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 Crime

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

It is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the incredible residents who put me in this incredible position to represent them in the House of Commons. Today, I rise to speak to this government bill, Bill C-9, the combatting hate act.

Let me begin where I think all of us in the House can agree. We support the objective of protecting vulnerable communities from the rising levels of hate and extremism that we see literally daily in this country. We support giving police and prosecutors the tools they need to keep Canadians safe from coast to coast in their homes, in their schools, in their places of worship and in community spaces. However, the bill itself is flawed in its current form. It cannot go ahead as the Liberals have drafted it, and it is my duty today to explain why.

First, we need to talk about timing. Where was this legislation almost two years ago? We are about to approach the anniversary of the October 7 massacre in Israel. Where was this government in terms of advancing legislation? Literally overnight, we saw an expansion of hatred directed towards Jewish people. It was not just in large cities; it penetrated the entire country. Jewish Canadians were targeted in their communities. Students were harassed simply for going to school. Synagogues across this country were being shot at and firebombed on a regular basis and had to increase their level of security. Where was the Liberal government to address these criminal acts? Where were the Liberals as Islamophobia rose in Canada, when mosques were threatened and Muslim families felt unsafe simply walking in their neighbourhood?

Let us not forget that there is absolutely zero reference to Christianity. Christianity is under attack in this country.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what was funny about Christianity being under attack, but nevertheless, Christian churches have been burned at an alarming rate. Between May 2021 and December 2023, thirty-three Christian churches were burned in this country, with the vast majority being arson-based.

For years, communities cried out for protection. What they got instead from their federal Liberal government was silence. Now, years late, the government has tabled a bill that, quite frankly, feels more like a political gesture than a serious plan.

Make no mistake, the numbers are alarming. Since 2015, police-reported hate crimes in Canada have increased by 258%. Anti-Semitic hate crimes alone are up 416%. Hate crimes against South Asians have risen by almost 380%. In 2024 alone, Canada saw almost 5,000 police-reported hate crimes, the highest number on record. In Toronto alone, hate crime occurrences jumped by 19% in a single year, with assault-related hate crimes rising by 42%.

These numbers are not just statistics. They represent real Canadians, our neighbours, our friends, our co-workers and our children, who all deserve confidence in knowing they are safe and secure. This is why Conservatives have been abundantly clear that we support stronger protections, but supporting that objective does not mean rubber-stamping a flawed piece of legislation.

What are the problems with Bill C-9?

The bill, as drafted, is vague and broad. Civil liberty organizations across Canada have already raised the alarm. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has warned that the intimidation and obstruction provisions risk capturing peaceful protest and legitimate dissent.

The BC Civil Liberties Association said the same. The poorly drafted language could criminalize demonstrations even when they are peaceful and lawful. These are independent organizations dedicated to protecting charter rights, and they are telling us loudly that Bill C-9 risks going too far.

We have heard, by way of questioning of the minister, that there would be removal of Attorney General consent for hate propaganda charges. Police officers and prosecutors I have spoken with view that consent as an important safeguard, a so-called safety valve that ensures that these powerful tools are not misused.

In response to a question from my colleague from York Centre, the minister, in my view, minimized the potential consequential impact of removing Attorney General consent from private prosecutions. His response was that they want to remove political influence. As a former member of the attorney general's office in the province of Ontario, I am rather offended by that, because he is indicating that my boss at that time, the provincial attorney general, was highly political, and that his consent or her consent to continuing a prosecution was made depending on what political affiliation he or she belonged to. That is nonsense, absolute nonsense. It is a safety valve that has been in place for some significant time. It is not an onerous requirement and it ensures that legitimate charges are prosecuted as laid by the police.

More importantly, the requirement for consent would limit and almost completely eliminate overzealous litigants, private litigants, who feel, for whatever reason, that they want to lay a private complaint against another individual for comments that they deem to be offensive in the circumstances. It provides a very important safeguard.

The third problem I identify is the definition of hatred, and I have raised this issue already with the minister.

Bill C-9, as drafted, as the government indicates and as the minister just indicated, would codify the definition of hatred found in the Supreme Court of Canada as “detestation or vilification”. On its face, this seems consistent, but by removing the word “extreme” from the definition as defined by learned justices in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government has lowered the legal threshold, enabling police to lay a multitude of charges at a lower level of inspection and investigation, which, in my view, could open up the floodgates for litigation. That is a concern.

When they codify, they should be using the exact same words as the Supreme Court of Canada. The risk is that speech that is protected in a free democracy could be swept into a different category as true hate. This is not what Canadians want. It is not what our charter says.

Let me be clear. Conservatives support the goal of keeping Canadians safe from hate-motivated crime. We support police and prosecutors having the tools they need to act. We support ensuring that synagogues, mosques, cultural centres and schools are safe, but we also support protecting civil liberties.

