Bill C-367

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred or antisemitism)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to eliminate as a defence against wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism the fact that a person, in good faith, expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.

[Guillaume Rousseau, Full Professor and Director, Graduate Applied State Law and Policy Programs, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to speak to Bill C‑63.

I apologize for my appearance. I had surgery yesterday, which is why I'm wearing a bandage. Although I have a few scars on my head, my mind is working fine. I should be able to make this presentation and answer your questions.

As a constitutional lawyer, I mainly want to draw your attention to the issue of freedom of expression and, since I'm from Quebec, I also want to draw your attention to the fact that Bill C‑63 is very similar to Bill 59, which was studied in Quebec in 2015 and 2016.

For those who, like me, fought against Bill 59, it's a bit like Groundhog Day, since Bill C‑63 contains extremely similar elements, including the prohibition on hate speech. This reminds us of the extent to which Quebec and federal jurisdictions are not always sufficiently exclusive and that there is a lot of overlap. I will stop my digression on Canadian federalism here, but I would like to point out in passing that I have just tabled a report with the Quebec advisory committee on constitutional issues within the Canadian federation. If you're interested in this issue, you should know that a report has just been submitted to the Government of Quebec.

Bill 59, which was studied in 2015 and 2016, banned hate speech, and it was considered very problematic in terms of freedom of expression. In the end, the government of the day decided to set aside part of the bill and not adopt the hate speech component of the bill in order to keep the other part of the bill, which was much more consensual and dealt in particular with the regulation of underage marriages. With respect to Bill C‑63, I hope we are preparing for a similar outcome.

I think the bill contains a lot of interesting things about sexual victimization and “revenge porn”. I believe the equivalent term in French is “pornodivulgation”. I think this whole area of protecting minors and protecting them from sexual victimization is very important. However, everything to do with hate seems much more problematic to me.

Sometimes, people talk about splitting the bill, saying that part 1 isn't a problem, and that parts 2 and 3 are more problematic. For my part, I draw your attention to the fact that, even in part 1, the definition of harmful content includes content that promotes hatred. Even in part 1, there's this mix between the issue of protecting minors from certain elements of pornography and the issue of hate. In my opinion, if we want to rework the bill properly, we must not only not adopt parts 2 and 3, but also eliminate hate from part 1.

The problem with everything to do with hate in the bill is that the definition is very vague and very broad. Hate is defined as detestation and defamation, but the definitions of detestation and defamation often include a reference to hate. It's all a bit circular. It's very vague and, for that reason, it's very difficult for litigants to know what their obligation is, to know what they can and cannot say.

I understand that this definition is inspired by the Supreme Court's Whatcott case, but there are two problems in this regard.

First, this definition was given in a human rights case, but here we want to use it as a model in criminal law. In terms of evidence, in particular, these two areas are very distinct. Second, I understand why we are taking our cues from the Supreme Court when it comes to definitions, because that means that the provision of the act is less likely to be struck down. I understand it on a technical level, but on the substance, a definition that isn't clear and isn't good isn't clear and isn't good, even if it comes from the Supreme Court.

I want to repeat this famous sentence: The Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, it is infallible because it is final.

As legislators, you really have to ask yourself whether the definition is clear rather than just whether it is the Supreme Court's definition. Ultimately, if you absolutely want to have a definition inspired by the Supreme Court, I would recommend the definition in the Keegstra decision, which is more of a criminal decision. It's a little clearer and a little less problematic than the Whatcott inspired definition.

That said, if you go along with what I'm proposing and remove the hate component from the bill, it will raise the following question: If we create a bill that is more targeted on sexual victimization and the protection of minors, will we need a commission, an ombudsperson, an office and all the bureaucracy that is planned when the purpose of the act is more limited? We will therefore have to rethink the bill so that it is less bureaucratic.

Finally, I draw your attention to the fact that the bill should include the abolition of exemptions that allow hate speech in the name of religion. We were talking earlier about Bill C‑63 and Bill C‑412, but there's also Bill C‑367, which I invite you to study.

Thank you.

