to say that it's legitimate restriction, because we're not making this discrimination on the kind of speech that is involved.

I think what you're pointing to is the kind of thing that we should be crafting rather than talking about the particular types of speech or the intentions behind speech.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's totally understood, and I appreciate that discussion. I take note of your points under section 319 and the definition.

Ms. Al-Azem, I'm going to ask you a completely different type of question.

I don't think you understood the translation of what Monsieur Fortin said in French, and I just want to give you the context in English so that you could perhaps answer and put yourself on the record as you want. Maybe you want to leave what you said, but I'm not sure you would, because I'm not sure you exactly understood the translation.

Mr. Fortin and the Bloc Québécois have proposed a private member's bill to remove the religious exemption on hate speech. For example, if I make a speech and I claim that, in my good faith, my religion led me to this speech that would otherwise be hate speech, then it's okay.

Mr. Fortin was asking you whether you agreed with him that religious-based exemption should be removed from the bill, which is what he's proposing. That's what he was asking.

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather. I appreciate that you're giving me an opportunity to clarify. I appreciate the question. There are a few things I want to clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Al-Azem, you'll have to be extremely quick in your response, please.

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

For the record, and just to be clear, the NCCM has condemned the October 7 attacks by Hamas and, likewise, all violations of international law.

I also want to note that nobody else was asked these lines of questions on this panel. Again, it belies that there are real concerns about this type of legislation. I'm tired, frankly, of our communities being asked this, two and half years into genocide, and that there's always this proximity to terror and hate that's constantly associated with the Muslim community. I just did want to clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Al-Azem, we are way over time. You can submit any clarification in writing, or someone else can follow up with you in the next round of questions. Thank you.

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

I will be happy to do so.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I would also just note I didn't ask those questions. I asked you only to clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

If we keep this next round tight, we'll get through everyone; otherwise it will cut into Mr. Baber's or Ms. Dhillon's time, so let's get going. We start off with Mr. Lawton, then Ms. Lattanzio, Mr. Fortin, Mr. Baber and Ms. Dhillon.

It's over to you, Andrew.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Bussières, I'd like to ask you about Bill C-9's approach to hate symbols. You would agree that, under the current law, someone who displays a hate symbol—and I'm using broadly the definition, let's say, that Bill C-9 uses—could be charged under section 319 right now. Is that correct?

[Anaïs Bussières McNicoll]

Yes, certain provisions of the Criminal Code can be used and become relevant when hate or terrorist symbols are used. It depends on the context. That is why we're wondering if this new provision duplicates a legislative framework that already exists in Canada's Criminal Code.

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

Do you believe that, as worded now, Bill C-9 would make the display of a symbol on its own a criminal offence, or do you believe that it is just part of the context that could lead to a hate charge?

[Anaïs Bussières McNicoll]

This is interesting because there is tension between how we interpret the text and what the Minister of Justice presented. He clearly explained that this was not about completely prohibiting the public display of any hateful or terrorist symbols. Then, when you read the text, it's a little less clear. It seems to associate this act with an intention to deliberately promote hatred.

That said, the fact remains that there are already criminal consequences for displaying terrorist or hate symbols in Canada, but it all depends on the context.

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

I'm grateful you shared that, Madam Bussières, because this is, as with the hate definition, another example of how the minister's description of the law actually differs from the law itself.

[Anaïs Bussières McNicoll]

There is certainly tension. When the courts have to interpret this, they will refer to the text, the context and the purpose of the law. They will also refer to the intention of the legislator and what was said when the law was proposed. I don’t want to give a definitive answer to this question, but when we read the text, it certainly raised questions.

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

Merci.

Professor Pardy, I'd like to return to you on this.

Are you aware that the Ontario Human Rights Commission views misgendering someone, identifying them as the wrong gender, to be discrimination and against the law, the Ontario Human Rights Code?

[Bruce Pardy]

Yes.

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

When we saw Bill C-16 in a previous Parliament, which was the bill that led Jordan Peterson to speak out so vocally on this, this was expanding Canadian human rights law to include gender identity and effectively embedding in Canadian human rights law the very similar provisions we have in various provincial human rights codes. Is that correct?

[Bruce Pardy]

That's correct.

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

I realize that the Canadian Human Rights Act is no itself tied to the Criminal Code, but it does give a sense of where the government wants to go with this, especially by looking at Bill C-63, the online harms act, from the previous Parliament. Do you see misgendering as being something that could attract a hate charge, with the way that this government has viewed hate and the way that Bill C-9 is worded?

[Bruce Pardy]

Certainly, potentially.... Sure, there's no reason to think not.

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

To go back to the U.K. case, that is precisely why a lot of people are finding themselves receiving a knock on the door from a British constable. It's their tweet of something that has weighed in on gender. Again, I do not take, for the purposes of our discussion on Bill C-9, the view that this committee needs to weigh in on this, but it is a live issue that people should be able to freely debate.

When the state is deciding what constitutes hate, my question is this: What are the implications on limiting the ability to hash out controversial subjects in society?

[Bruce Pardy]

They could be devastating, yes.

Back when Bill C-16 was being debated, I was a witness at one of the Senate committee meetings. One of the senators in that meeting said to me, “Look, I'm a free speech guy, but requiring people to use proper pronouns is just reasonable speech. It's reasonable speech and therefore it's reasonable legislation.” That completely misconceives the whole idea.

The job of the government is not to legislate reasonable speech. If you had a statute which said that Canadians will be required to say hello, please and thank you because that's reasonable speech, that is totalitarian because speech is something that people decide for themselves. As long as the government thinks that its role is to make sure that people are speaking reasonably, then you're totally off on the wrong track.

People's speech is their own unless, for my money, they are threatening violence. If you're over that threshold you're going to get into potential for the kinds of problems that you are alluding to. That potential is very real.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Appropriately, thank you.

I will go to Ms. Lattanzio now.