Banned symbols and Religious freedom: The unfiltered truth about Bill C-9 | Justice minister grilled

Indexed: 2026-05-22

[00:00:01]Welcome senators and welcome to all those who are joining our and following our deliberations. Today our committee is continuing to study its bill um it it study on uh of bill C9 and act to amend the criminal code hate propaganda hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

[00:00:23]Before we welcome our witnesses I'd like to provide a content warning for this meeting. The sensitive topics covered today may be triggering for people in the room with us as well as those watching and listening to the broadcast.

[00:00:36]Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 988.

[00:00:44]Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate's employee and family assistance program is available to them and that a counselor from this program is available in the room at C126 for the duration of this meeting and for one hour afterwards.

[00:01:02]For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honorable Shawn Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada opportunities.

[00:01:14]He is joined by officials from the Department of Justice. Owen Ripley, senior assistant deputy minister policy sector, Joanna Wells, senior counsel and team lead, criminal law policy section, and Marian Breeze, council criminal law policy section. Welcome to all of you and welcome Minister. I now invite you Minister Fraser to make your opening statement.

[00:01:40]>> Uh thank you chair. And how much time do I have for the opening statement?

[00:01:44]>> You know I was being a bit cheeky by leaving it opening because I don't want to limit you to five minutes but I wouldn't like you to take up the whole hour either.

[00:01:52]>> No that's that's fine. Okay, look uh I'll see I'll do I'll do my >> Thank you.

[00:01:59]>> about that time just so we can save time for questions. We've had the opportunity previously and I'll do my best to be brief.

[00:02:06]>> Um >> so I'd like to start by thanking everyone for being here today.

[00:02:15]>> Is not a normal sitting week. uh and the fact that you have um uh showed up outside of the uh normal sitting schedule for these extended hearings um is something that I'm grateful for. Uh it think it demonstrates a commitment to advancing important work to combat hate uh across Canada and I wanted to say thank you. Um I wanted to thank you as well for the recommendations that were tabled I believe a month ago today uh from this committee uh that has a lot of crossover uh with the measures that we are debating uh through this uh committee process uh in so far as uh we can deal with the criminal law reforms uh that are designed to combat hate and I hope you'll see some of the recommendations reflected in the content of this bill. Um before I start, it is important to understand the public safety strategies and the importance of this bill.

[00:03:10]The first pillar of this strategy is to reform parts of the criminal code to fight criminals across the country.

[00:03:20]>> This is the criminal code. Uh it's important and I know those on the justice committee will be tired of hearing me say this. uh that we don't simply reform the code and think the job is done. In addition to the criminal law reforms included in this and other bills dealing with uh bail sentencing reform and gender-based violence as well as the combating hate act, uh we need to ensure that we put supports on the front line to ensure that we have law enforcement who is properly trained, community organizations who have the capacity to support victims of crime. uh and that we also take a long view uh to make uh systemic investments upstream uh in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, education and training uh to ensure that we're uh over the long term seeking not only to punish wrongdoing uh but to prevent it in the first place.

[00:04:05]Um, this particular bill fits into that context as uh a part of that first pillar uh the strengthening the criminal laws that are on the books uh to combat a very troubling rise in hate crimes we've seen in recent years in Canada. Um you do not have to uh read the newspapers for too many days in a row uh to see that there is a very real challenge when it comes to anti-semitism, islamophobia, anti-black racism, anti-Asian hate. Um the list goes on. Uh the uh thousands of people who reported hate crimes represent only a fraction of the instances of hate that take place in our communities and the prevalence of of these uh challenging behaviors uh that have crossed a criminal threshold in my opinion in many instances uh demand that we take uh the issues very seriously. Um just to in the interest of time I'll get to the substance of the bill. Uh you will know well the bill uh contains at its core uh four new criminal offenses. the intimidation and obstruction offenses uh that were initially motivated by seeking to ensure people could practice their religion freely by giving uh certain protections through the criminal law to religious institutions uh very quickly evolved into a more complex understanding uh that uh hate is not limited to the doorsteps of our religious institutions. Certainly we should be able to uh uh pray freely at mosques and synagogues and churches and temples in this country. Uh but we also should recognize that uh the protections uh should extend equally uh to uh buildings or spaces used by any identifiable group. Uh if hate takes place at a community center uh for example, uh that is something that we uh desire to extend protections to. In addition to the uh intimidation and obstruction offenses which were core uh campaign commitments, uh we've also decided to move forward with a standalone crime of hate. Uh this is particularly important to me as part of this bill after my engagement with different communities of interest. Um and it was really uh the point was driven home for me through those conversations that when a hate when a crime is committed, it is always morally culpable. Uh but when it's motivated by the hatred towards the victim's identity, it is not just the victim individually who suffers, but the harm reverberates through the entirety of a particular community. uh when we can see that there is a higher degree of moral culpability uh when a crime is not only committed uh but instead targets a victim because of who they are uh it demands additional changes. Uh we've decided to move forward with the standalone crime of hate to ensure that if you assault a a person because of the color of their skin uh that you will face additional charges for the crime of hate. Uh if you harass a person in a university campus or a grocery store uh in a criminal manner. Uh we want to recognize that the uh targeting on the basis of the identity of the victim should cover a hair uh heavier weight in criminal law. Uh and of course uh where the crime of uh the willful promotion of hatred has been committed uh we are adding an additional offense uh where the crime is committed in the context of using a hate symbol. Uh this is to demonstrate that sometimes the tool used to commit a crime can make it a more serious offense. Uh we recognize in the criminal code that there is a different context when you uh commit an assault for example versus an assault with a weapon. Uh when you are committing the crime of a the willful promotion of hate uh but choose to do so uh through the use of a hate symbol in addition to the underlying behavior. Uh that is something that we have determined uh should carry an additional uh criminal offense in the manner that we have uh moved forward with. Um through the parliamentary process, we've heard that there were certain elements that we didn't quite get right uh when we had our first draft of this bill and have reflected those changes and amendments we've accepted from the House of Commons Committee process. This includes being more specific in defining uh a hatred under the Canada's criminal law and in fact it reflects uh very closely the advice of uh this committee in the report that I'd mentioned that was tabled a month ago. Uh we've also uh heard from communities that the additional layer of protection to have the consent of a provincial attorney general should be maintained in the criminal code and we've accepted that amendment. Uh we've also listened to the Hindu community who asked us not to include language around the swastika which of course carries a very different meaning uh in their community than the hawken cruise as it's uh uh referred to in the legislation uh does for so many others. And of course there was a lengthy debate on how we ought to define uh the uh religious exemption to uh uh hate crimes. And instead, we wish to recognize not that it should operate as a defense uh to uh what would otherwise be a hate crime, but instead should be better captured in the definition of a hate crime to ensure that we're not dealing with uh we're dealing with a definition that recognizes the ordinary practice of faith uh is not a hate crime to begin with under uh any circumstances. Um my hope is that we can pass this bill expeditiously. Um to the extent that uh uh we can uh go into the summer with the additional protections uh that this bill provides to communities uh of faith uh but also more broadly uh communities uh who have a shared identity more broadly. Uh I know that we could um uh see the protections afforded to those individuals who make up the community more quickly. Uh >> thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts for improving this bill and I'm looking forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

