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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Miller
Thank you both.
Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sandler, I understand from your testimony that you support Bill C‑9
That is good, but I am not sure I understand your position on the requirement to obtain the Attorney General’s authorization to prosecute hate propaganda. Bill C‑9 proposes to remove that requirement. In your opinion, is it a good idea to remove it, or should it be retained?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
I've said I support Bill C-9, with the qualifications that are set out in my written submission.
One qualification is that I do not support the removal of the attorney general's consent altogether. I see two alternatives. One is that you retain the attorney general's consent as a safety measure against the misuse of these sections. The alternative is that you retain it, at least in relation to private prosecutions, because that's where the real mischief will take place.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Sandler.
Mr. Silver, I would like to ask you the same question. In your opinion, should we retain the provisions of the Criminal Code that require authorization from the Attorney General before bringing such an action, or should we get rid of them, as proposed in Bill C‑9?
Director of Policy and Projects, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
I agree with my colleague Mr. Sandler. There are other solutions. We can create a more efficient and faster system without having to eliminate the provisions that require the consent of the Attorney General. We can keep them and create a more efficient internal process that involves collaboration between the different levels of government, namely the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Director of Policy and Projects, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
I apologize for the quality of my French. I am trying my best.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Sandler, if Bill C-9 isn't amended significantly, if the provisions remain as far as removing the requirement for the AG consent as well as the watered-down definition of hate are concerned, could you support this bill in its current form?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
The simple answer is no. I need to see movement on the attorney general's consent, and I need to see movement on a definition of hatred.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
You've made some other points. I can't remember which question you were responding to, but you were talking about, I believe, a preacher in Montreal who you believed had violated the laws as they are written.
Do you believe that the laws in Canada, particularly those that pertain to the incitement of violence, are enforced equally and consistently across the country today?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
That's a question that could occupy an hour of time.
The bottom line is that I work with law enforcement right across the country. I do not believe that the current measures are enforced in the same way in every jurisdiction. Sometimes the laws are underutilized in some jurisdictions, and that's not the case in other jurisdictions. No, I don't see an even application of the law.
Conservative
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
I've set out in a discussion paper that was presented at the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism a series of issues which I think have to be addressed.
The first is that police officers have to be acquainted with all of the legal measures that are available to them to combat hate, and police officers are sometimes unaware of those provisions that exist.
The second is that police officers need to understand what forms of hatred exist and, in the context of anti-Semitism, what contemporary anti-Semitism looks like. They have to understand what it means in order to apply the law effectively.
Third, they have to be supported, whether by municipal police service boards or municipalities if they're municipal police forces. In other words, they don't direct the day-to-day decisions made by police, but they have to demonstrate a zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred. They have to create policies on policing that should be implemented by the police force, and I see some of that not taking place right across the land.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
With the concerns you raised earlier that you then connected to not being able to support the bill in its current form, if the bill does pass in its current form without those modifications, what do you think are the most likely potentials for abuse or the most worrisome potential elements for abuse?
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
There are two that concern me the most. I don't want to see in this highly politicized environment we live in private prosecutions being laid, for example, against Zionists just for being Zionists. That's what we're going to see, efforts to weaponize sections of the Criminal Code. That could take place regardless of whether this legislation passes or not, but that's why the attorney general's consent, or the proxy that I've suggested for it, is of concern to me. The second is that, although the courts may interpret the definition of hatred as being synonymous with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, I don't want the risk of relitigating the existing sections of the Criminal Code and potentially coming to a different result.
Those are two things I would identify.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
I have one final question for you.
There's been a lot of talk and some concerns surrounding the erosion of free speech and free expression in the United Kingdom and some of the laws there. That's not an area that I'm expert in.
In your opinion, is it justifiable to have concerns about the erosion of free speech and free expression and going down the road of essentially jailing people for making social media posts that some find distasteful, hurtful or even hateful?
October 23rd, 2025 / 6:10 p.m.
Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, As an Individual
The answer is that I've proposed a new section, which is “wilful promotion of terror activities”, because I don't like the looseness in the language that exists in the United Kingdom over the glorification of terrorism, which I think is prone to the concerns that you've expressed.
That's why I look at the terrorism sections that currently exist under the Criminal Code. They're a hodgepodge and very difficult for law enforcement to apply. Law enforcement expressed concerns about it. That's why I've crafted a potential section that's very narrowly crafted, draws upon existing jurisprudence and recognizes that we do not protect, under freedom of speech guarantees in the charter, the wilful promotion of terror—in other words, violent activity.
I am concerned that we not go the route the United Kingdom has taken. I don't think this legislation is doing that, and I certainly don't think my proposed new offence would do that either.
Liberal
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Silver, do you think it's fair to say that freedom of religion and freedom from hate depend on each other—that both are essential to a safe and inclusive Canada?
Director of Policy and Projects, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
Yes, I do, and that's recognized in the charter itself and in the precedent from the Supreme Court on hate speech provisions that were, as my fellow witness, Mr. Sandler, referred to, litigated in the past. They need not be relitigated.
Protecting vulnerable groups from group-vilifying hate ensures their equal participation in society. Anything less is an erosion of democratic norms that allow the full participation of every Canadian in public discourse, regardless of their background, and in living their lives freely.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Your organization has long championed the protection of human rights, and it fights against anti-Semitism around the world. How does Bill C-9 advance Canada's broad leadership in these areas?
Director of Policy and Projects, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
There was a reference in my remarks to Canada's international obligations. While the focus has quite understandably been largely domestic in terms of existing precedent and policy, there is also a corpus of international law with which this dovetails quite effectively, mandating the upholding of equality protections and also validating prohibitions on group-vilifying hate.
This also brings Canada's legislation, and particularly the components that I referenced in my remarks, in line with international standards. This is something that has, again, been decided domestically by the Supreme Court. Also, there is a corpus of international law and a number of international cases that uphold the legality of these provisions.
Liberal
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
This bill focuses on protecting access to religious and cultural spaces from hate-motivated interference. Why is this kind of protection especially important in today's climate?