Justice and Human Rights

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to continue its review of a proposed law that would change criminal and correctional rules about child protection, gender-based violence, delays in the justice system, and other issues. The committee was working through the proposed law, clause by clause, considering amendments. Larry Brock (Conservative) proposed a motion to prioritize future committee work, including inviting the Minister of Justice to discuss his priorities and considering other proposed laws related to youth criminal justice and parole ineligibility. This motion also suggested drafting a report on the bail system and studying the appointment of judges. However, this motion did not receive unanimous consent initially. Andrew Lawton (Conservative) questioned officials Leah Burt and Matthew Taylor from the Department of Justice about a "safety valve" in the proposed law that would allow judges to impose shorter sentences than mandatory minimums if the minimum punishment would be considered cruel and unusual. Lawton was concerned about how judges would determine if a punishment was cruel and unusual and whether they would consider the impact on victims. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Bloc Québécois) proposed an amendment to Brock's motion to include a study on the judicial appointment system, which had been previously agreed upon. Patricia Lattanzio (Liberal) expressed concerns about the committee's limited time and the need to prioritize government bills. Ultimately, Fortin's amendment was defeated, but Brock's motion to prioritize the Minister of Justice's appearance and other proposed laws was passed. The committee then completed its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a law (Bill C-16) that aims to protect victims and make the justice system work faster. The committee reviewed the proposed law section by section, considering many suggested changes (amendments). They talked about things like protecting victims' privacy, ensuring fair treatment for Indigenous people, and setting appropriate punishments for crimes. Key speakers included Jenny Kwan (NDP), who proposed changes to better protect victims' rights and ensure fairness for Indigenous people in the justice system. Larry Brock (Conservative) focused on making sure punishments fit the crime, especially for serious offenses like extortion and sexual offenses against children. Michael Ellison (Department of Justice) provided legal advice, explaining how the proposed changes would affect existing laws and court processes. Patricia Lattanzio (Liberal) emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and ensuring that the proposed law would hold up in court. The committee agreed to some changes, such as expanding protections for victims of intimate partner violence and clarifying language to ensure the proposed law is consistent across different acts of Parliament. However, they rejected other changes, including proposals to eliminate the "safety valve" that allows judges to deviate from mandatory minimum sentences in certain cases. A proposal to add a mandatory minimum penalty for extortion involving a firearm was deferred, then ultimately rejected. Ultimately, the committee worked through the proposed law, clause by clause, voting on each section and proposed change. The next step is for the proposed law, as amended by the committee, to go back to the House of Commons for further debate and a final vote.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about criminal and correctional matters, focusing on protecting children, addressing gender-based violence, and reducing court delays. The committee reviewed Bill C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act, clause by clause, considering various amendments. Witnesses from the Department of Justice, Department of National Defence, and Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness were present to answer technical questions. Committee members debated several proposed amendments. Leah Gazan (NDP) suggested changes to better protect survivors of intimate partner violence and address the creation and distribution of sexually explicit deepfake images. Elizabeth May (Green Party) proposed extending protections against coercive control to seniors and other family members, but later withdrew her amendments. Conservative members, including Larry Brock and Roman Baber, challenged the scope of the proposed law and sought to reinstate mandatory minimum penalties for certain offenses, particularly those related to child pornography. These attempts were largely ruled out of order by the committee chair. Several amendments were adopted, including those related to testimonial aids, non-disclosure agreements, and the definition of "sexual organs." The committee also agreed to amendments addressing the removal of intimate images from the internet and clarifying the application of criminal harassment laws. The meeting was at times contentious, with disagreements over the scope of the proposed law and the use of the notwithstanding clause. The committee will continue its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Canadian parliamentary committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also called the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from various witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including intimate partner violence, coercive control, online exploitation, and elder abuse. Several witnesses spoke about the importance of addressing coercive