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.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
To be honest, I would like to see the [Inaudible—Editor] for myself, but yes [Inaudible—Editor], potentially.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Come on, Marc. Let him answer. What's the problem with my question? You don't like it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
No, I think your question is totally fine, but you've asked it eight times.
Mr. Baber, it's over to you.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Pardy, I'll permit you to answer for my friend's benefit.
The call in Montreal was for extermination of the Zionists, or supposedly a prayer for extermination of the Zionists.
Do you believe that is protected speech?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
No.
In the abstract, if you say to me that you call for the death of people, whether it's particular people or a group of people, that in my books is not okay. I don't think you should be able to hide behind the context of that advocacy.
I hope that answers your question.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
Professor Pardy, I would like to talk about a few elements of the bill that have yet to be addressed today.
The new criminal hate offence can be laid in response to any offence contrary to any act of Parliament. Is that correct?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Right. It sounds like it, yes.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
In other words, you can predicate the stand-alone criminal hate offence on conduct that is not necessarily criminal.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Sure, that's correct. That's possible.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
For instance, you could suggest that non-payment of wages under the Canada Labour Code, if it is motivated by hate, could lead to a criminal charge.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
You could suggest that if someone's engaged in the suppression of votes under the Canada Elections Act, that could lead to a criminal charge.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
—especially given that the government seeks to lower the bar to convict...of hate, at the same time removing the safeguard of the attorney general .
Would you recommend that we confine the application of the stand-alone hate offence to offences truly criminal in nature?
October 23rd, 2025 / 4:55 p.m.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Well, first, yes, absolutely.
Second, I would recommend that you get rid of it all together. That's because what you are now doing, even if you limit it to criminal offences, is setting up two tiers of violent offences.
Let's compare two things. Let's say somebody assaults two different people. In the first case, they just choose someone randomly on the street, or they pick somebody they know. In the second case, they pick somebody because of their identity. In both cases, they do exactly the same thing. They beat them up. Both of those things are wrong. They are both offences. They are both equal because the amount of violence is equal. What we're doing now is saying that one of those is more serious than the other one.
No. They are both serious. They are both violent. They are both wrong.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
If a person intimidates someone while obstructing them from entry into a religious institution or an educational institution, isn't that already illegal? Isn't that already criminal?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Yes, it is criminal if there's any kind of intimidation or violence involved. In the sense that we have Criminal Code offences that can be applied there. If those offences do not apply because the elements are not there, then all you're probably talking about is speech, and speech should be fine.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
I would think that if you're intimidating someone while obstructing them from entering the premises, that would be assault.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
You would think so, yes, if you have actual obstruction. If you are standing in the way and moving around to make sure that they can't get around you and yelling in their face, then that sounds like a Criminal Code offence that we already have.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Professor Pardy, I look at this bill overall. The government is lowering the bar for what hate speech is. It's removing the safeguard of the attorney general consent, potentially opening folks to politically motivated prosecutions. You can lay the new hate charge on top of what is essentially civil conduct.
I don't understand why this Liberal government is so obsessed with criminalizing freedom of expression.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
I don't either. I wish I knew.