Justice Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Pardy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Are you good?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Next is Ms. Dhillon for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll direct my question to Ms. Al-Azem.

You mentioned being perturbed by a certain line of questioning today. You were cut off.

Would you like to elaborate on that?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

Certainly.

I find it really concerning that the Muslim woman in the room was the one who was consistently asked to condemn Hamas, to talk about terrorist actions, etc. I think this proximity, this constant association of Muslims being proximate to terror is part and parcel of exactly kind of thing I mentioned in our initial submission. We've seen for two decades exactly how that kind of line of thinking and that kind of view of Muslim Canadians has really impacted us. It's not just our sense of citizenship; we end up being over-policed and under-protected.

I really appreciate the opportunity to let me finalize that thought.

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

Thank you for sharing that.

You mentioned that there's been an increase in attacks in the last year, and every single day you get a phone call from somebody being attacked one way or the other because of their identity. Could you please talk to us about the difference you've seen between the acts being denounced when you're being called versus what you've seen in the past?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

Sorry, but I don't think I fully understood the question.

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

My colleague Ms. Lattanzio was asking you about getting a phone call every day about somebody being attacked on the basis of their race or the way they look. Can you talk to us about the difference? Have you seen a big increase over the years in violent acts committed against people in your community? What kind of difference is there between previous attacks and these ones?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

There has certainly been an increase. It's been an overwhelming increase for our organization to be able to address.

In terms of the nature or the violence of those acts, no, unfortunately, it's not worse. We saw the Quebec mosque shooting, and that was how many years ago? We saw our London family terror attack, and that was how many years ago? We saw what happened in mosques in Toronto; a caretaker at a mosque in Toronto was killed, and that was many years ago?

I can't say they've increased in intensity because I don't think you can increase in intensity when your starting line is murder. I'm certainly seeing an increase in frequency and an increase in regular assaults alongside Islamophobic remarks or comments, etc., as people are just going about their days, totally unprovoked. It certainly adds to this general phenomenon of feeling over-policed and under-protected.

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

It was mentioned earlier that beating up somebody is beating up somebody, and that merits the same prosecution where somebody is being beaten up simply because they are or if somebody is being beaten up based on the way they look. What do you have to say about that?

[Nusaiba Al-Azem]

The underlying action is the same, but in terms of the impact that may have on a community, in working for a community organization that delivers community impact statements regularly in criminal sentencing matters, I can definitely assure the members of this committee that it does have real impacts.

I'm a Londoner. I was in the room when Nathaniel Veltman was sentenced. I was in the room when his actions were declared terrorism. I was in the room in a full gallery of Londoners who are still dealing with the impacts of those actions on their sense of belonging. It's not just Muslims; we heard from a number of vulnerable community members and community groups about how it impacted their sense of belonging.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

Thank you, Ms. Al-Azem.

Thank you to the witnesses on this first panel. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes to switch over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you, everyone.

We are beginning our second round, which will go until 6:30.

On this panel we have, appearing in their own capacity, Mark Sandler, as an individual, chair of Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism; Cassandra Hallett, director general of the Canadian Teachers' Federation; Cary Kogan, professor, and Deidre Butler, associate professor, from the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics; and Brandon Silver, director of policy and projects, from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights.

I'll briefly remind you that you have five minutes each. Try to keep it to that. We have a little more time today, but there are a lot of you and I think we're all eager to hear your testimony and have some interaction.

There was a lot of back and forth. I'm trying to keep the dynamic between people questioning and the witnesses, but if it gets a little out of hand, I'll ask you to direct the questions through me, just to make sure that we maintain decorum so we can get complete answers from the witnesses today, who have spent a lot of time to get here and have prepared accordingly.

I'll start off in that order.

Mark, it's you first for five minutes. Then it's Ms. Hallett, followed by Professor Kogan, Professor Butler and then Brandon.

Thank you.

[Mark Sandler, Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to address you on Bill C-9.