control, which involves patterns of controlling and intimidating behavior. Inspector Valarie Gates from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and Chief Thai Truong from the London Police Service, emphasized the need for training and resources for police to identify and respond to these patterns effectively. Melanie Webb from the Canadian Bar Association raised concerns about mandatory minimum sentences and their potential impact on court delays and fairness. Other witnesses, such as Leah Zille from Child and Youth Advocacy Centres of Canada, and Lindsay Jolie from Boost Child & Youth Advocacy Centre, focused on protecting children from online exploitation and abuse. They highlighted the need for stronger laws and resources to address these issues. Marta Hajek from Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario, discussed the importance of protecting seniors from coercive control and abuse, particularly from family members and caregivers. Dr. Naomi Parker from the Kindex Research and Knowledge Centre, suggested improvements to the proposed law, such as graduated sexual offence categories and formalizing trauma-informed frameworks. The committee discussed the need for a balance between protecting victims and ensuring fairness in the justice system. Some committee members raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposed law on repeat offenders and the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences. The committee acknowledged the importance of training, resources, and collaboration between different agencies to effectively implement the proposed law and protect vulnerable populations.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from several witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including mandatory minimum sentences, elder abuse, and victims' rights. The committee is trying to understand if the proposed law will help victims and if it is fair. Colton Fehr, a professor, talked about the safety valve clause in the proposed law, which would allow judges to give a lesser sentence in some cases where a mandatory minimum sentence would be too harsh. He suggested some factors that should not be considered when deciding whether to use the safety valve. Joanne Blinco, from the Alberta Elder Abuse Awareness Council, spoke about coercive control in elder abuse, where older adults are manipulated and controlled. She said that this is often a hidden problem, especially for older women. Benjamin Roebuck, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, said that the proposed law is a big step forward for victims' rights, but that there are still some things that need to be improved, like making it easier for victims to get information and complain about violations of their rights. During the meeting, committee members asked questions about how the proposed law would work in practice and whether it would be effective in protecting victims. They also discussed the definition of femicide, which is the killing of a woman because she is a woman. Some committee members wanted to make sure that the proposed law would not unfairly punish people from marginalized communities. Other witnesses including Nancy Boucher, Rizwan Khan and Liz Brown also testified on the bill. Some witnesses suggested changes to the proposed law, such as expanding the definition of coercive control to include abuse by family members other than intimate partners. The committee will consider these suggestions as it continues its study of the proposed law. No decisions were made during the meeting, but the committee is gathering information to help it make informed decisions about the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws related to criminal and correctional matters, focusing on protecting victims. The committee heard from several witnesses about their perspectives on the proposed law. The first panel included representatives from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Daughter Project Canada, and the London Abused Women's Centre. They discussed topics like femicide, coercive control, online sexual exploitation of children, and the need for prevention and education. Jennifer Dunn from the London Abused Women's Centre emphasized the importance of recognizing femicide but cautioned against criminalizing coercive control without proper training for police, lawyers, and judges. Monique St. Germain from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection supported changes aimed at protecting children from online exploitation and image-based abuse. Kristin Szabo from Daughter Project Canada recommended strengthening the definition of "intimate image" and addressing online exploitation through shared responsibility between individuals, platforms, communities, and governments. All three emphasized the need for more data collection and public reporting on child sexual exploitation. The second panel included Kendra Cooke, who shared her personal experiences with intimate partner violence and coercive control, highlighting the need for better support systems for victims. Angela Marinos from the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights proposed providing independent legal representation for victims of sexual violence and sex trafficking. Andrew Ullock and Lisa Henderson from the Ontario Child Sexual Exploitation Investigators Association emphasized the importance of restoring mandatory minimum sentences for child exploitation offenses and addressing unreasonable delays in trials. The committee approved a budget of $46,600 for the study.