Resumption of Debate on the Motion for Concurrence

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising this morning in place of my extraordinary colleague, the member for Montarville. I would like to take a moment to recognize our fantastic critic for foreign affairs, who also serves as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I am speaking here today because my colleague was kind enough to share his speaking time with me, as well as invite me to ask witnesses questions at certain committee meetings when it was conducting the study that led to the report we are debating today. I want to thank him. It gave me a lot to think about.

Most of my speech today is based on the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development's study on sexual and reproductive rights around the world.

This long-awaited study has highlighted the very important work that remains to be done if Canada is to move from words to deeds when it comes to its feminist foreign policy.

As the expression goes, it is important to walk the talk. While this long-awaited study was being conducted, there was a great deal of obstruction. My colleague from Montarville had told me about it, and when I took part in the meetings, I saw for myself that the Conservatives were filibustering.

That being said, I will begin by quoting what some of the witnesses said about the accountability of this government with respect to feminist policy. I will talk more specifically about certain parts of the world. Then, I would like to talk about secularism, which is a very important value in Quebec.

Firstly, it was surprising to hear from witnesses that almost 7 years after its announcement, Canada's feminist foreign policy is still not defined through a document that details principles, objectives and implementation guidelines. This may potentially explain why sharing results in this area seems difficult for Global Affairs Canada. So, on the one hand, we have GAC announcing during the study that “Canada is making significant progress in meeting its existing commitments”. On the other hand, we have the Auditor General's assertion that Canada's feminist international aid policy includes commitments describing how the funds are to be spent, “...but had no goals related to specific improvements in the circumstances of those who benefit from the funding”.

I actually had a conversation with my colleague from Terrebonne about this Auditor General report.

So there's a lot to think about when it comes to the development of international feminist policy by Global Affairs, from objectives to results, and how Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money is actually being used to advance women's rights and gender equality around the world.

Indeed, there was a lot to think about. Now I would like to get into a little more detail about specific problems in certain parts of the world, starting with Africa.

Secondly, Africa is an area where the issue of sexual rights is debated, as we heard from several witnesses who discussed cultural differences, and the need for Canada to work in this part of the world. One statistic sums up the problems associated with reproductive rights: sub-Saharan Africa accounted for some 70% of maternal deaths in 2020. Canada has a duty to support countries seeking to make progress in terms of abortion rights and access to quality health care — COVID-19 having imposed, in some countries, additional difficulties in accessing health care, particularly in terms of distance.

Keep in mind that these remarks were made in committee, particularly by Global Affairs Canada representatives, but the Auditor General also released a report on international assistance in support of gender equality. UNICEF representatives also testified in committee, and the Canadian Partnership for Women and Children's Health submitted a brief. We heard from a lot of witnesses, and all of them seemed to highlight the need to strive for greater accountability.

At a time when the government is developing an “African plan”, it is vital that international development, gender equality and access to healthcare services are key pillars of this strategy.

Also, while some committee members denounced, during committee meetings...certain laws in certain countries that run counter to people's fundamental rights with regard to their sexuality.... Ms. Théroux-Séguin of the Centre d'étude et de coopération internationale, in her testimony, expressed the hope that Canada could support legislative measures, and promote recommendations aimed at improving sexual and reproductive health. We therefore hope that the Canadian government, through a statement or in international forums, will take the lead in welcoming the development of projects that provide greater access to abortion and reproductive health services around the world. While interfering in the national policy processes of other countries is out of the question, Canada must nonetheless be vocal and offer assistance to countries that request it, to enable the development of essential reproductive health care services.

Thirdly, funding is a central issue, and several witnesses, including Oxfam-Québec, Oxfam-Canada and Action Canada, [all] raised concerns about the government's commitment to devote $700 million a year to support sexual and reproductive health and rights, with a particular focus on four neglected areas: family planning and contraception; safe and legal abortion services and post-abortion care; comprehensive sexuality education; and sexual and reproductive health and rights promotion activities.

I would also like to point out that some witnesses told us some rather disturbing things. In countries with tougher anti-abortion laws, there are not fewer abortions. Rather, there are fewer safe abortions, and therefore more deaths. Several witnesses pointed out that most maternal deaths are preventable. Here is another excerpt from the report:

According to the office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights,

Women's sexual and reproductive health is related to multiple human rights, including the right to life, the right to be free from torture, the right to health, the right to privacy, the right to education, and the prohibition of discrimination. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have both clearly indicated that women's right to health includes their sexual and reproductive health.