I bring the perspective of someone who's been involved in combatting anti-Semitism for 40 years and in training police and prosecutors across the country on the availability of criminal measures to combat hate. I have appeared before this committee and other parliamentary committees, and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions, with regard to hate-motivated crimes and the constitutionality of hate legislation.

I'm currently chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, which is a non-partisan coalition of over 60 community organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, a number of which will be filing written submissions supporting the position that I will outline for you today.

I have already provided the committee with a detailed written legal analysis of the legislation and with my recommendations, so in my introductory remarks, I wish to make only five points.

First, I support several of the components of Bill C-9 as enhancements to the existing criminal law, particularly in the creation of a hate offence for those who commit conventional crimes motivated by hatred. Creation of such an offence appropriately labels offenders for the purposes of their criminal records and makes more likely the imposition of true deterrent and denunciatory sentences.

I also support the new offences of intimidation and obstruction, not because they criminalize conduct that would otherwise not be criminal but because I know, having spoken to officers, that the creation of these new offences will incentivize police to prioritize and address hate-motivated crimes targeting vulnerable community spaces.

You will hear some people and organizations contend that these provisions violate the charter. Similar arguments were made by those who opposed the creation of the current hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, and I was there. Those arguments lack merit in relation to the proposed hate offence, especially if the definition of hatred were to track precisely the language adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding limits on freedom of expression. The intimidation and obstruction sections, if anything, more carefully protect lawful protests than existing provisions that might be used under the Criminal Code, based on the specific intent required to prove each of these new offences.

Second, although the removal of the attorney general 's consent is intended to streamline hate propaganda prosecutions, which makes the proposal superficially attractive, it would be dangerous to remove that requirement altogether. The requirement for consent represents an important safeguard against vexatious and frivolous misuse of the hate propaganda provisions. The attorney general 's consent requirement should either be retained as is or retained only in relation to private prosecutions, where the dangers are most acute. As I've set out to you in my written materials, there's precedent for that very approach to be taken.

Third, the existing wording of the new offence pertaining to the display of symbols raises a number of issues that I've identified in my written submissions. I believe that a carefully crafted provision can address the display of terror symbols more effectively than the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation must also be amended to better protect the symbology of Hindus, Jains and Buddhists.

Fourth, there is a significant omission in the legislation—namely, there's a need for the creation of the offence of wilfully promoting terror activities or the activities of a terrorist group. I explain in my written submissions why such a provision is fully compliant with the charter, based on existing jurisprudence, and would focus not on which identifiable group is or is not targeted by hate speech, but on speech that supports violent terror activities, unprotected under the charter.

Finally, the real issue that we cannot lose sight of is enforcement of existing laws. We are underutilizing existing criminal law measures. This committee should signal that all governments and law enforcement must work co-operatively to ensure that law enforcement utilizes the tools they already have available to them, as well as any enhancements this legislation may add, to address pervasive anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred in Canada.

Just over a week ago, a man pleaded guilty in a Toronto courtroom to multiple terrorism-related offences, for conduct that included his authorship and distribution of manifestos on behalf of a white supremacist hate group. These manifestos were cited by criminals around the world as justification for heinous crimes that they committed. The manifestos advocated violence, including sabotage of critical infrastructure, murder of police officers and high-profile assassinations. The prosecutor described the manifesto as including “radically antisemitic” material and incitement to attacks against LGBTQ+ individuals, Jews and people of colour.

Over 34 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the need to place limits on freedom of speech to address the most virulent forms of hatred, because such speech not only marginalizes vulnerable Canadians but also attracts adherents to extremist and sometimes violent ideology. The proposed legislation, with appropriate amendments, represents one step forward in addressing the epidemic of hate crimes that threatens the safety and security of all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Ms. Hallett.