[00:09:34]>> Thank you very much, Minister. We will now uh proceed to questions from senators and senators, you have five minutes uh which also includes the answer and so we will begin with our deputy chair, Senator Bernard.

[00:09:47]>> Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister Frasier, for being with us today. Uh, Minister, yesterday we heard a clear divide. Police want a strict hate crime code and a fixed list of symbols, but human rights advocates warn this forces traumatized communities to constantly rely new hate icons. How does the government intend to reconcile rigid policing boundaries with a social uh trauma-informed framework?

[00:10:24]Specifically, can you tell us what safeguards exist to ensure this legislation is not selectively enforced against the very racialized and uh members of protest groups it aims to protect.

[00:10:43]Minister.

[00:10:44]>> Uh thank you Senator uh for the question. Um so one one learning uh for me over the course of my uh past more than a year now in this job was how much we depend on the judgment of law enforcement in uh individual sets of circumstances. And with every criminal law that is on the books there is going to be some judgment uh that is applied at a local level. When we have advances in uh the criminal law, it's important that we equip law enforcement uh with the training that they need. Of course, working with uh local jurisdictions provinially and municipally as that may be the case. And that work is going to have to continue after whatever version of reforms are implemented through this bill. Um in addition though uh we wanted to have some objectivity uh to prevent the uh potential weaponization as as you discussed uh to the uh potential symbols that could be used. And we wanted to make very clear that a the threshold is is very high before you're into the territory of committing a hate crime with the specific definition around hate with the extreme vilification and detestation. uh but also maintaining the threshold question of the commission of the crime of the willful promotion of hate before you engage in an assessment as to whether the display of a a symbol for example uh would in fact uh be a crime. Uh we could have decided uh to move forward with a version of the bill that simply criminalized the display of a symbol. There would be obvious constitutional concerns uh and we wanted to scope out uh protests and in fact have uh included specific language in the bill to that effect. Um what we do want to uh uh manage going forward is having a process that will make clear to some degree that there's an objective process behind which symbols are put on.

[00:12:30]I feel a bit uncomfortable personally uh having an individual minister uh simply say this is a new symbol that could be banned. You can imagine how that could be abused. uh but through a combination of maintaining a very high threshold for the definition of hate and the crime of the willful promotion of hatred before you engage in analysis as to whether the um uh the hate symbols piece would be engaged. Uh I have some comfort uh that this is not going to be um uh applied in a a way that is um abusive of local law enforcement authority with the obvious caveat that we'll need to work with uh police of local jurisdiction as well as provinces and municipalities to ensure that appropriate levels of training are put in place as these uh laws evolve.

[00:13:13]>> I have time for a followup.

[00:13:14]>> Yes.

[00:13:15]>> So on Thank you. I'm glad you mentioned training because the education and training was certainly one of the themes that came up from many witnesses yesterday as well and and many of the witnesses talked about education being key to implementation.

[00:13:31]So can you tell us Minister Frasier how does the legislation safeguard the use of these symbols in educational, journalistic, academic andor artistic contexts?

[00:13:45]>> Yeah. So um I I think there's two two elements. First there's an explicit carve out for um academic journalistic uh the general uh sense of free expression. You can imagine an educator who wants to teach the history of the Second World War uh may engage the use of the symbols that were uh uh used by the Nazis during that time. Um we're not suggesting it's a crime to teach kids about that history. But if you instead seek to promote hate against an identifiable group through the use of those symbols, that's a very different uh different thing, uh we are going to specifically carve out in this bill the use of these symbols for the purposes of of the the nature that you mentioned.

[00:14:26]Separate and apart from that, uh we're also going to need to work and this is going to happen outside of the bill because obviously the uh the bill is about reforming the criminal code. There there should be efforts taken on by different levels of government, not only to protect uh free expression and the letter of the law, but to actually fund training programs uh to ensure that uh law enforcement have the benefit uh of the uh uh the learnings that different levels of government uh uh have when it comes to recognizing when hate exists.

