Critics warn of Liberals' 'ever-expanding' anti-hate bill over religious exemption and terrorism proposals

OTTAWA — A group of advocates representing voices across civil society and faith communities came together on Wednesday to decry what they called the “ever-expanding” scope of the Liberals’ legislation aimed at tackling hate. 

It comes as MPs on the parliamentary justice committee begin their clause-by-clause review of the legislation, known as Bill C-9, with voting set to get underway on a series of amendments, including one proposed by the Bloc Québécois to see the Criminal Code scrubbed of an existing religious defence for certain hate speech laws.

That change was not outlined in the original text of the bill, which Justice Minister Sean Fraser presented back in September.

Removing that defence from Canada’s hate speech laws has been a longstanding request of the Bloc Québécois, who, as National Post reported this week, signed a deal with the Liberals to see it happen, in exchange for helping the government pass its bill.

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, on Wednesday voiced concerns that the bill, which was targeted at spaces around places of worship, now appears to be “ever-expanding in ways that is unprecedented.”

His organization, along with the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Canadian Council of Imams and the Christian Legal Fellowship, have all stated they oppose the removal of the religious defence under section 319 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes wilfully promoting hate and antisemitism. Canadian law defines the latter as “condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.” 

As it is written, the defence states that a person who in “good faith” expressed or tried to communicate an opinion “on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text” should not be convicted under these hate speech laws.

Al-Qazzaz said his faith community views the removal of this provision as potentially limiting how religious texts could be promoted within religious schools and broader society. 

Tuesday’s meeting of the justice committee was adjourned at the request of the Liberals, with agreement from the Bloc Québécois, before the amendment to remove this defence was officially presented. Amendments are considered confidential before being discussed at committee.

Opposition Conservatives, who have vowed to fight against the proposed exclusion of the measure and decry it as an attack on “religious freedom,” left the committee, expressing confusion, saying that they were prepared to sit for hours longer to review future amendments.

A government source, not authorized to speak publicly, told National Post the adjournment happened because they felt opposition committee members were working in “good faith,” so they ended the meeting around its regularly scheduled time. The next meeting is set for Thursday.

“We remain open to amendments that strengthen protections for communities across Canada in the face of rising hate,” wrote Lola Dandybaeva, a spokeswoman for Fraser. 

One of the agreements parties reached during Tuesday’s committee meeting was to maintain the requirement that laying a hate propaganda charge would need the consent of a provincial attorney general.

The bill had proposed removing it as a way to streamline the laying of such charges. However, civil liberties advocates and Conservatives opposed doing it, describing it as a necessary protection for freedom of speech.

The advocates on Wednesday raised concern about other amendments proposed separately by Conservative MP Roman Baber and Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, who both brought forward suggestions about adding to the bill an offence against the “wilful promotion of terrorism.”

Canada does not currently have laws against the “promotion” or “glorification” of terrorism.

Tim McSorley, national coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, said on Wednesday that the consideration for adding such an offence raises concerns because promotion, as a concept, was “incredibly vague” and could apply to “legitimate discussion.” 

“It’s incredibly broad and could lead to significant criminalization of discussion of current affairs, of legitimate political discussions and debates,” McSorley told the news conference.

“We think that it has no place in Canadian legislation overall, and certainly no place in being brought in as part of an ostensibly combating hate legislation.”

McSorley compared the effort to laws ushered in under former prime minister Stephen Harper through an anti-terror bill back in 2015, which was criticized for overreaching police and security powers. 

Baber referenced those Harper efforts during his testimony before Tuesday’s committee, saying that “a gap” currently exists, which he says has allowed for the “promotion of terror.”

The MP, who has been vocal in his opposition to anti-Israel protests staged around his Toronto riding, had presented a private member’s bill on the matter to the House of Commons last month, which sought to criminalize the promotion of a terrorist group or “terrorist activity.”

He specifically named the action of calling for an “intifada in Canada” or activities that promote a listed terrorist entity, such as Hamas, the governing group in Gaza responsible for carrying out the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel.

Officials who testified before Tuesday’s committee said the courts have interpreted “promotion” to mean “active support or instigation” and more than “simple encouragement or advancement.”

The civil society advocates who spoke on Wednesday represented a group of about 20 different organizations and groups that oppose the government bill in its entirety.

They warned that the legislation’s proposals to create new intimidation and obstruction offences targeted at the activities around places of worship and other buildings where an identifiable group gathers could lead to a quashing of legitimate protests.

Jewish advocacy groups, such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, have said measures were needed to better protect members of the Jewish community who have been dealing with impeded access to spaces and a police-reported rise in antisemitism over the Israel-Hamas war.

Civil liberties advocates have also raised concerns about the bill’s proposal to make it an offence to promote hate by displaying a hate symbol like a swastika, or an image related to a listed terrorist entity, warning that police could misinterpret certain Arabic phrases.

Liberal MP Salma Zahid said on Wednesday that she’s “heard some concerns” about the bill.

“I think all conversations around censorship are fraught,” said Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith.

“We have to be very careful when it comes to adding additional rules that restrict speech. And so I will look at it very carefully.”

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.