International political agreements reinforce this position.

In 1995, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action [which we talked about a lot] reinforced...and explicitly enshrined women's rights as human rights.

It is crazy that women's rights were not recognized as human rights until 1995. That was not that long ago. The report later mentions “the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, which was launched in 2010”. Numerous international agreements have echoed that call for Canada to do more. Here is what the report says about the four neglected areas:

These four issues received $104 million of the total funding of $489 million for the same year.

If the committee's report correctly recommends the need for the government to meet its commitment to invest at least $700 million in women's sexual and reproductive health and rights globally by the end of fiscal 2023-2024, we ask that the government significantly increase its funding in the four neglected topics.

Members of the Global Cooperation Caucus are constantly reminded about them. These four neglected areas keep coming up. International co-operation organizations reach out to us about them, and representatives of all the parties hear the same thing. It really is important to keep in mind that we hear about this regularly.

Upholding the right to safe abortions, just like the prevention and treatment of HIV-AIDS and sexually transmitted infections, is an important medical and socio-economic issue. It is worrisome. We are also often reminded of that by the organizations working on the ground. Cases of HIV-AIDS are on the rise in certain places in Africa, and again, women are disproportionately affected. As I said, there are also sexually transmitted infections. To that category, we can add HPV, human papillomavirus, which can be avoided through vaccination. We were reminded of the World Health Organization's vaccination objectives, because it is a virus that can lead to cancer but that is preventable by vaccine. Canada is missing its target, however. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done on these issues.

This week, I attended a breakfast meeting where it was mentioned that cases of HIV-AIDS in indigenous communities are on the rise here in Canada. That is extremely concerning. Canada is actually falling behind compared to the other G7 countries. Canada is the only country where cases are on the rise, including because of this increase in indigenous communities.

“Fourthly, we heard the poignant testimony of Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko, who spoke of the Russian army's use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.”

I had the opportunity to meet this MP for the first time in October 2022 at an Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly in Kigali, Rwanda. We had an opportunity to have a conversation.

It is very troubling to see this “barbarity without a name that must lead to the criminalization of the perpetrators”. That is the message that she wants to send to us. She was travelling around, and she also came here, to Parliament, to draw our attention to this issue. My colleague from Drummond also met with female Ukrainian MPs who told him about the horrors that are happening right now in that conflict zone.

This committee has already recommended to the government, in its report on the situation in Ukraine, that it “work with Ukraine and other international partners to prosecute those most responsible for Russia's crime of aggression against Ukraine by supporting the creation of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine or other similar mechanism”. In the quest for justice, sexual violence cannot be ignored when condemning Russia. And unfortunately, such situations are commonplace, since as the Canadian Partnership for Children's and Women's Health points out, “Women and girls continue to bear the brunt of the consequences of forced displacement, particularly in conflict zones where they face soaring levels of sexual violence”.

We therefore expect that in the next National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, the Government of Canada will increase its funding for programs enabling girls and women who are victims of sexual violence in conflict zones to obtain the justice they deserve.

The goal is to stop women and girls from being used as weapons of war in these conflict zones, which, as we see, are growing in number at the moment. Unfortunately, women are paying the price.

I would like to return to a question the Bloc Québécois has been raising all morning as part of this debate, namely the question of religion as it relates to sexual and reproductive rights. Witnesses came to testify in committee about religious opposition to the question of abortion out of principle and religious belief, which is harming women's health. It is not right for people to use religion in such a way that women have to pay for it with their lives or their health. I will go even further. One should not use religion to engage in hate speech. This is an opportunity to re-emphasize the importance of secularism.

I could talk about the situation of women in Iran, which relates to this issue of secularism. The Bloc Québécois was the first to move a motion following the death of Mahsa Amini, who was killed for wearing her veil improperly. It is absurd that today, in 2024, women are still dying for not wearing a piece of cloth properly. We will continue supporting Iranian women in their struggle for secularism. The same applies to Afghanistan. The Taliban regime is rolling back women's rights. In my Inter-Parliamentary Union meetings I have had exchanges with Afghani parliamentarians.