[00:14:56]Uh to ensure that offer officers understand that hate does have uh that higher threshold of extreme detestation and vilification. Um, in addition to sort of having that carveout that offers the protections you've discussed, there will need to be on the back end in perpetuity uh investments made by different levels of government and training so those on the ground applying the law uh know a what the law is and b uh how it ought to be applied in a given set of uh circumstances.

[00:15:21]>> Thank you minister. We'll now move to Senator Tulon.

[00:15:25]>> Thank you chair. Good morning minister.

[00:15:27]So Minister, Bill C16 in the 42nd Parliament expanded protected grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code with respect to gender identity and gender expression while maintaining the existing balance between equality protections and charter freedoms, including freedom of religion and expression. Bill C9 now expands criminal hate speech enforcement and amends section 319 of the criminal code by repealing the statutory defense for good faith expressions of religious opinions or beliefs based on a religious text. Why is the government expanding statutory protections for some groups while removing a long-standing safeguard relied upon faith communities particularly when the criminal code already contains extensive provisions addressing threats, violence, harassment and hate motivated conduct?

[00:16:20]>> Uh thank you Senator. Um, one thing that I wish to to clarify is that in my view, the protections that are being extended to different groups uh apply equally or perhaps uh specifically to uh freedom of religion. The motivation for this bill from the moment we campaigned on elements of it during the recent federal election was to offer enhanced protection to religious uh communities.

[00:16:45]Uh it became sickening to me that we saw continued uh uh harassment of individuals who were seeking to attend their mosque or their synagogue or their church or their temple and were being uh harassed, intimidated, obstructed. Uh and we want to ensure that that people have the the protection to uh practice their faith freely. Um those benefits will occur through the intimidation and obstruction defense as well as the standalone crime of hate uh which which are extremely important to recognize. Um but you raised an important question. We didn't start with the decision to repeal the uh religious defense that emerged through the parliamentary process and obviously that defense was put at a in place at a time that pre-existed the charter and with the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion protections that exist therein. I have faith that those protections will continue. But more specifically, um, one of the things that, uh, when I sat down to think about this issue, um, I'm not convinced that the religious defense as it existed, uh, properly captured, um, the, uh, free religion the way that I envision it, it it should exist, um, the way that it existed before this bill, uh, in fact, the way it still exists today, before this bill is is, uh, advanced, um, would suggest that the practice of your faith could be a hate crime. But if you uh are freely if you in good faith for expressing it that operates as a defense to what otherwise is classified as a hate crime. In my view we should recognize through the definition of hate that the ordinary practice of faith is not a hate crime to begin with. Uh and if we are able to ensure that communities can uh attend their place of worship, can uh preach, can read and educate the public or their uh faith membership on the lessons from their holy books. um then that's uh that that would be a more appropriate way to deal with this uh this unique challenge and that emerged through conversations with different political parties during the House of Commons proceedings. Um my own view is that uh uh we cannot uh allow people to to believe let alone change the law in a manner that would suggest that they can't freely practice their faith. Canada is a country built on multiculturalism, diversity, including religious diversity and uh it's a huge part of the strength of the social fabric of Canada. Uh so in my view uh the shift of the uh uh protections of the religious defense instead to a clarifying provision that uh demonstrates clearly that um the good faith practice of your uh religion is is not a hate crime to begin with rather than it operating as a defense to what would otherwise be a hate crime uh is a more accurate reflection of uh what what the law ought to be in Canada.

[00:19:26]>> One minute. So, Minister Bill C9 risks criminalizing mainstream religious and political symbols based on vague resemblance text. If extremist group misuse the shahada or other common symbols, how how are the police supposed to distinguish lawful expression from banned imagery? And why does the bill target potentially confusing symbols while ignoring universally recognized state symbols? How does how exactly does section 2.2 to protect communities rather than create confusion and selective enforcement.

[00:19:59]>> 25 seconds.

[00:20:01]>> Okay. Uh a lot to get into such a short period of time. Look, my my own view and I've said this at the Parliamentary Committee before the House of Commons is I I don't think that you can um promote hate in in good faith. And if we can uh clarify that the practice of religion in its uh or ordinary way does not constitute a hate crime, we must. Um, I believe that the bill with the four greater certainty clause gets there. I think the heightened definition of hatred and the additional protection that we've put back into the bill with the consent of the attorney general before a charge can go forward all offer additional protections. No one from any political party I've spoken to wants to make it a crime to practice your faith in an ordinary way. Uh, we want to ensure that if you are in good faith uh reading your holy uh uh books, attending a service uh or educating the public, uh that that's not what we're getting at.

[00:20:51]But when you actually seek to promote hatred uh or violence uh against an identifiable group of people that is a different category of behaviors altogether.

[00:21:00]>> Thank you minister. We'll now go to Senator McFeden.

[00:21:03]>> Thank you very much madam chair and thank you minister and officials for being with us today. Um, I appreciate in your opening comments, Minister, that you referenced some of the uh, confusion around symbols. And I'm going to ask a very specific question here about the use of the wording um, in the bill as it stands with willful willfully promotes hatred by displaying.

[00:21:31]And um in very practical terms that would seem to indicate that simply holding displaying something will in and of itself willfully promote hatred could be interpreted that way. So my question to you is whether it it would be better to actually um change one word in that phrase to willfully promotes hatred while displaying so that it's not just the display in and of itself. This is a point as Senator Bernard uh noted when she spoke with you that has been made by a number of different organizations and religious groups and so if you could please just address that specific word in question.

[00:22:15]>> Uh look thank you uh sincerely that's a um a point that's well taken and I I from your question I I think we are aligned in the outcome that we're hoping to achieve. Um my we are not seeking to criminalize the display uh of a given symbol that may find itself on the list.

