Bill C-9

Combatting Hate Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences;
(b) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Combatting Hate Act

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of collaboration, I withdraw my comments, but I ask the members opposite to reflect—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

We will take the win right there. The comments have been withdrawn. We can consider this matter closed, but I will invite members of this place to remember that we can have strong debate. In fact, strong debate is encouraged in this place, but there is a line at personal comments on the motivations of an individual member or personal attacks. That is where things go beyond.

We consider the matter closed. We are on to resuming debate, and the hon. member for Saskatoon West has the floor.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler.

This legislation, in my view, is flawed and redundant. We already have laws to cover what this legislation would be doing. I am going to talk about the real issue that I see, which is enforcing criminal laws in our country. It is one of the problems we have in our country right now, not the lack of laws. I also want to talk a bit about what we should be talking about, which is our Conservative plan to combat crime. There are real crimes happening in our country and real problems that everyday citizens are facing, and we need to take action. That is what we need to talk about.

I am not a lawyer, but frankly, anything to do with stopping hate sounds like a good thing. When I first looked at this bill, it seemed like something I would maybe be interested in supporting. However, as I started talking to people, I heard a lot of people say they were for it and a lot say they were against it. A lot of issues started coming up, and I realized that maybe a bit more needed to be looked at in this bill.

Instead of reading about the bill, I grabbed the bill and looked at it to see what it actually said, and I found some interesting things. The first thing I noticed as I read the bill is that it would create a new intimidation offence. It would prohibit conduct intended to provoke fear in order to impede access to religious, cultural, education or community places. In other words, if there was a demonstration outside a church, mosque or synagogue and a person trying to go there felt intimidated and did not feel safe, that is what this bill is referring to. Okay, that is fine, but we already have subsection 423(1) of the Criminal Code, which is about using intimidation to stop people from doing something lawful. It is not so much that we are lacking the law to protect our religious, cultural, educational and community places, but it is that we do not tend to enforce the law that is already there.

I kept reading the bill and found a second offence that it would create, a new obstruction offence, which would prohibit intentionally obstructing or interfering with lawful access to religious, cultural, education or community places. That is a whole other level of intimidation when someone cannot physically get there. Once again, we already have laws for this. There are subsections 176(2) and 176(3) in the Criminal Code, for obstructing or disturbing religious services or meetings. It is already an offence. There is also section 264, which deals with criminal harassment, threats and stalking. These are long-standing offences that have been used in many different cases, but there is often a lack of enforcement of these laws in the specific circumstances related to churches and other religious institutions.

I found a third criminal offence that the bill would create, which is a new hate crime offence. It proposes to establish that any federal offence motivated by hatred would be a distinct offence with elevated penalties. We already have laws against hate. In fact, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code makes hate an aggravating factor when someone is convicted. In other words, if a person is convicted of assault, mischief or some more serious crime and it was motivated by hate, a judge can add hate as an aggravating factor, which would make the sentence that much longer. It would make the offence that much more serious to the person. We already have this, and again, it is just not enforced as much as it should be.

A fourth offence would be created by this bill, a new hate propaganda offence, which would prohibit the public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols with intent to promote hatred against an identifiable group. An unfortunate example of this happened just a week ago in St. Thomas, where a family that moved into a neighbourhood was promoting a lot of anti-Semitic material and songs and a swastika was mowed into the lawn. Guess what. Two people were arrested and charged with criminal harassment, public incitement of hatred and mischief. This just happened. We obviously have not passed this bill yet, yet the police had the laws and tools they needed to charge these two people. Fortunately, in this case, charges were laid.

There are of course even more laws. There is a hate propaganda law in section 318, even for things like advocating genocide. There is section 319, for public incitement likely to cause a breach of the peace. Subsection 319(2) deals with the wilful promotion of hatred, and subsection 319(2.1) is about the wilful promotion of anti-Semitism. Of course, there is section 430, which deals with mischief to property motivated by hate. That is already an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years. We have all of these laws on the books that deal with the subject matter that this particular legislation is talking about.

I kept reading because there was more. There were a couple more things that I found. The first was that the law removes the requirement for the Attorney General to agree to lay hate charges. There are pros and cons to this. Some would say that this is a roadblock and that it makes it difficult to lay hate charges. Others would say that it also prevents vexatious charges from happening. It provides that sober second thought to make sure that this does indeed reach the bar of a hate crime. Removing the requirement for the Attorney General is maybe not the best idea.