[Cassandra Hallett, Executive Director, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for having me. The CTF/FCE has spoken at committee a number of times in recent years. We always appreciate the opportunity to bring our perspective on issues that impact children, students, educators and their families.

My name is Cassandra Hallett. I am the executive director of the Canadian Teachers' Federation. Our organization represents over 370,000 education workers and their families, with members in every province and territory in Canada.

While we represent teachers and educators from coast to coast to coast, I want to begin with the vision of the Canadian Teachers' Federation—a Canada where every child has equitable access to quality public education. For us it means, among other things, that every child gets to attend school without fear of intimidation, harassment or hatred.

Unfortunately, the CTF/FCE and our member organizations in every province and territory have observed a rise in the level of what we feel is hate-fuelled language and protest in Canada. This language has manifested itself into a climate where students and school staff no longer feel completely safe. Educators and teachers have been targets of public pressure to stop teaching topics in provincially or territorially mandated curricula, such as climate change, the importance of racial or gender inclusion, or the value of gender equity.

There has been an eruption of distrust in educators, with the public questioning whether the protection and well-being of students is a priority. This lack of trust is shocking, not only when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of educators enter the profession because of their passion for teaching and educating, but also because most education workers are more likely than workers in any other industry to have children of their own. The new-found skepticism that education staff and students feel leaves education staff and students feeling like school is no longer the safe and protected space that many people previously believed was the norm.

The issue concerned CTF/FCE members across the country so much that a resolution was passed at our general meeting in 2023 calling for governments across the country to create “safe zones” around schools that made it an offence to hold protests that target or intimidate students and/or staff on the basis of their gender identity, sexuality, race, religion or other protected category. Children, educators and their families deserve to go to their places of learning and their places of work with the knowledge that intimidation and hatred will not be tolerated.

Bill C-9 is seeking to address intimidation felt by those attending an educational institution. The legislation even specifies day care centres. We commend this aspect of the legislation. Children and families deserve access to education without the prospect of feeling unwelcome because they identify with the groups mentioned. This sense or state of safety is something that we unfortunately have taken for granted in Canada. It is saddening to note that protecting schools from discrimination needs to be explicitly outlined in legislation, but this is the moment we find ourselves in.

The CTF/FCE does support the intent of this part of the legislation. The issue of combatting hate is very important for us and for teachers across the country. We recently worked with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and shared some of their resources amongst our members because of the alarming rise in discrimination, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and gender identity-based hate all across the country.

The global political climate has ushered in a new era of divisiveness and animosity. Whatever the reason for this swell in division, children should never be on the receiving end of aggressive shows of disagreement. A school needs to be a sanctuary. Many people understand that schools should be a special place that's outside of the acceptable places to air your grievances or concerns.

As a federal organization representative of educators, we will be the first to say that we stand in line with any legislative change that makes schools or classrooms safer places to learn, play and work; however—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Ms. Hallett, you're way over five minutes.

[Cassandra Hallett]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Can you briefly get to the end of it? We'll be able to ask you questions about that a little later.

[Cassandra Hallett]

I'm almost there, thank you.

I'll just note that we do recognize that the legislation requires more review. We look to the positions of other organizations, including our partners such as Egale, the Black Legal Action Centre, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Canadian Labour Congress, who have legitimate concerns with this legislation.

I will stop there. My apologies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Miller]

Thank you.

Professors Kogan and Butler, you have five minutes total between you two.

[Deidre Butler, Associate Professor, Network of Engaged Canadian Academics]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to share our insights and expertise about anti-Semitism as you review Bill C-9.

I'm Dr. Deidre Butler, associate professor of Jewish studies at Carleton University.

[Cary Kogan, Professor, Network of Engaged Canadian Academics]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

My name is Cary Kogan and I am a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Ottawa.

Deidre Butler and I are the co-founders of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics.

The Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, NECA, promotes academic freedom, research excellence and intellectual pluralism to counter anti-Semitism. Our network includes over 400 faculty members on 52 Canadian campuses.