[00:22:35]uh but instead are seeking to recognize that when you commit the crime of the willful promotion of hatred in its current form and you do so by using a a hate symbol that can uh deliver a greater social harm to the uh group that you may be targeting through that underlying uh crime of willfully promoting hate. Um you can imagine there may be symbols people will use for other purposes. Uh Senator uh Wana Thomas Bernard has enumerated several examples.

[00:23:04]Um to me uh I would want to ensure that we we have a a language used in the provision that will be interpreted with certainty. Um if uh I would hate to through a good faith amendment accidentally water down or lower the threshold. Uh so I would want to ensure that we have the opportunity for our officials to give an assessment uh as to the likely legal interpretation of the language that we've chosen. The drafting that we've put together intended to deliver an offense that would still require you to meet the very high threshold of willful promotion of hatred um through the use of a hate symbol. Not uh saying the use of a hate symbol in all circumstances uh will constitute that crime with a very high threshold.

[00:23:50]Um I don't want to eat up the clock. Uh uh so if there are officials sticking around beyond my time on the committee uh it may be appropriate to um uh get their assessment of the potential interpretation of the language that you've chosen. Senator, >> there are two minutes left. So >> thank I'd actually like to we could go to the officials later if I could please stay with the minister.

[00:24:11]>> Sure.

[00:24:11]>> Thank you very much. Um Minister, so we know that the charter is all about balancing of rights and here we have um political speech um hate speech, freedom of expression balanced with protections of of people's rights not to be subjected to hate and hateful speech. Um I'm going to pick up on a point that was raised with you by um my colleague Elizabeth May in the other place uh and others um but I think Elizabeth spoke to this very are with a lot of articulation and that is the the whole idea of the of a building and the protection of people.

[00:24:51]Uh obviously this is something that is highly relevant to um faith groups in our country, but the the lack of of clarity in this definition um seems to really de facto open up the way to to have bubble zones, the kind of thing that we see um at the municipal level. And I wonder if you could address that please, the the broad language and is this not likely to lead to interpretations that will really limit political speech in this country?

[00:25:25]>> 40 seconds.

[00:25:26]>> Uh thank you. I I don't expect that um that will be the automatic result of this uh the decision to move forward because we've specifically carved out uh free expression, sharing information um in addition to the academic and journalistic exceptions. Um, going to a protest and sharing information can be a very healthy part of life in a democracy. It can be uncomfortable, but there's no right to comfort that's protected by the charter. Uh, but there are reasonable limits uh when we can place on the rights enumerated in the charter. Uh, if there is some pressing social obligation we're seeking to achieve. Um, we're not talking about people who wish to go protest. In fact, we don't have the jurisdiction to establish bubble zone legislation. That would be a municipal regulatory uh authority in all likelihood. Uh but we do have behavior that crosses a line into criminality. And if you are seeking to criminally intimidate or physically obstruct a person from entering their place of worship, that is a fundamentally different thing uh than showing up outside a particular building. A and saying, "I disagree with X uh or I believe that you should know why." and uh making sure that we're only capturing that uh behavior that crosses the criminal threshold rather than criminalizing protest is an essential part of this bill.

[00:26:40]>> Thank you, Minister.

[00:26:41]>> Thank you.

[00:26:42]>> Thank you, Chair.

[00:26:42]>> Uh we'll now move to SA Arnot.

[00:26:45]>> Thank you, chair, and uh good morning, Minister. Uh Minister, uh you mentioned uh the linkage between the anti-semitism report and uh the work in the goals in Bill C9.

[00:26:58]Uh I'm wondering if you support uh the creation, which was a key recommendation, of dedicated hate crime units in provincial and municipal police forces throughout Canada.

[00:27:11]>> Look, at risk of uh stepping on others toes here uh because it's not my uh jurisdiction. Yeah, the answer is is a clear yes. Um when we've seen across jurisdictions not only in the areas of hate crimes but uh across different policy areas um uh sexual crimes for example are another uh organized crime is another where you have a localized force that develops deep expertise and understanding of given sets of issues.

[00:27:39]uh we end up seeing a more nuanced appre uh understanding of how the law is interpreted and that deeper expertise in my view results in in better social outcomes. Uh you can appreciate someone who's never been through a a training exercise uh being asked to interpret change in criminal laws is challenging under the best of circumstances. uh where uh on the contrary example you have not just an individual who's gone through a seminar uh but a person whose expertise is developed through working in a particular policy space and uh enforcing the law on the ground over a period of years uh that person is going to become better at the job that they're being asked to do. Um to the extent that local uh uh jurisdictions, provincial or municipal, uh adopt specialized units across policy areas, including hate crime units, um my um experience with the conversations I've shared is that the individuals that form part of those units uh become more expert and do a better job.

[00:28:35]>> Minister, um we've heard from various witnesses about the need to collect uh enhanced data and certainly disagregated data. I'm wondering, sir, if you'll support a three-year statutory review covering the charges, the outcomes, the democratic uh demographic impacts, attorney general consent decisions, and charter litigation.

[00:29:00]>> Uh, look, generally speaking, I think reviews are um are a helpful tool when you have a legal change to understand that the impact that they've had. Um I've not done the policy work to understand why a three-year uh policy review would be superior to a two or a 5year for example. Um as a general rule I think that they can be useful tools that force a um uh a government or system to uh assess the results of changes they made. U so from my perspective um that's something I would leave to the Senate based on the testimony that uh this committee has heard through witnesses. I I would hope that um uh that this approach before we uh entertain amendments that could potentially delay the implementation of the legislation is backed by uh committee testimony uh that we understand is based on facts and evidence and not um uh not just a general sense of what should happen. Uh but to the extent the Senate committee concludes uh that a review is a useful tool uh that that's not something I find problematic.