The other thing that I found, the last thing, was that it removes the word “extreme” from the definition of hatred. Instead of extreme bias or hatred toward a particular group, it says bias or hatred toward that group.

Again, it lowers the bar a little, making it a little easier for vexatious charges to be laid, which is concerning to me. We have to be careful that we do not give too much power to the state when it comes to maintaining our freedoms. It is a balance that we have to be really careful with. If we take all of that together, the legislation does not actually do a whole lot. In terms of the first points that I made, we already have the laws to cover what we need to do here. It is just those last two things, which are relatively small, I would say, that it changes.

This is really window dressing. It avoids the real problem, which I have mentioned a few times, and that is proper enforcement. To be clear, I am not criticizing the police. In fact, if we were to talk to any police officers about any kind of crime in our country, they would say that they are very frustrated. They want to enforce the laws, but they have a lot of problems and a lot of things holding them back. For example, they know that criminals will just end up getting bail instead of going to jail, which makes it very difficult for them to arrest people. There is a lack of will at the civic, provincial and even federal levels among prosecutors to actually prosecute these crimes. Therefore, police are not empowered to lay these charges, because the prosecutors will simply not prosecute them.

Conservatives believe in protecting vulnerable communities; we also believe in free expression, religious freedom and peaceful protest. These are the things that we need to balance. My concern with the legislation is that it would tip the scales a little bit too much toward giving a lot of power to the federal government. I am concerned about free expression.

We need to target hate crimes with real enforcement instead of targeting law-abiding Canadians. I want to point out that the symbol part of the legislation can be very tricky as well. Symbols are used in many different situations. Of course, there is the example with the Hindu community, which has used what we would call the swastika for eons as one of its sacred symbols. It has very positive meanings for them, but the Nazis took that symbol over and called it the hakenkreuz, and that became their symbol of Nazism. Therefore, we have to be very careful not to outlaw a symbol that is very meaningful to certain groups. We have to be very careful.

Briefly, I want to speak about what the government should be focusing on, in my opinion. This corresponds to what we believe as Conservatives, which is that we should be focusing on the real crime issues that we have in our country. We should be helping our Canadian residents to feel safe in their own neighbourhoods, but they do not feel safe right now. We should be helping police forces, prosecutors and courts to do their jobs. We should be helping them to get things done.

We have a lack of timely follow-through. Charges get dropped. There are weak sentences. This comes back to some of the legislative changes that the Liberal government has made. Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 were reforms that it undertook to eliminate a lot of mandatory minimum sentences, to reduce the sentencing times, to actually create house arrest, to allow criminals to get out on bail rather than going to jail. These are the things that are causing the problems in our cities and our country today. These are the issues that my constituents, and I think all of our constituents, talk about.

These are the issues that we should be debating and changing in the House.

Where is the Liberal bill to undo the bail reforms that Liberals made, to get criminals back in jail rather than out on bail? We are still waiting. We have been promised this for months, and it has not happened. Everybody is asking for this. Mayors are asking for this. Provincial premiers are asking for this.

We really need to move forward. I want to reiterate that I believe Bill C-9 is flawed. We need to focus on what we need to do to fix the problems that we have with our laws in our country so that Canadians can feel safe in their neighbourhoods, so that Canadians can have peace and so that they can live in harmony and practise freedom.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, again I want to be very clear about Bill C-9. We would actually be creating a stand-alone hate offence that could be applied across federal law, from the Criminal Code to the National Parks Act, so that any hate-motivated law-breaking would be treated with the gravity it deserves.

I think that to try to give the false impression that the legislation is all covered from within does a disservice to the many individuals and/or groups that have been advocating for us to heighten the importance of ensuring that our laws are there to deal with hate crimes.

Does the member not believe that in fact we can do more to ensure that hate crimes are there, from a legislative—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Saskatoon West has the floor.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course we all want fewer hate crimes in our country. Of course we all abhor hate crimes when we see them. However, there are already many laws on the books to deal with pretty much any kind of hate crime that can be there. There has been the burning of churches, as an example. A lot of these crimes go unsolved, or the laws are not enforced.

