Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Oshawa.
I rise today to address Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, specifically the changes to subsection 319(6) and the introduction of proposed subsection 319(7) to the Criminal Code.
I strongly support protecting religious freedom and ensuring that all Canadians are safe from hate and violence, but Bill C-9 would not do that effectively. I have three serious concerns about Bill C-9. First, it omits the protection of Christians, despite the fact that more than 100 churches have been burned and vandalized in Canada since 2021. Second, it would remove the safeguard of the Attorney General's consent under section 319. This would risk hate speech being weaponized as a political tool by any party in power by letting the government minister decide who gets charged. Third, it would water down the definition of “hatred” to something so vague and subjective that it would risk encroaching on the very right contained in subsection 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Beginning with my first objection to Bill C-9, I find it quite perplexing that Christian hate is not even mentioned in the bill. In recent years, we have seen alarming hate-motivated attacks, including the burning and vandalism of churches across Canada. Just last week, a century-old Ukrainian Orthodox church in Edmonton was burned to the ground. As we have witnessed a record number of sacred spaces being destroyed, Christians have noticed the government's silence. Congregations have been left in fear, and people of faith are feeling abandoned by their government's lack of enforcement of existing laws.
In this context, it is shocking that a bill about combatting hate is completely silent on the rise of Christian hate. The government's press release mentions anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia, yet it makes no mention of the rise in hate crimes toward Christians. This bill would not add new protections for worshippers. Instead, it would expand state powers by removing the legal safeguards and watering down the definition of hate speech. It would pave the path toward politicizing restrictions on speech. It would even risk criminalizing dissent to what some would call thought crimes.
We must exercise caution. Once such powers are granted to the government, they can be weaponized by any government against its critics. The existing Criminal Code already covers the most serious offences. Section 318 makes it a crime to advocate for or promote genocide. Section 319 criminalizes public incitement to hatred, wilful promotion of hate and speech that would lead to a breach of peace. These provisions already strike a careful balance between protecting Canadians from true hate and safeguarding freedom of expression. Bill C-9 attempts to redefine hatred so vaguely that it would risk capturing legitimate debate.
We have seen how this plays out elsewhere in the world. In the U.K., a man was arrested for holding a blank protest sign because authorities said it could be interpreted as offensive. In Australia, parents were investigated for hate speech after questioning gender policies at their school. In New Zealand, academics were threatened with jail for quoting banned manifestos. Canada is not immune.
We are crossing a dangerous line of removing the provincial Attorney General's consent and oversight and leaving charges in the hands of a minister appointed by the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has given us reason to believe that it would weaponize hate speech laws against its political opponents for political gain.
Bill C-9 would introduce a second significant change by adding a subjective, emotionally driven definition of hatred that lowers the threshold that was essentially set by the Supreme Court of Canada. As many members know, this is important because hatred is not defined in our Criminal Code. Rather, its meaning has developed over decades through case law, the most notable case being the 2013 Supreme Court case Saskatchewan v. Whatcott. That case said the term “hatred” must be interpreted as extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification” and should not include representations that merely discredit, offend or insult.
That objective standard set by the Supreme Court protects freedom of expression while targeting real harm. The Liberal government seeks to overturn that Supreme Court definition with Bill C-9 by replacing that decision with a new subsection 319(7), which is found in Bill C-9. In this new subsection, the Liberals wish to redefine hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. Removing the word “extreme” lowers the threshold that the Supreme Court put in place to protect free speech.
By focusing on emotion rather than extreme manifestations, the government’s new definition shifts attention to feelings rather than actual harm. Under the Liberal Bill C-9, citizens may self-censor, and prosecutors would also gain wide discretion to pursue cases based on perceived emotion, not demonstrable harm. This creates a real risk that individuals may be penalized for strong dissent, even without intent to incite hatred.
Why does this matter? It is important to recognize that these harmful parts of Bill C-9 could cause real issues for freedom of speech. Removing the Attorney General's consent and watering down the definition of “hatred” directly threaten our fundamental freedom of expression, which is contained in subsection 2(b) of the charter. Once charged with hate speech, a person's life can be ruined long before a verdict, with careers lost, reputations destroyed and families fractured. Bill C-9 amounts to cancel culture that is enforced by government power.
Laws that protect against hatred toward Christians, Jews, Muslims or any faith group must be enforced under existing laws contained in sections 318 and 319. Bill C-9 would not create new protections; it would create a fake law. It pretends to fight hate while really concentrating power in Ottawa. By removing the Attorney General’s oversight and inserting a vague new definition of hatred, this bill would give the government a tool to harass dissenters and weaponize the law for political gain.
Hate is real, and it must always be confronted, but we do not confront hate by weakening democracy. We do not confront hate by stripping away safeguards, criminalizing emotions and centralizing power in Ottawa. The true test of our democracy is not how we treat speech that we agree with, but how we protect the freedom of those with whom we profoundly disagree. Bill C-9 fails that test. It risks turning the coercive apparatus of the state into a weapon of dissent.
I stand here not just as a member of Parliament for the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk, nor as a lawyer, but as a Canadian and a Christian who believes that freedom of expression is sacred. We already have the laws to punish genuine hatred. We must now guard against a government that uses the language of protection as a cloak for control.