[00:29:58]>> Thank you.

[00:30:00]>> Thank you. Um, I will now go to Senator Wells.

[00:30:03]>> Great. Uh, thank you, Chair, and hello, Minister. Um, one common critique we've heard about this bill, uh, including testimony yesterday, is that the law already accounts for hate related offenses, including at sentencing. But Bill C9 creates a new standalone uh, hate crime offense, which means police and prosecutors can charge someone with a hate motivated crime from the very onset. Can you explain uh why having a standalone hate crime offense, not just at sentencing as an add-on, as an aggregating uh aggravating factor, why this matters for communities who are under attack right now in Canada?

[00:30:45]>> Uh look, thank you. Uh this is extremely important and it's important in um in a few ways. Um, and the the most the first conversation I had with anyone in in Canada that really sold me on the importance of a standalone crime of hate was uh Irwin Cutotler, my predecessor in this job, who's remained an active advocate for human rights. And when I say that um we need to recognize that uh a crime of hate impacts not only the individual victim but reverberates through an entire community um I I told Irwin that I was going to plagiarize him uh when I used that kind of a language.

[00:31:22]Uh that came directly from uh his understanding based on a lifetime uh of considering is issues such as this. And when you start to look at examples that you see in the newspaper and you see that a young man in my community was shot on a construction construction site with a nail gun who happened to be the only uh black worker on on the job. I thought to myself, this is not a common assault and it should be treated differently. uh when we see that there are uh members of the Jewish community not only being harassed outside synagogue but being assaulted in a grocery store in the Ottawa region, I think to myself um this is not just the individual who is being impacted but an entire community who sees that they are not safe when they uh experience life in Canada. So from my perspective, we need to recognize that through a separate criminal charge, there is a different moral culpability uh for assaulting someone versus assaulting someone because of the color of their skin, the person they love, or the god that they pray to. Um, we have an opportunity here uh to send a very strong message across Canada that hate has no quarter uh in this country and we will uh pursue not only the underlying charge that justifies crime but separately and uh independently uh the the crime of hate uh recognizing the harm you've done not only to the individual uh but to uh creating an unwelcome unwelcoming set of circumstances for entire u groups of people based on their identity.

[00:32:53]Thank you for that. Uh my next question, um we recognize that hate symbols have been banned around the world for a very specific reason. Not only do they spread fear, but they also function as rallying calls. They signal to perpetrators that fear and intimidation is welcome. They were called to join uh a particular cause or movement. Can you explain for the record why criminalizing the public display of symbols associated with terrorist organizations is a necessary tool to stop spreading that fear and the signaling of support for hate?

[00:33:32]>> Certainly. And uh there was a few just maybe I'll walk you through my thinking of getting here. Um my first reaction when I heard about the potential to do a symbols ban was to say okay we have to be careful here because uh free expression is important uh people should be allowed to uh make a point in public that is a nonviolent attempt to convey meaning that has been the law in Canada for many years. Uh so it was important to me that we established a threshold question that made very clear this is not about free expression and we've tied it to that threshold question of the willful promotion of hatred which is already a crime in Canada. And my own view is that we have different examples through the criminal code when we recognize the tool that you use or the method by which you commit a crime can make it worse. Think about u assault versus assault with a weapon. We recognize that the harm when you use a particular weapon is greater uh when you have a crime of hate versus the willful promotion of hate versus the willful promotion of hate through the use of a hate symbol. We know that both are bad.

[00:34:34]But when you use a hate symbol, not only to bring people together to join the cause perhaps uh more effectively, uh but also the use of that symbol can deliver a greater degree of pain uh to a community for whom that symbol means something very different uh for uh other members of society. Um when you uh uh choose not to uh address this uh this gap in the law, um you're allowing the status quo uh to potentially proliferate and to fester. and you send a signal that we're going to tolerate uh the use of these kinds of uh hate or terror symbols in society uh based on the uh effectiveness through which they're used to help others promote hate and the uh the increased social harm when you have a hate symbol layered on top of the underlying crime of the willful promotion of hate. uh we believe that it uh similar to the standalone hate crime uh deserve recognition as an individual uh offense in the criminal code recognizing the different impact it can have thank you minister will promotion of hatred >> thank you we'll now go to senator ins >> uh thank you thank you to the officials thank you minister for being here uh minister uh yesterday stakeholders and throughout emails and everything else stakeholders have uh shared concern that the hate symbols in C9 do not comprehensively include hate symbols that continue to threaten vulnerable communities.

[00:36:01]What are the benefits and the drawbacks of the inclusion of a larger list in this bill?

[00:36:10]Uh look, thank you very much uh Senator and this is an important conversation and and one uh if I can be completely uh candid and open uh with you uh that I think is likely to evolve somewhat over time. Um one of the things that I felt strongly about was that um I want to protect against the potential harm that some future minister may be able to pick a group they don't like and add them to a list. Uh you can imagine there will be um a pro-development individual who wants to uh uh do harm to an environmental organization. Uh there may be a person of a particular political philosophy who wishes to target um uh opponents who support a different political philosophy. A and those are dangerous uh conversations. Um what I wanted to do to prevent whoever may succeed me in this job from uh abusing the authorities that they could have under this law was to have some objective reference to uh an already established list. Uh when I looked across government at what we actually have on the shelf u the list of terror organizations seemed like a decent starting point. There are groups uh that I have been thinking about that fall outside of that list. Think of the KKK for example. Um that I struggle with because they are as a tasteless and dangerous a group uh in my view uh that exists when it comes to promoting hate but I also want to make sure that there's some objective mechanism through which new organizations or new symbols can be added not just based on the individual preference of the minister of the day. Uh so from my point of view if this is an area for further work that parliamentary committees in the senate or house wish to take on uh or if we need to revise the process through which groups are added to the terror list u that that's something that I am open to but I also don't want perfection to be the enemy of progress uh knowing that creating a new system in the course of this uh particular study could significantly delay the protections for all groups we're seeking to protect. Uh so from my point of view uh I don't want to have a um the minister on their personal whim be responsible for identifying groups but instead really uh want to have some objective basis upon which a group's symbol would be added to this list.

