Bill C-373

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.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Baron, I thought I saw on your LinkedIn page that you speak French; I'll take advantage of that.

I won't make you repeat what you've already said, but I'd like to bring you to another topic addressed by Mr. Rousseau, which is the abolition of religious exceptions in the Criminal Code.

Bill C‑373 has been introduced, and it provides for the repeal of paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code. These are provisions that serve as a defence for hate speech or anti-Semitic speech, as long as it is based on a religious concept that we believe in and defend in good faith. In my opinion, the spread of hatred seems a bit difficult to accept as part of a religion. I would say that 99% of religions are based on love and communal harmony, not on the spread of hate.

Is it a good idea to abolish these defences of religious exception? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Professor Potvin, Professor Gaudreault‑DesBiens and Professor Lefebvre, we are pleased to have you here.

I think you were a major piece of the puzzle we are dealing with in our study on freedom of expression. I'm very pleased that you agreed to join us.

Mrs. Lefebvre, in your opening remarks earlier, you stated that you support the bill to repeal section 319 and remove the religious exemption.

I'm very happy to hear that, Mrs. Lefebvre. I think there is a general consensus on that in Quebec society.

Today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I tried to move a motion for the unanimous consent of the parties in the House of Commons.

I would like to read it to you, and I would like your comments on it. The motion reads as follows:

That the House affirm that no hate speech is tolerated in Canada; That it deplore the religious exemption provided for in paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code on hate speech; That it deplore the fact that the religious exemption provides a legal shield for radical extremists to encourage hatred and intolerance towards ethnic or religious groups or to disseminate racist, misogynistic or homophobic speech; That the House support the urgent need to repeal paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code in order to ensure the full application of legal protections against hate speech to all citizens of Quebec and Canada, as provided for in Bill C‑373, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred or antisemitism).

Do you think the motion is reasonable? Parties in the House opposed it and even prevented me from reading it today.

I'd like your opinion on that.

[Solange Lefebvre]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to testify before the committee. Mrs. Potvin, Mr. Gaudreault‑DesBiens and I will all speak briefly.

We represent the Chaire de recherche France-Québec sur les enjeux contemporains de la liberté d'expression, or COLIBEX, which is funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec.

With me are Professor Maryse Potvin, co‑chair and head of the area that focuses on academic freedom, and Jean‑François Gaudreault‑DesBiens, co‑researcher and legal expert. I am a co‑chair and head of the area that focuses on religion.

We will briefly outline a few recommendations, which are described in detail in the brief that will be submitted after the meeting. I'm going to introduce the first part, which deals with religion. It includes two recommendations related to section 319 of the Criminal Code, which deals with public incitement of hatred.

The first recommendation is as follows. We agree with Bill C‑373, which calls for the repeal of paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. The paragraph protects an opinion on a religious subject. In our view, that should not be the case. If any elected officials oppose the repeal of the paragraph, they should explicitly justify the reasons for their opposition.

The second recommendation is as follows. Given the complexity of the issues surrounding incitement to hatred and how it can be expressed publicly, we recommend that the government develop public guidance to better interpret the concept of “identifiable group”, a concept defined in subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code.

I will now give the floor to Professor Maryse Potvin.

Justice

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to listen to that again. It did not seem to me like an answer to the question.

Hate speech is supposed to be a crime, period. Either we believe that or not. Quebec is asking that the religious exception protecting hate speech in section 319 of the Criminal Code be repealed. The timing is good, because the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑373 does exactly that. It is the only bill to do so. It conveys a clear principle that deserves clear support.

Will the government finally get behind the Bloc Québécois to amend section 319 of the Criminal Code and abolish the religious exemption?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Rassemblement pour la laïcité stands united with the Quebec government. Both are calling for the government to remove the religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to spread hate speech without consequence.

The Liberals have said they are, and I quote, determined to find solutions that meet the needs of all Canadians. Luckily enough, the Bloc Québécois can help them out. Bill C‑373 does exactly that, and it is supported by 66% of Canadians and 75% of Quebeckers.

Will the government finally commit to supporting our bill?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you for your question.

The interesting thing about Bill C‑63 is that it addresses the idea of deepfakes, a term used for the first time in the law. It addresses not only revenge porn, the disclosure of images showing intimate relations without consent, but also communicating images of women created entirely artificially. Whether it is really the woman who appears in the image or it is a faked representation of her, the result is the same: the woman is being punished, isolated and frightened, particularly on social media.

That is why this bill is so important. It is not just for adult women; it is also for young teens. We have repeatedly seen how they are victims of attacks by predators. I am thinking of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd, and of young boys. These young teens do not have the capacity or tools they need to fight back against predators, and sometimes the result is that they commit suicide, which is a tragedy.

That is why Bill C‑63 is so strong and so necessary if we want to make progress in the fight against predators. This is also about saving our young people, our teens and our women.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

You are asking for $4.9 million to support victims and survivors of hate crimes. How would that money be used?

Bill C‑63 will be considered by the committee soon. What are the other measures you have taken to combat the increase in hate crimes? You have mentioned several.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We have already done a number of things. As I said, in the 43rd Parliament, we passed Bill C‑3, which requires that new judges receive training on sexual assault. In the current Parliament, we have also passed Bill S-12; that bill restored the National Sex Offender Registry, which focuses particularly on predators who attack women.

We have also twice made changes to bail. This affects victims of intimate partner violence. It involves Bill C-75, which was passed in an earlier Parliament, and Bill C-48, which was passed during the current Parliament. So we have done a number of things.

What bothers me a bit, and concerns me, is that on the provinces' part, we see situations where victims of sexual harassment or sexual assault are not able to be heard by a judge and argue their case, to make the accused answer for their acts, because the provinces are not investing enough money, and this results in unreasonable delays. A number of articles have been written recently about the problem in this regard in Ontario.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

My answer is yes, it is.

When it comes to deciding how we can expand or amend our own laws, study the situation and combat hate, the approach we suggest in Bill C‑63 is to increase the penalties. If the approach you suggest is to eliminate some of the exemptions provided, I will be completely prepared to listen.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The bill is C‑63.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, Minister.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C‑373 which proposes to eliminate the religious exemptions provided in paragraphs 319(3)(b) and (319)(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code. I would like to know your opinion on that.

Can we expect that your government will take up that bill, or support it, before the end of the current Parliament?

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member was speaking about Bill C-373. I would like to ask him about Bill C-372.

António Guterres, the head of the UN, has called fossil fuel companies the “godfathers of climate chaos”. He said they are moving us to a living hell and that countries and governments have to stop acting as “enablers”. Part of that, for Guterres, is a ban on fossil fuel advertising, as it is a threat to human health and a threat to the health of the planet.

Would the member support Bill C-372, which would limit fossil fuel advertising? It is a direct threat to human health.

Criminal Code

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑373, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred or antisemitism).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to introduce this bill to amend the Criminal Code so that religious beliefs can never again be used as a justification for hate speech or words meant to incite violence under the Criminal Code.

It is very unfortunate that people in positions of influence, whether in the religious or civil domain, use their status to incite hatred and violence and sometimes even enjoy a certain impunity in that regard. The recent actions of a Montreal preacher are a shameful example.

This behaviour is unacceptable and must be punished. That is the purpose of our bill. We think that we need to take action as quickly as possible on this, particularly since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could exacerbate tensions.

I invite the elected members of all parties in the House to join forces and to debate and pass this bill as quickly as possible.

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