To get back to the October 2022 general assembly, I met with parliamentarians there, but only male parliamentarians. I was told that women had not won the right to leave the country. They had not managed to get the proper chaperone, which would have allowed them to attend this general assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to express themselves as female members of parliament. This issue is crucial, because the objective of this general assembly was to determine how to achieve a more representative, and hence democratic, kind of parliament. We need to hear these women's viewpoints. They are entitled to be present in the public sphere, which is not the case right now. They are being excluded, and the rights they had won in Afghanistan are being rolled back. This is extremely troubling.

I will take this opportunity to remind my fellow members of the importance of the Bloc Québécois bill aimed at repealing this religious exemption. Ottawa must take concrete action to counter hate speech, which has been rising especially since the start of the war in the Middle East. What we are seeing now, however, is that the Criminal Code still protects people who willingly foment hate when their words are uttered in good faith and based on a religious text in which they believe.

The elimination of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code, an exemption that also compromises the government's religious neutrality, is crucial to safety. Right here, right now, it is creating tension and conflict. It is for this reason that the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-367. It was to close this loophole in the Criminal Code that permits hate speech if it is ultimately motivated by religion. Unfortunately, the content of the bill apparently did not please the government, which we have a hard time understanding, considering it calls itself feminist. Separating church and state gives women power. That is really what we found out from the committee study. The witnesses who came to tell us that abortion is bad were hiding behind religious beliefs and motivations. I would like to remind my colleagues that women are still dying today in countries where they do not have access to safe abortions.

In conclusion, now more than ever, Canada needs to update its feminist foreign policy and respond to the Auditor General's questions and concerns. COVID-19 and the growing number of conflicts and natural disasters caused by climate change are all factors that are changing the world order and current priorities. As a G7 nation, Canada must step up and start walking the talk. It is our duty to help women and girls in all these places around the world where they are being subjected to heinous sexual acts and losing their rights. We have to do our part. That is what the world is asking us to do.

The major international co-operation organizations are reminding us of our obligations as a G7 nation. There are female parliamentarians on the ground who are worried. Just a few days ago, female MPs from Ukraine came to tell us about advancements that have been made possible thanks to technology, but also to share their concerns. They need our help to continue participating in the democratic life of their country. The same is true for all women in situations of conflict or war. They need help to regain their rights as women, to have access to safe sexual and reproductive health care and to play their role in society to the fullest. We should not leave them stuck in this situation where the only thing that is happening is an erosion of their rights. On that note, I urge everyone to take action, and I am ready to take questions from my colleagues.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a lot of questions, but I may have a total of only six minutes because then it will be the turn of a Bloc Québécois colleague. So I'll try to be as brief as possible. I'd like to have a chance to ask each of the witnesses a question.

Mr. Madou, you mentioned religiously motivated crimes in your opening remarks. As you know, we have a gap in the Criminal Code, and I'm going to explain the way it relates to our study.

The National Assembly of Quebec has requested that Ottawa take action to address hate speech, which has been on the rise since the Middle East war. However, Canada's Criminal Code protects individuals who promote hatred by allowing them to express their hate speech if they do so in good faith or if their speech is based on a religious text.

How can this religious exception encourage individuals to commit certain crimes against the LGBT community?

The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑367 to eliminate that exception in the Criminal Code. I don't know if you've heard about it. If not, have you heard about this gap, and do you think it would be important to fill it?

[Serge Granger, Director School of Applied Politics, Université de Sherbrooke, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to this discussion on foreign interference.

I will break down the elements of the Indo-Canadian relations into three points. I will first discuss India's admission to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, its relative appreciation of Canada, diasporic specificity in Canada, and recommendations to limit foreign interference from India.