[00:38:29]>> Thank you.

[00:38:30]>> Thank you. Uh we'll now proceed to Senator Pate. Thank you very much. Uh thank you Minister for joining us and thank you to the officials. Um, I spent yesterday in Collins Bay where I met primarily with men who were black. I was last week in prisons in Alberta where I met primarily with folks who are indigenous. Um, it it's very clear there are issues that need to be dealt with in this country that you've identified.

[00:38:56]This is now the third bill um or more than three where there are issues there are already existing provisions in the criminal code. Uh and instead of addressing the issues that you minister have very astutely and um pointed out we need to be taking other concrete steps to address inequality in this country.

[00:39:19]What measures are going to be taken to address those issues? Because even as you spoke and gave the example of assault with a weapon being worse than assault without a weapon, I immediately went to some of the indigenous women I met with last week who are in jail for assault with a weapon because um that was the option um other than being choked or kicked um by the male hands that were abusing them. And so grabbing a plate, grabbing um a knife, his own knife, his own gun um sometimes is the option. And it strikes me that the nuances and the the importance of really addressing the equality issues at the root of this bill and so many others um we're not getting to. And so when will we be taking those concrete steps to address those issues?

[00:40:07]>> Okay. Um there's a few different elements to your question. I don't want to evade any of them. So to the extent we need to come back uh let let me know.

[00:40:15]Um so f first in the circumstances you've described I I would hope that uh prosecution uh prosecutors courts uh law enforcement uh would take somewhat of a nuanced understanding when a person is actually defending themselves for example and there are obviously many cases where uh the outcome isn't exactly as uh uh one that we would believe is just in the circumstances. uh but I I would hope and we need to build in uh uh trust in the system through uh training and expertise developed over many years uh that we'll have more and more cases deliver a just result rather than imprisoning a person who may have been defending themselves uh in in the examples you gave with a a plate or whatever weapon happened to be uh accessible in an emergency situation. Um in terms of the just maybe an a threshold point. Um I I have challenges with the uh point that u there are other provisions in the code that could do this one because it may be may allow us to have the social permission to uh to accept the status quo and I I don't think the laws that we have on the books today are sufficient to offer the protections that we in fact do need. Um the um the other piece that you've mentioned is going to require uh work on on the back end when it comes to implementation and this is a part where I want to make sure I'm understanding your question. When you say when are we doing those other things are you talking about uh training for example or what what what is it that you're you're pointing to? Um well you when uh we've been speaking about other bills you've talked about the importance of ensuring that there people have equal access to supports to uh justice to and yes training is part of that but um when we continue to put in place add-on to laws u provisions that really allow those who have the least a opportunity to have their issues explained or who may already be criminalized. people I'm talking about when um in the cases where they um have criminal law heaped on top of them, they're often already within a vulnerable group that is more likely to be criminalized. And so unless you know part of the role of government I would suggest is to educate the public when we are going um through a mechanism and throwing criminal law at it when in fact we should be taking much broader steps to provide public education provide opportunities for people to have access um to the kinds of supports they need to not go down the rabbit holes of misinformation and disinformation.

[00:42:47]So um it's not as though I can point to a magic date on the calendar and say this is the date these things are happening because they have to happen on an ongoing basis and need to grow incrementally over time. I think for example um the ratcheting up of the impact of race and culture assessments uh pioneered by the African Nova Scotian community in my home province is a good example and we're starting to do more and we've seen Nova Scotia and Ontario both embrace these tools. uh we also uh need to uh make sure that we're uh placing investments in the social infrastructure that cause fewer of these problems to arise in the first place.

[00:43:24]Now, some of that will be very specific around the uh justice system. Uh some of it will be on the social supports around additional support for affordable housing. Some of it will be recreational uh infrastructure with recent announcements in in uh national sport organizations that will have a longer term impact. So it's not as though we can say that um uh wait two or three months there's this big package coming.

[00:43:48]I think every day we need to be introducing the kinds of supports that are both very closely connected to the justice system through training for officers, tools for courts at the same time we make those uh generational uh upstream investments that we violent crime over time.

[00:44:04]>> Thank you very much. Um so before we go to second round um I have a question I'd like to uh put to you as well. Um and uh I also want to remind my colleagues that uh uh the the officials will be here on Monday. So if we don't get to you on second round, you will have another chance to to uh ask your questions. Um, Minister, this is uh in relation to the defense of good faith uh uh religious belief and the clarification clauses uh added by the house of uh the house committee are included only in bill C9 itself rather than being added to the code. Uh what are the advantages and disadvantages of this particular approach?