The Canadian parliamentary committee met to discuss proposed changes to laws about crime and victims. They looked at a proposed law called Bill C-16, which aims to protect victims, especially in cases of domestic violence. The committee heard from different groups, including the National Association of Women and the Law, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale, the Barreau du Québec, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan. Key speakers included Suzanne Zaccour from the National Association of Women and the Law, who suggested changes to the proposed law to better protect women who are victims of abuse. Louise Riendeau and Karine Barrette from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale talked about the importance of making coercive control a crime, but also making sure that the law is used fairly and doesn't hurt the victims it's supposed to protect. Peter Copeland from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute talked about the need to address delays in the justice system and to make sure that laws are clear and effective. Dr. Crystal Giesbrecht from the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan spoke in favor of the proposed law and suggested ways to improve it. The committee members discussed issues like how to define "femicide" (the killing of women), how to deal with cases of coercive control, and how to make sure that victims' rights are protected. They also talked about the importance of training police and other legal professionals so that they can understand and respond to domestic violence effectively. The committee plans to continue studying the proposed law and will consider changes before voting on it. The next steps include completing the witness portion of the study on April 22nd, and beginning clause-by-clause consideration on April 27th. Proposed amendments should be submitted by noon on Thursday, April 23.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. The committee heard from several witnesses about different aspects of the proposed law, including coercive control, femicide, and the distribution of intimate images. Committee members were interested in hearing how the law could be improved to better protect vulnerable populations, like seniors and victims of domestic violence. Andrea Silverstone, CEO of Sagesse Domestic Violence Prevention Society, spoke about the importance of recognizing coercive control as a distinct harm. She suggested broadening the scope of the proposed law to include relationships of dependency and trust, not just intimate partner relationships. Rosel Kim, a senior staff lawyer at the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), expressed caution about the proposed law's amendments concerning femicide and coercive control, suggesting that they could lead to unintended consequences for survivors, especially those from marginalized communities. Alison Irons, whose daughter was murdered by an ex-partner, shared her personal story and advocated for recognizing patterns of coercive control in intimate partner violence. Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association, said the CPA broadly supports the proposed law. He said it would give police officers more tools to respond to issues like coercive control and the exploitation of children. Kerri Thomson, Manager, Justice and Legislative Affairs, Humane Canada, spoke about the importance of addressing animal cruelty and torture imagery online. Vicky Law, Executive Director, Rise Women's Legal Centre, said that education for all legal system actors is the best way to provide protection to survivors and victims. Committee members discussed potential amendments to the proposed law, such as broadening the definition of coercive control and adding protections for seniors. They also discussed the importance of providing resources and training to law enforcement and other professionals to help them identify and respond to cases of domestic violence and coercive control. The committee will continue to study the proposed law and consider potential amendments.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss Bill C-16, also known as the Protecting Victims Act. This proposed law aims to make changes to criminal laws to better protect victims, especially in cases of gender-based violence and online exploitation of children. The committee members heard from the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, and several justice department officials. Minister Fraser explained that the proposed law focuses on strengthening criminal laws, supporting law enforcement, and investing in community programs to prevent crime. Key changes include creating a new first-degree murder charge for femicides (the murder of women), criminalizing coercive control (controlling and abusive behavior in relationships), and modernizing laws to address sextortion and the creation of AI-generated deepfake sexual images. The proposed law also seeks to restore mandatory minimum penalties for certain crimes while providing a "safety valve" for judges to avoid unjust sentences. Committee members raised concerns about the "safety valve," arguing it could weaken mandatory minimum sentences and potentially lead to lighter sentences for serious offenders. Minister Fraser and department officials defended the measure, stating it was necessary to ensure the proposed law is constitutional and to address situations where a mandatory minimum penalty would be excessively harsh. They also emphasized that the proposed law is part of a broader strategy to combat crime and protect victims. The committee discussed the issue of court delays and how the proposed law aims to streamline procedures and encourage courts to consider alternative remedies instead of dismissing cases due to delays. The committee agreed to hold five meetings with witnesses to further study the proposed law before proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration. A motion was also passed to study the appointment of judges after completing the review of the proposed law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to continue reviewing a proposed law that would change the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious or cultural places. The meeting was held in a hybrid format, with committee members attending both in person and via video conference. The committee was under an order