Originally created as the Shanghai Five, this Sino-centric organization was founded by China, Russia and the central Asian republics in 2001. Focusing on limited, unconventional security, the organization fights three “evils”: extremism, terrorism and separatism. This association of words is not accidental. This multilateral organization allows China to ensure the co‑operation of neighbouring and distant countries in the repatriation of people, be it Uyghurs, Tibetans or Han, posing challenges to national unity. India joined the organization in 2017, as did Pakistan, which is also struggling with separatist or secessionist movements. In the case of India, it has an endorsement to act with impunity when its unity is at stake.

The juxtaposition of the three evils links terrorism, separatism and extremism with a normative framework according to which any separatist impulse is extremist and terrorist. This substitution of rule of law to rule by law attempts to legitimize actions outside the normative framework of sovereignty. From guided missiles to selective assassinations, foreign interference is not new, but is intensifying. However, this association of terrorism with separatism is not found in the Canadian legal system, so the charges that can be laid in India cannot be applied to the Canadian case.

In terms of Canada-India relations, Professor Ryan M. Touhey points out that the first decades of Indo-Canadian relations were characterized by misunderstanding. Is this still the case? Despite the ambition of a Canadian Indo-Pacific policy, geopolitical issues, as Indian politicians point out, are hurting bilateral relations. These recurrent geopolitical problems, be it the nuclear bomb in 1974, Air India in 1985 or nuclear tests in 1998, do not erase the more structural issues, in particular the presence in Canada of movements that jeopardize Indian unity.

Since the imposition of a continuous voyage in 1908 preventing Indians from migrating to Canada, and thus to the British Empire, the Sikhs have initiated revolutionary movements to weaken the Empire, many of which are in the Vancouver area. The Komagata Maru incident in 1914, in which a boat of migrants from India was turned back by the Canadian authorities, increased Sikh activism. Since that time, the Sikh community in Canada has been the epicentre of Khalistan claims.

In terms of diasporic specificity in Canada, it will come as no surprise that Canada is home to the largest Sikh community outside India and makes up about half of the Indian diaspora in Canada. This specific reality in Canada breeds Sikh activism like nowhere else in the world. This party explains why India uses a strong discourse against Canada, as opposed to the co‑operative discourse with other partners, such as the United States or the United Kingdom. Moreover, the use of violence, sometimes even murder, is a tool of electoral repression in India. What is surprising is its export within the Indian diaspora in Canada.

Given Canada's specificity, we can expect moral support from Canada's partners without hoping for legal proceedings or sanctions against India. Among the 13 Indo-Pacific strategies identified, India is mentioned as a strategic partner several times, but for Canada it remains an uncertain ally.

To alleviate the problems associated with these political tensions and violence within the Indian diaspora, without pretending to say that this will eliminate foreign interference in Canada, my first recommendation is to move forward Bill C‑367, which amends the Criminal Code to prohibit hate speech at religious ceremonies, such as processions or festivals.

My second recommendation is that every prime minister of Canada since Jean Chrétien has visited Punjab on an official visit to India, which India perceives as a celebration of Sikh separatism.

This perception emerged under the Harper administration and was amplified under the Trudeau administration. It would be desirable for the upcoming visit of a Canadian prime minister to India to avoid a trip to Punjab as a goodwill gesture aimed at resolving geopolitical tensions between India and Canada.

Thank you.

Online Harms Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized to share my time with the hon. member for Shefford, who does essential work for the Bloc Québécois on issues having to do with seniors. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government that Bill C‑319, which was introduced by my colleague, was unanimously adopted in committee with good reason. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to increase the amount of the full pension by 10% starting at age 65 and change the way to guaranteed income supplement is calculated to benefit seniors.

There is a lot of talk about that in my riding. This bill is coming back to the House and the government should make a commitment at some point. We are asking the government to give royal assent to Bill C‑319. In other words, if the bill is blocked again, seniors will understand that the Liberals are once again abandoning them. I am passionate about the cause of seniors, and so I wanted to use my speech on Bill C‑63 to make a heartfelt plea on behalf of seniors in Quebec and to commend my colleague from Shefford for her work.

Today we are debating Bill C‑63, which amends a number of laws to tackle two major digital scourges, specifically child pornography, including online child pornography, and hate speech. This legislation was eagerly awaited. We were surprised that it took the government so long to introduce it.