[00:44:53]Uh look, I don't think it has a significant um legal impact in terms of uh where the actual interpreting uh clause exists. Um it would be unique uh I think in the code to have a um a for greater certainty type clause. I think having a a clear and concise description of what the offenses are and when the elements of a crime can be made out um is is a useful approach in the uh in the code. Um this is something that was determined again not through uh the government's policy choice at the outset of the um the bill being drafted but by uh what was then uh uh minority parliament's uh standing committee on the house side. Um I don't want to prejudge the or rather um question the judgment of the the committee to have chosen the the manner through which they've chosen it. Uh but what was important to me and to committee members was that we made clear uh regardless of where the uh definitional uh for greater certainty clause exists uh that going to practice your faith, reading your scripture and teaching the lessons of your religion uh are not intended to be a crime uh in Canada in no way, shape or form. Uh it really is about promoting hate against an identifiable group. uh whether that's in C9 or in the code directly is less important factor to me.

[00:46:13]Um though I would probably have a slight preference to keep the code um uh trim and concise. Um from a legal point of view, I I don't believe there'd be a significant difference.

[00:46:23]>> Thank you very much. Uh my second question is regards to your open part in your opening statement you mentioned uh that you'd like to see this bill uh go forward expeditiously. I believe that's the word you used and in light of the work that we're doing as even this week on our off week um you know we're working towards doing that. Um my question is um do you are is there an openness to looking at um recommendations from uh committee members uh because as you know we've been hearing uh or amendments I should say uh we've been hearing lots from various communities in terms of their concerns whether it's a word change from uh by to while or other uh such changes that are meaningful uh to specific communities. Is there is there an openness to looking at that despite the expeditious intention?

[00:47:25]>> Uh look, it will depend on the specific amendment as is always the case. Uh I don't want to be in a position where I tell uh another body of parliament uh what they should or should not do. The Senate maintains an arms length relationship from the uh the government and I think for uh for good reason. Um, that said, I don't want to compromise this bill uh falling into the fall of next year. I I'm very grateful legitimately that you are taking time during a non-sitting week, having extended hours to get this bill uh uh properly considered and hopefully passed before we we hit the summer. Uh it demonstrates to me that the Senate wants to play a role in in moving this uh this work forward and uh on pays. uh if there are important features that need to be corrected because uh there is a bad social outcome that will result from the bill uh then by all means do your work.

[00:48:16]Um if however it's a a semantic change for the sake of accommodating a witness testimony when in fact uh there's a different interpretation that officials may give uh on the example that was raised with with us earlier. I think you you have to use your best judgment. Uh to the extent that we can go into the summer with new protections in place for Canadians who have been facing uh unduly high levels of of hate, uh I think we owe it to them to to move as quickly as we can. Uh but I do want the Senate and members of this committee to be satisfied that we're adopting good laws, uh not just adopting laws quickly.

[00:48:49]>> Thank you, Minister. We'll now proceed to second round. Uh in this round we have uh three minutes uh for each question and answer beginning with uh Senator Bernard.

[00:48:59]>> Thank you chair. Uh Minister uh Frasier I want to pick up on a question and response from Senator Ins about uh the symbols. So yesterday, witnesses and also community advocates who have been in touch with us during the study have highlighted that hate is adaptive, meaning a static list of banned symbols in Bill C9 will inevitably become outdated.

[00:49:28]To solve this, the committee heard testimony yesterday recommending the creation of an ongoing independent advisory committee composed of civil rights experts and targeted community members to periodically review and recommend updates to the prohibited symbols list. So instead of requiring um future time-consuming legislative overhauls every time a new symbol emerges, would the government support establishing such a such an advisory body within the framework of this legislation or by enabling regulations?

[00:50:09]>> Two minutes.

[00:50:10]>> Uh yeah, thank you. And look, uh, this conversation perhaps demands more than two minutes and and perhaps we should make time. Um, I I speaking for myself because there's not a government policy on this uh particular uh question that you've just put to me now. Some mechanism like that uh may prove useful and I think it should be the source of further work to identify how we should establish such a committee. You're absolutely right that a static list uh is not the way to go. there is a need for an evergreen list. There there is some element of that evergreen nature with the uh the list that we've chosen.

[00:50:46]Uh but it is listed to terror organizations and not other organizations that that promote hatred that are causing problems that are uh that this bill seeks to address. What I think would be an appropriate next step um would be to do a little bit of work to understand how do we um create that body? What voices need to be on it? What is the process? I I think we're probably pretty late in the process to create a new mechanism in this bill to accomplish that outcome. if there was a parliamentary study on either the House or Senate side that followed this bill that made um uh recommendations on how we can uh better adapt a process to identify new symbols that will emerge uh and and frankly to clarify the application of certain symbols with um uh the counterfeits for example or or uh uh those who seek to mimic a terror symbol. Uh, and there are other issues with um, uh, I think about the conversations I've had with members of the black community about the use of a noose. Um, it's not as though they all look the same and the police are looking for certainty in terms of a symbol. So, there's unanswered questions that even I have that I wouldn't mind some u support through the policy development process, but I do think it's probably going to be difficult to get it right um, as this bill is now at the final stages of consideration. But I would actually personally value uh some exercise on the back end of this bill's adoption that would include either or both of the House or Senate committees to to understand what that process should look like.

[00:52:17]>> Thank you, Minister.

[00:52:18]>> We'll now go to Senator Tulan.

[00:52:21]>> Thank you. So, Minister, I've had many conversations with people from the Muslim community who are really worried.

[00:52:28]Um they say the language is really vague. They worry about practicing their religion. um the consultations done. I mean how do we reassure uh people who uh are worried like the mo I think the call that has stood out the most with us was a woman who called and said she left her country because she felt she couldn't practice her religion and she says now she feels she might have to leave Canada. How do we reassure these people who are calling us?