There are current laws on the books that fully allow us to deal with the situation; therefore I would suggest that we need to, yes, work on having fewer hate crimes in our country, but we need to give our police officers the resources they need to enforce the laws we already have.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has had the opportunity, as I have, to take in some of the debate so far. We have heard the Liberals accuse Conservatives of being conspiracy theorists for raising very legitimate questions about freedom of expression, which by the way have been raised by civil society groups on the left and the right in the last few days.

I want to ask my hon. colleague this: Has he heard from the Liberals, in their questions on the issue and in their own interventions, any explanation of how the legislation would differ from the powers that are already on the books when it comes to hate exhibited through hate symbols or through intimidation or obstruction, and in general from the stand-alone hate charge, which the Criminal Code already looks at as an aggravating factor?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question. The short answer is no, I have not heard much logic from the other side, frankly, on just about anything in the House.

There are laws on the books. A great example is the situation in St. Thomas I cited, which happened just a few weeks ago, where there was a symbol involved, and police officers reacted to that. They were able to charge the homeowner with crimes. They were able to charge him with aggravated hate crime.

We have enforcement of the laws. That exists today. That is exactly what we should be achieving in our country: using the laws we have to make sure we can reduce the number of hate crimes in our country.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saskatoon West seems very committed to individual rights, but he also seems aware of the need to tackle genuine hate speech. Does he find it acceptable that the Criminal Code includes a religious exemption allowing hate speech as long as it is based on a sacred text?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be really careful that we focus on what needs to be focused on. We have to make sure that we stop and reduce the amount of hate crime in our country. We have to remember that we have existing laws on the books that can be used for this purpose. We have to make sure that our law enforcement has the tools it needs in order to enforce those laws.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, as a preamble that really should go without saying, there is no disagreement in any corner of the House about the values that should underlie this legislation. We all value a safe Canada where every single human is free to live their lives as their fullest selves irrespective of their race, religion, ethnicity, language, physical or mental disability, etc. There is no member in this House who wants to see hate or the symbols of hate that the present legislation deals with displayed or promoted in any way in our country or in any other country. I think we remain unanimous in the House in condemning hate, hate crimes and hate propaganda.

However, a careful distinction must be brought to bear between condemnation and criminalization, and we must always note this. When we approach discussions of criminalization, it should be with humility. If I could wave a magic wand and stop anyone in this country from ever propagating any hate or committing a hate crime, I swear I would do it, but such magic is not one of the powers vested in us as elected representatives. We can only modify the criminal justice system, and we must be alive to the unintended consequences that such modifications could have.

In that spirit, I would honestly like to raise with the members opposite the following concerns I have with this legislation. Number one, would it drive hate organizations underground? It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. When the justice minister introduced this legislation, my thoughts immediately turned to the famous and thankfully aborted Nazi rally in Skokie, Illinois, of 1977. It is a very famous case, in part because the ACLU lawyer who fought for the right of those marchers to march was David Goldberger, who was a very proud Jew. Reprehensibly, the marchers chose Skokie, Illinois, because there was a high proportion of Holocaust survivors there whom they sought to terrify. On the date of the march, 20 broken and twisted individuals wearing Nazi hakenkreuzes were met by 2,000 counterprotesters shouting them down. No violence occurred, and the cowardly traitorous Nazis went home without marching.

A recent ABC News article quotes the current mayor of Skokie, Illinois, saying that looking back 40 years later, many positive things came out of that day. Previously, the Holocaust survivors in Skokie, he says, “were a very quiet group” who did not talk about their experiences, but he said these events “ignited a passion in them”, and they founded the Illinois Holocaust Museum & Education Center within two years of that day. The ABC News article notes that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have recognized the incredible work that museum does.

In many ways, John Stuart Mill can be thought of as the founder of the Liberal tradition that gives the Liberal Party its name. This is what he had to say about false and hateful opinions: “though the silenced opinion be an error...it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.” That is to say that no one wants to hear from hateful miscreants. No one in this House does, but when we do, we must take it as a solemn opportunity to perhaps not change their minds, but loudly and with facts and arguments disabuse whatever listeners they may have of the poison they utter.