We have been waiting a long time for this bill, especially part 1. The Bloc Québécois has been waiting a long time for such a bill to protect our children and people who are abused and bullied and whose reputations are jeopardized because of all the issues related to pornography. We agree with part 1 of the bill. We even made an offer to the minister. We agree with it so completely, and I believe there is a consensus about that across the House, that I think we should split the bill and pass the first part before the House rises. That way, we could implement everything needed to protect our children, teens and young adults who are currently going through difficult experiences that can change their lives and have a significant negative impact on them.

We agree that parts 2, 3 and 4 need to be discussed and debated, because the whole hate speech component of the bill is important. We agree with the minister on that. It is very important. What is currently happening on the Internet and online is unacceptable. We need to take action, but reaching an agreement on how to deal with this issue is not that easy. We need time and we need to debate it amongst ourselves.

The Bloc Québécois has a list of witnesses who could enlighten us on how we can improve the situation. We would like to hear from experts who could help us pass the best bill possible in order to protect the public, citizens and groups when it comes to the whole issue of hate speech. We also wonder why the minister, in part 2 of his bill, which deals with hate speech, omitted to include the two clauses of the bill introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly. I am talking about Bill C-367, which proposed removing the protection afforded under the Criminal Code to people who engage in hate speech on a religious basis.

We are wondering why the minister did not take the opportunity to add these clauses to his bill. These are questions that we have because to us, offering this protection is out of the question. It is out of the question to let someone use religion as an excuse to make gestures, accusations or even very threatening comments on the Internet under these sections of the Criminal Code. We are asking the minister to listen. The debates in the House and in committee are very polarized right now.

It would be extremely sad and very disappointing if we passed this bill so quickly that there was no time to debate it in order to improve it and make it the best bill it can be.

I can say that the Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of the bill at second reading. As I said, it is a complex bill. We made a proposal to the Prime Minister. We wrote to him and the leader. We also talked to the Minister of Justice to tell him to split the bill as soon as possible. That way, we could quickly protect the survivors who testified at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the other Parliament. These people said that their life is unbearable, and they talked about the consequences they are suffering from being victims of sites such as Pornhub. They were used without their consent. Intimate images of them were posted without their consent. We are saying that we need to protect the people currently going through this by quickly adopting part 1. The committee could then study part 2 and hear witnesses.

I know that the member for Drummond and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia raised this idea during committee of the whole on May 23. They tried to convince the minister, but he is still refusing to split the bill. We think that is a very bad idea. We want to repeat our offer. We do not really understand why he is so reluctant to do so. There is nothing partisan about what the Bloc Québécois is proposing. Our focus is on protecting victims on various platforms.

In closing, I know that the leaders are having discussions to finalize when the House will rise for the summer. Maybe fast-tracking a bill like this one could be part of the negotiations. However, I repeat that we are appealing to the Minister of Justice's sense of responsibility. I know he cares a lot about victims and their cause. We are sincerely asking him to postpone the passage of parts 2, 3 and 4, so that we can have more time to debate them in committee. Most importantly, we want to pass part 1 before the House rises for the summer so that we can protect people who are going through a really hard time right now because their private lives have been exposed online and they cannot get web platforms to taken down their image, their photo or photos of their private parts.

We are appealing to the minister's sense of responsibility.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, it is indeed Bill C‑367, which was introduced by the member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader of the Bloc Québécois, that simply seeks to eliminate this religious exemption. I hope that the government and the minister will be in favour of this bill.

I will ask a simple question to close: Will the minister finally implement an organized crime registry?

Criminal Code

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑367, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred or antisemitism).

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a modern Parliament worthy of its name needs to address certain things that we are long overdue in addressing, things that perhaps never should have happened in the first place.

There is a cost to living together and to living in harmony in society. That cost may simply be to refrain from giving inappropriate and undue privileges to people within a society who use them to disturb the peace and harmony, especially if those privileges enable people to sow hatred or wish death upon others based on a belief in some divine power.

That is even more true in a country that claims to be secular or that claims that there is a separation between church and state. That is why it is high time that someone took action.

I would ask the House to quickly support the act to amend the Criminal Code throughout the process in order to prevent the promotion of hatred and antisemitism.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)