[00:52:58]Um, so maybe the first piece is is to recognize that this bill is designed to promote religious freedom among other things in Canada. The intimidation and obstruction offenses uh when we first conceived of them were designed around the idea that we needed specifically to protect uh the ability of people to attend services at their religious institutions. It's been expanded somewhat beyond uh religious institutions, but that was the motivation for this uh this bill from the very moment uh but before the bill existed when we campaigned on it. Um we want to make sure and people can use my many public statements to this regard uh that you remain free in Canada. In fact, we'll have a higher degree of freedom to uh pray to the God of your choice to practice your faith freely and openly in Canada. And that we value that as a strength. The next thing we need to do is actually get the wording right. Uh when we heard concern around the uh proposed removal of the uh religious exemption to hate crimes, we immediately recognized the need to make an adjustment through this for greater certainty clause. Uh that makes very clear uh that the ordinary practice of your faith is not the going to constitute the willful promotion of of hatred in Canada. Um I know with a high degree of confidence and certainty uh that the language that we have chosen is not going to result in the criminalization of people uh reading their uh their their scripture. Uh however, I want to recognize that the feeling you've identified is is very real and we need to do what we can through public communications to give confidence to people not only that they continue to uh have the ability to uh practice their faith freely, but that we want you to in Canada uh to maintain uh that that ability. We believe Canada is stronger for a diversity of religious perspectives and we want to ensure that the protections included in this bill around the standalone crime of hate, around intimidation, around obstruction serve to increase religious freedom. Uh this is not some attempt to limit the ability uh of people to practice their faith. Uh to the contrary, it's designed to protect their ability to do so in a free and democratic Canada.

[00:55:05]>> Thank you, Minister. Well, I have time for one more second round question. And next on the list is Senator Wells. I would invite uh Senators uh Ins and MCedron to pose their questions uh and see where we can go with that.

[00:55:23]>> Senator Wallace.

[00:55:24]>> Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Uh Minister, I want to return to uh the symbols again. That's that's been a topic that's come up quite quite frequently. Um there's been uh some concerns raised about the language that says so nearly resembles in the symbols provision and that it might be vague and could capture symbols unintentionally.

[00:55:44]But um if if my reading of the legislation is that the intent is clearly to catch people who modify ban symbols slightly to try to evade the purpose of the law. So, for the record, could you be explicit and and talk about whether the provision is designed to capture people tweaking, for example, a hawken cruise or a Nazi symbol to try to get around the band, and it's not designed to criminalize legitimate symbols of protests like the Palestinian flag or or perhaps the Hindu swastika or other symbols that have really no association with uh terror or terrorist groups.

[00:56:22]>> Yeah, look, thank you. you have perfectly described the intent here.

[00:56:26]This is not about uh using a range of different simples that are tied to um uh an activist uh uh campaign for one group or another or people who are seeking to make a point in in public about their religion, a cause that they support. Uh and in fact, we uh wanted to make this clear to tighten up this language around the the nearly resembles on on the uh the House side. You've identified the social harm directly. Um it's you have to be precise in the criminal code if you're dealing with the consequences a person may face for being convicted criminally in their life. Um we want to prevent uh someone from taking a a hate symbol, the Nazi hawken crews, the SS bolts, the terror symbols that we've used otherwise and and making a counterfeit version of it through a simple tweak just for the purpose of avoiding criminal liability. Uh what's important to us is that you're using the symbol that's going to be interpreted by the audience as the hate symbol and that the mental element is still made out that you intended to promote hate against the identifiable group. If you are using a different symbol for a different purpose or in fact sometimes the same symbol for a different purpose, that is not the willful promotion of hatred. Uh but if you are seeking to um uh take a Nazi symbol and add a brush stroke somewhere on the flag that a person can't see from uh from a distance, uh your intent is is not necessarily changed and we want it to capture that kind of a a behavior where someone um uh modifies a hate symbol uh without modifying the meaning of the hate symbol.

[00:58:00]>> Thank you, Minister. I'll invite Senator Ins and Senator McFedron to pose their questions respectively and uh we will see if we can get very short responses from the minister.

[00:58:15]>> Thank you. Yesterday in committee uh minister u it was highlighted that the success of bill C9 will depend heavily on how it is implemented in practice including training and resources provided by law enforcement. What are your thoughts of this idea and what what are what other implementations that you believe will ensure the success of this bill?

[00:58:42]>> Thank you, Senator McFed. Um similar question but with more a different focus and that is minister to understand better how you see this bill actually affecting the training that needs to be given to police and other forces in this country to implement the bill in a way that does not obstruct freedom of expression.

[00:59:06]>> Only a minute minister.

[00:59:08]>> Uh okay. Uh very quickly, um the success of this bill is not going to be uh borne out by a number of of certain number of arrests being made. It's going to be borne out uh through the reduction in hate crimes in Canada over the course of a period of time. This bill is going to be one tool that we help get there. Uh but Senator in uh you mentioned that witnesses said it'll implementation success will depend on the training and resources that are put in on the back end. The same could be said uh for virtually every law uh that we adopt as a parliament. uh we need to make sure we have good rules and that those rules are enforced by people who know what they're doing. Uh with in respect of uh Senator Mcfedron's question, um the bill will itself will affect what training needs to be uh implemented around what is a hate crime, what is the changing definition of hate, uh what is intimidation and obstruction. The training resources itself will need to flow separately. This bill only modifies the language of the code. it doesn't create new programming as uh that would require a separate bill with financial resources to back it. That'll have to be part of a broader ongoing conversation, but I see my video shifted to the chair, which means I expect my time has expired.

[01:00:18]>> It it it it has indeed. So, thank you so much, Minister, uh for being with us today. Um your assistance with our study of this bill is truly appreciated and we look forward to continuing the conversation next week with the with the officials. Uh thanks everyone. We will now uh suspend our meeting and prepare for our next panel.