from the House of Commons to complete the review of the proposed law without adjournment. The meeting was chaired by James Maloney, who guided the committee through a series of votes on amendments and clauses of the proposed law. Conservative members, including Andrew Lawton and Roman Baber, raised points of order and privilege, questioning the process and the ability to propose subamendments. However, the Chair maintained that the committee was to proceed directly to voting without further debate or submissions, based on the order from the House. Several amendments were proposed and voted on, with many being defeated. Some amendments were withdrawn by their proposers, such as Anthony Housefather, to support alternative wording from other committee members. The committee worked through each clause of the proposed law, addressing technical questions raised by members like Rhéal Éloi Fortin to ensure clarity on the voting process. Ultimately, the committee completed its clause-by-clause review of the proposed law. The proposed law, with amendments, was agreed to by a vote of 5 to 4. The committee also agreed to report the proposed law as amended to the House and to order a reprint of the proposed law for use at the report stage.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law about hate speech and hate crimes. The committee is working through the proposed law section by section, considering amendments and subamendments. The main point of debate was a subamendment proposed by Mr. Lawton to an amendment by Ms. Lattanzio, which aimed to clarify when someone could not be charged with promoting hate. Mr. Housefather argued that Mr. Lawton's subamendment would weaken the proposed law and go against its intent to protect minority groups. Mr. Baber countered that the subamendment was a valid way to change the proposed law. Ms. Wells from the Department of Justice said the subamendment would change the substance of the proposed law. Mr. Brock brought up concerns from a legal group and suggested the Liberals were trying to rush the process. Mr. Baber raised concerns about the wording of Ms. Lattanzio's amendment, suggesting it could create more uncertainty. Ms. Lattanzio defended her amendment as a way to address fears that the proposed law would restrict religious freedom. Mr. Fortin criticized the Conservatives for being influenced by religious groups and suggested the committee was at an impasse. Ultimately, the Chair ruled Mr. Lawton's subamendment admissible, meaning the committee would debate and vote on it. Mr. Lawton asked for unanimous consent to withdraw his subamendment, but it was denied. The committee did not come to a resolution and will continue the discussion at a future meeting.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law called the Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9). This law aims to update the Criminal Code regarding hate speech and crimes, especially concerning religious or cultural sites. The committee is working through the proposed law section by section. During the meeting, committee members debated an amendment about religious freedom and whether the proposed law would limit people's ability to express their religious beliefs. Larry Brock, a Conservative member, mentioned discussions about clarifying the language in the proposed law, especially regarding the removal of a "religious defence" in the Criminal Code. Andrew Lawton, also a Conservative, wanted to prioritize a new clause dealing with religious freedom concerns. Anthony Housefather, a Liberal, said the government would propose an amendment to address these concerns, but at the appropriate time. Later, Patricia Lattanzio, a Liberal member, introduced an amendment intended to clarify that the proposed law wouldn't stop people from discussing public interest matters, including religious, educational, or political topics, as long as they weren't intentionally promoting hatred. Lawton proposed a change to this amendment, suggesting the removal of certain phrases to strengthen protections for religious freedom and freedom of expression. Housefather argued that Lawton's change would undermine the purpose of the amendment and the Criminal Code. The committee did not come to a final decision. The chairperson, James Maloney, decided to postpone the meeting until a written copy of Lawton's proposed change could be reviewed. The meeting was adjourned until Wednesday.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about bail and sentencing. The goal is to address concerns about repeat offenders and public safety. Witnesses included Mayor Tom Dyas of Kelowna, Judith Veresuk from Regina Downtown Business Improvement District, and Clayton Campbell from the Toronto Police Association. They all spoke about the need for stronger bail rules to deal with repeat offenders, especially those committing property crimes and violence. They emphasized how these crimes affect businesses and communities. They generally supported the proposed law but suggested it could be stronger, particularly regarding repeat property offenders and data collection on bail outcomes. During the meeting, committee members discussed possible changes to the proposed law. These included adding consecutive sentences for repeat human trafficking offences, making public safety the main consideration in bail decisions, and requiring mandatory detention for certain major offences. Clayton Campbell of the Toronto Police Association supported many of these changes. He emphasized the importance of keeping repeat violent offenders in custody and providing police with the tools they need to keep communities safe. He also highlighted the need for better data collection to assess the effectiveness of bail decisions. The committee also discussed how the proposed law would affect young offenders. Clayton Campbell agreed that young people who commit crimes are generally less responsible than adults but said that there should be stricter rules for youth who commit serious violent crimes like murder. He also supported allowing police to release information about young people who pose an immediate danger to the public. The committee members debated the merits of the proposed law and the need for further changes. A vote was held regarding prioritizing a different proposed law, but it was defeated. Ultimately, the committee agreed to continue studying the proposed law and make changes to it. They agreed to prioritize a different proposed law at the next meeting. The committee members acknowledged the importance of addressing crime and public safety concerns and committed to working together to find solutions.