I am going to conclude with the following. Canadians deserve protection from hate. They need to feel safe wherever they may be. They deserve to live in a country where freedom of speech and peaceful protests are respected. Bill C-9, as drafted, does not get that balance right. It is flawed. It is late. It cannot proceed in its current form.

We support protecting Canadians from threats, intimidation, obstruction and violence, but we will not rubber-stamp a flawed bill. We will stand up for vulnerable communities and for civil liberties. We will push for a law that truly represents and protects Canadians without undermining the freedoms that define us as a country. That is our commitment, that is our responsibility and that is the balance Canadians expect us to strike.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, in consultations for this piece of legislation, we heard from many Jewish organizations. One issue they brought up was that having to have the charge cleared through the Attorney General made it so cumbersome that no charges were ever laid. Although there are currently provisions for hate crimes, although not a stand-alone one like the one the bill would create, they were very rarely enforced, and the community felt oftentimes threatened and intimidated, feeling like they were victims of hate crimes that were never prosecuted in court.

I want to know what my colleague feels about those comments that came from Jewish organizations.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have several responses.

I want to highlight again that obtaining Attorney General consent is not a cumbersome process. There are a number of potential prosecutions and offences currently in the Criminal Code that already require Attorney General consent, so I can lay to rest the issue that it is too time-consuming and would delay a potential prosecution, because it is not reality.

The other issue that the member raises is the issue of whether private prosecutions can be overcome by Attorney General consent, and as I indicated in my speech, that raises the spectre of overzealous litigants simply abusing the process. The act is currently stating that this particular form of hatred needs to be attached to another offence of any other act of Parliament, so that could include our political opponents under the Canada Elections Act. There could be numerous examples where things that are said under the guise of freedom of expression can be determined by a political opponent to be vilifying or to somehow have a detestation element and therefore they want to proceed with the prosecution. That is why we need Attorney General consent.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we have indicated, Bill C‑9 has some merit. It needs to be studied at committee.

Earlier, in response to two questions we asked him, the minister told us that he might be prepared to review the religious exemption as part of the study in committee.

Are the Conservatives open to that as well? Are they willing to review the religious exemption granted when hateful symbols are displayed?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, nothing is off the table.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought up the issue of churches being burnt down. We have seen a massive increase in hate attacks across the country since this government took power 10 long years ago. I wonder if my colleague could comment on why it has taken the government so long to act and also on the previous prime minister's comment about burning churches down being fully understandable.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find Justin Trudeau's comments in this House and outside this House with respect to the burning down of Christian churches to be absolutely repulsive. It was a disgusting statement by the head of a G7 country, and in my view, it is emblematic of how this government has vilified Christianity in the House of Commons. Every time a church was burned, we would bring it up in the House of Commons, trying to elicit a response from this government, and there was nothing but crickets on that side, which is disgusting.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always proud to represent the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix. I travelled around my riding all summer and I met with people. I went on a whistle-stop tour of all of the towns. Obviously, people talked to me about the issues that are on their minds right now, particularly access to housing, grocery prices and inflation. They also talked to me about the feeling of safety we have long enjoyed in Montmorency—Charlevoix, as well as in the rest of Quebec and Canada. We live in a safe country. However, people are noticing that that is gradually changing for the worse.

In my opinion, Bill C-9, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code with regard to hate, is well intentioned, but it must be be thoroughly examined. As we consider this bill, I would like to take the time to talk about the reasons why we are where we are today.

I believe we live in an excessively fast-paced society. People have access to information or disinformation in an instant. Quite often, people react very strongly to things they see on social media, such as a photo, a short video or a post. Debates become heated. People take sides and are rooted in their positions. Then they make enemies. Often, it is not just one enemy, but hundreds or even thousands of enemies. A short message on social media can escalate very quickly. Recently, in the United States, there was a video of a woman who took a young boy's baseball from him in a rather surprising interaction. The video was everywhere. The woman was harassed and her life was turned upside down. A small blip on social media can cause a really big stir.

There are a lot of what I call “masked vigilantes” online. These people take to their keyboards under the cover of anonymity, sometimes with fake accounts, sometimes even using real accounts. They feel they have excessive rights, and they take a stand. They try to create chaos online and they like to attract attention with their opinions, but they are not very knowledgeable. These are just angry and aggressive opinions, which social media loves.

I often refer to social media as extreme media. Extremist groups, like social media, are currently designed to activate these relationships, to push them further and make people believe that society is extremely left wing or extremely right wing. Algorithms are designed to show people only what they like, what they give a “like” to, what they watch.

Our phone can even analyze our scroll speed and our eye movements and use them as sources of information. Then it gives us only what we like the most. In fact, our phones are starting to know us better than we know ourselves.

We end up believing that everyone thinks the way we do, when the majority of people are more centrist. We would know that if we took the time to talk to one another.

