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.