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about bail and sentencing, focusing on Bill C-14. Witnesses from various organizations shared their perspectives on the proposed law. The committee heard from the National Police Federation, who supported the proposed law as a step towards protecting communities from repeat violent offenders, but stressed the need for better information sharing between police and courts. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities expressed strong support for the proposed law, emphasizing the concerns of residents about crime and the need for effective measures to address repeat offenders. The Canadian Urban Transit Association asked for an amendment to the proposed law to include all transit workers under the protections of the Criminal Code, not just transit operators.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to laws about bail and sentencing (Bill C-14). The goal is to make communities safer by addressing concerns about repeat offenders and violent crimes. The proposed law aims to make it harder for people with a history of violence or ties to organized crime to get bail. It also looks at stricter sentences for certain crimes, especially those involving repeat offenders or violence against first responders. The key speaker was the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, who explained the proposed changes and why they are needed. He emphasized that the proposed law is a response to concerns raised by law enforcement, provincial governments, and communities across Canada. Fraser highlighted that the proposed law includes measures to ensure courts consider public safety when making bail decisions and to impose tougher conditions on release. He also discussed changes to sentencing, such as making sentences consecutive for certain crimes and prioritizing denunciation and deterrence. Committee members questioned the Minister and Justice Department officials about the details of the proposed law and its potential impact. Some members expressed concern that the proposed changes may not go far enough to address the problems with the current bail system. Others raised questions about the constitutionality of certain provisions and the potential impact on vulnerable populations. Officials clarified that the proposed law is designed to be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that judicial discretion will still be available in individual cases. The committee approved a budget for the study of the proposed law. The next steps involve further review and debate of the proposed law, with the possibility of amendments being proposed by committee members. The goal is to pass a law that will make communities safer while respecting the rights of individuals.

The Justice and Human Rights Committee met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law about hate speech, hate crimes, and access to religious places. The main focus was on an amendment from the Bloc Québécois (BQ-3) that aimed to remove religious exemptions from the proposed law, meaning people couldn't use religious beliefs as a defense for promoting hate. This sparked a lot of debate about religious freedom and whether the proposed law went too far. Conservative members, like Larry Brock and Andrew Lawton, argued against the Bloc's amendment, saying it would limit religious freedom and that the committee hadn't studied the issue enough. They felt the proposed law was already flawed and that this change would make it worse. They also tried to shift the committee's focus to a proposed law about bail reform, which they believed was more important for public safety. Liberal members, including Patricia Lattanzio, defended the amendment, stating that it was a clarification and that freedom of religion is already protected by the Charter. The committee voted in favor of the Bloc Québécois amendment to remove the religious exemption. Following this, the committee discussed an amendment from Mr. Lawton which stated that nothing in the section should interfere with freedom of expression or religion. The committee agreed to secure resources to continue the discussion tomorrow and Thursday from 3:30 until midnight. The committee will continue with clause-by-clause on the proposed hate speech law.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed changes to the law, specifically Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act. The meeting focused on whether to prioritize this proposed law or another one related to bail and sentencing reform. Committee members also debated the need for more witness testimony and the potential impact of the proposed changes on freedom of expression. Andrew Lawton, a Conservative member, introduced a motion to reset the committee's priorities, arguing that the committee should focus on bail reform first. He criticized the Liberal members for allegedly obstructing the process and preventing a thorough review of the proposed law. He also raised concerns about the potential for the proposed law to censor online speech and infringe on civil liberties. Anthony Housefather, a Liberal member, defended the proposed law and argued that it was necessary to combat hate crimes. He also expressed concerns about the scope and constitutionality of the proposed amendments. During the meeting, committee members engaged in heated debates over procedural matters and the substance of the proposed law. Points of order were raised frequently, and the chair had to intervene to maintain order. The committee ultimately voted to proceed with a clause-by-clause study of the proposed law, despite objections from some members. The committee also discussed amendments related to the promotion of terrorist activities, with members expressing different views on how to address this issue. Ultimately, several amendments were withdrawn or set aside for later consideration, and the committee agreed to deal with amendments related to Attorney General consent as a group. The committee adopted some amendments, including those related to Attorney General consent, but rejected others, such as an amendment to remove the portion of the proposed law dealing