With the words of John Stuart Mill and the examples of the Skokie counterprotesters in mind, I ask the justice minister this admittedly counterintuitive question: By driving hate into the fetid swamps of Discord or whatever website has replaced 4chan, does it deprive our communities the opportunity to denounce it in person and to show people in the real world that their views are not welcome and that their movement has no purchase among the 99.9% of Canadians who value each other's fundamental rights and freedoms? As a sub-concern, if it is allowed to fester in these dark corners of the Internet, when it does finally burst out, is it more likely to do so in a form worse than a flag or symbol? I do not ask this question lightly, and it brings me to my second concern with the proposed legislation.

In some comments I made following a speech about criminal justice, I expressed concern that the deputy government House leader seemed more concerned with abstractions rather than concrete occurrences. On this side of the House, we pride ourselves on our concern for concrete occurrences. As a Canadian, I am terribly upset, disgusted and disappointed that Jewish individuals have been harmed by criminal psychopaths because of who they are. A man was beaten up in front of his children in Montreal this summer. A few weeks ago, a woman was stabbed in the kosher food section of a local Ottawa grocery store. Less well known is that in the spring of 2024, a 15-year-old Israeli immigrant to Canada was attacked at school for her place of origin. In that case, I believe it took two weeks before the police even deigned to lay charges.

In my own circle of physician friends, I am sorry and ashamed to report that some Jews have left Canada permanently because of the lack of safety these concrete events demonstrate. I want dearly for my Jewish friends to feel safe to return to Canada.

Year after year, we have increases in violent crime in Canada. We have seen ongoing increases in every classification and every sort of violent crime. These increases, I am sorry to say, started in 2015. In every class of violent crime, we have seen a failure of the Liberal government to keep the bad guys in jail.

It is my understanding that the wilful promotion of hatred, whether with a symbol or a flag or a speech or a newspaper article, is already illegal in Canada under subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code. It is furthermore my understanding that intimidating a person who seeks to enter a place of worship or any other place is already illegal under section 423 of the Criminal Code. However, we have seen very many infractions of these already-existing laws in the targeting of religious minorities. I may go so far as to say that every religious minority is dealing with more infractions of these laws in just about every Canadian city. In fact, every Canadian is dealing with more of every sort of crime. This is why I fear that the present bill is an abstraction and a distraction.

We need concrete measures. We need the violent and hateful people who do these sorts of things, who break our laws, to go to jail and stay in jail. Conservatives have proposed such measures to put the bad guys in jail. I earnestly beg the members opposite to take us up on it. Let us do these concrete things.

Those are my twin concerns. By removing the consent of the Attorney General and watering down the definition of hate, would the Liberals cast a wider net, driving cranks and loons underground, where they might become more hateful and, God forbid, more violent? Why would they cast a wider net when they are already refusing to use the smaller, more targeted net that they have? Why do they refuse to repeal their irresponsible bail laws that let violent psychos back on our streets again and again? I ask the questions in good faith.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about hate speech and the issues that are related to it and the violence, we have to take into consideration, as a federal government, that we want to bring forward changes to the criminal law that would actually have a tangible impact and would give additional tools to law enforcement officers and provincially appointed Crown attorneys who take these individuals to the court system. It would give them that extra tool so we could see more success in the prosecution and have heavier penalties for the individuals committing these hideous hate crimes against people.

Would the member not agree that they are shared responsibilities and that part of our responsibility is to pass legislation—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is exactly what I am driving at. We want concrete measures to enforce the laws that already exist.

When I was listening to the member's question, I had to wonder if it is his belief that it is provincial attorneys general who are stopping violent criminals from going to jail right now. I do not think it is, and I do not think the member would dare mention a provincial attorney general who he thinks is derelict in duty in that way.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague talked about the problems of enforcement. The government is trying to suggest that there is a problem in terms of a lack of things being classed as offences, but actually there is a problem of enforcement not being effective.

There is also a problem of the tone that has been set by the current government when it comes to attacks, particularly against churches. Gerry Butts, the former adviser to the previous prime minister, who was intimately involved with the current Prime Minister's work as well, basically said that these attacks on churches were “understandable”. That is a grotesque statement from a senior Liberal.

I wonder if my hon. friend would agree that while we need to address the enforcement issue, we also need to address the fact that senior people in the current government have said things that have kind of tacitly lent credence to the motivations that may be behind some of these attacks.