with symbols. The meeting was adjourned before the committee could complete its clause-by-clause study of the proposed law. James Maloney was elected chair after the previous chair resigned. The committee agreed to continue the clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Justice and Human Rights committee met to discuss proposed changes to a proposed law called the Combatting Hate Act. This proposed law aims to update the Criminal Code to better protect groups that are often targeted by hate. However, some people think the proposed law goes too far and could limit free speech. Others believe it doesn't go far enough to protect vulnerable communities. DeRico Symonds from the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute said the proposed law needs to include symbols of anti-Black hate, like nooses and Ku Klux Klan symbols. He also said that decisions about hate crimes should involve community members, not just police. Christine Van Geyn from the Canadian Constitution Foundation argued that the proposed law could punish people for expressing unpopular opinions and that it should be withdrawn. Representatives from the Ligue des droits et libertés worried the proposed law could unfairly target peaceful protests. Kyla Lee from the Canadian Bar Association said some parts of the proposed law are unclear and could unintentionally harm the people it's trying to protect. During the meeting, committee member Larry Brock introduced a motion about a recent Supreme Court decision on child sexual exploitation. This led to a debate about whether the government should use a special power called the "notwithstanding clause" to override the court's decision. Eventually, the committee agreed to call on the government to create new laws to protect children from sexual exploitation. The committee also set a deadline for submitting changes to the proposed Combatting Hate Act and scheduled future meetings to continue working on it.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met to discuss proposed law C-9, also called the Combatting Hate Act. The committee heard from various witnesses about their perspectives on the proposed law, which aims to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious or cultural places. Nicole Chapdelaine, Deputy Chief of the Edmonton Police Service, expressed support for the proposed law, highlighting the need for appropriate deterrence and public denunciation of hate crimes. She emphasized the importance of removing the Attorney General's consent for hate propaganda offenses and creating a stand-alone hate crime offense to improve data collection and public trust. Derek Ross, Executive Director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, shared concerns about the definition of hatred in the proposed law, suggesting it should be more precise to avoid infringing on freedom of expression. He also emphasized the importance of protecting the freedom to discuss and criticize beliefs in good faith. Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, raised concerns about the provisions related to displaying certain symbols in public, arguing they could pose a threat to freedom of expression. He suggested the proposed law should be withdrawn and revisited. Vijaykumar Jain, Director of Canadian Hindus for Harmony, raised concerns about the use of the word "swastika" in hate references, as it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. Noah Shack, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, spoke about the rise in hate crimes and violence and the need for clear laws and consistent enforcement. The committee members discussed the merits of the proposed law, including the removal of the Attorney General's consent for hate propaganda offenses and the creation of a stand-alone hate crime offense. They also explored concerns about freedom of expression and the potential for the proposed law to be misused. The committee plans to continue its study of the proposed law at a future meeting.

The Canadian parliamentary committee met to discuss bail and sentencing laws, focusing on repeat offenders and public safety. Witnesses included victims of crime, police representatives, Crown counsel, and experts in trauma-informed practices. The committee heard emotional testimony from parents who lost their daughter due to a repeat offender being released on bail. They emphasized the need for stricter criteria for judges when making bail decisions and expressed frustration with the current system. Police representatives discussed the challenges of dealing with repeat offenders and supported proposed law changes to strengthen bail provisions and ensure community safety is a central consideration. Other witnesses discussed the importance of a trauma-informed approach to bail decisions, considering the safety and well-being of victims. They also highlighted the need for better coordination and funding for social services to support survivors of violence. The committee also heard about the need for more resources for Crown attorneys and the importance of a national bail information system. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police advocated for broadening reverse onus provisions for bail-related offences and strengthening the estreatment process for sureties. Several committee members expressed support for proposed law changes to address repeat offenders and improve public safety. Some members raised concerns about the effectiveness of previous bail reform efforts and the need for ongoing monitoring and adjustments. There was also discussion about the role of rehabilitation and the need for a balance between protecting public safety and respecting individual rights. The committee identified the need for collaboration between federal and provincial governments to ensure effective implementation of bail and sentencing reforms. Overall, the committee members agreed that the proposed law is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to address the issue of repeat offenders and improve public safety. They emphasized the need for a holistic approach that includes prevention, rehabilitation, and support for victims. The committee members committed to working together to find common-sense solutions that protect communities and respect the rights of all Canadians. The committee agreed to continue studying the issue and to make recommendations to the House of Commons.