There is also the notion of friendship. These days, we do not have as many people in our social circle. Everything happens on social media. We have hundreds, even thousands of friends, but very few know us. I think that is a serious problem.

We live in a society that, in my opinion, is very stressful, and there are four well-known stress factors: novelty, unpredictability, lack of control, and damage to self-esteem. When self-esteem is damaged, that causes stress. We live in a world that is extremely stressful.

The last few years have been extremely unpredictable and much has changed. It feels like things are out of control due to everything that is happening, particularly in terms of the cost of living, inflation, housing, and so on. In my region, things have changed a lot, and that is also true elsewhere. When we look at international politics, we wonder whether the world as we know it is collapsing. This is putting significant stress on society. I think that that leads to increasingly extreme positions.

Obviously, the solution is never to go to extremes. I would like to reference a very interesting statistic. Based on what we have seen to date, between 30% and 40% of the content on social media is not created by humans. It is created by artificial intelligence with the aim of getting a reaction. Often, people think they are interacting with a person and they try to convince that person, but they are actually trying to convince a robot, whose main objective is to get them to react. Once again, this creates extreme emotions in people and has a very polarizing effect. Once the snowball starts rolling, people either feel alone or think everyone shares their opinion, when, ultimately, the Internet is just telling people what they want to hear.

I also think that individualism has become a serious issue. It is as though each person has become the centre of their own universe, and people have largely forgotten about collectivism.

The one thing I did a lot this summer when travelling around Montmorency—Charlevoix was talk about history. Quebec and Canada evolved through collaboration and hard work. They did not evolve because people isolated themselves, avoided talking to one other and were in constant disagreement. When the individual is put before the collective good, I think society moves in the wrong direction.

I also think people have a hard time differentiating between news and facts. Social media, even the major news networks, spreads opinions to get a reaction out of people. People think they are facts, when they are actually opinions. Once again, this polarizes society and means that we no longer listen to each other.

Everything moves so fast that we speak before we listen, we form opinions before we know what we are talking about and we condemn people before we even understand the situation. I think that is what society's treatment of hate crimes stems from. In recent years, society seems to have allowed certain companies, or a certain system, to take hold and foment polarization and hatred. I think that today, we have to speak out to protect society.

Obviously freedom of expression is essential, but the way we live together as a society is also extremely important. In my opinion, this should once again be part of the debate. The idea that individual freedom should always come first, that small groups should get to monopolize the public arena to promote their opinions because they believe they have something to say, is something I do not agree with. Our goal should be harmonious coexistence and freedom for the majority. The one should not supersede the other, and we must learn to make them coexist.

Freedom is not synonymous with chaos. Far too often, a person is given the right to express themselves, but they conflate the right to express themselves and report a fact with the ideological right to act however they want, at any cost, without thinking about the consequences.

We must remain logical, pragmatic and thoughtful. Our society must encourage dialogue and listening and support discussion.

Things have gone downhill in recent years and crime has skyrocketed.

Over the past 10 years, since the Liberal government has been in office, violent crime has increased by 55%. Gun crime is up 130%. Extortion is up 330%. Homicides are up 29%. Sexual crime is up 76% and auto theft is up 25%. However, the government looked at all that and decided that what we need is new legislation to deal with the issue of hate.

I believe that we have a serious crime problem and that we should begin by giving our law enforcement agencies a clear definition of public order and providing the support they need to defend that order.

We must not miss the mark, as the government is currently doing with the firearm buyback program, for example. The government is missing the mark with this legislation that is nothing but smoke and mirrors. What we need is police officers who not only keep the peace but also protect the public order.

This firearm buyback program clearly shows that, ultimately, what the government wants is to give itself more power. However, by giving itself more power, it is missing the mark. This is a $750‑million program that the minister himself says will not work. Now they are starting to say that participation will have to be voluntary, when it is not. Going after licensed sport shooters and hunters does not seem like a good option to me.

What could we do with $750 million? Obviously, we could support our police officers. We could get good border officers, the necessary resources and even technology.

In Montmorency—Charlevoix, some companies make surveillance drones that could be used to monitor our borders more efficiently and prevent the weapons that are often used in hate crimes from entering the country.

Lastly, condemning hate is crucial, and we can all agree on that, but the Liberals have a bad habit of making the law more complex. We should start by supporting our law enforcement agencies, clarifying what public order means, helping our police officers and ensuring that people here in Canada feel safe and supported.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which included some pretty interesting parts. He talked about living together as a society. A little later, he mentioned the bill, referring to it as smoke and mirrors.

The bill before us, which seeks to combat hate crimes, is definitely not smoke and mirrors, especially for people living in fear, people who face intimidation when they go to their places of worship, their religious institutions or their schools. These are essential measures to ensure that people can indeed live together in communal harmony and feel safe walking down the street.

I would like to know whether my colleague plans to vote in favour of the bill. Does he intend to work with us in good faith to ensure that it passes?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very good point. I was not looking to downplay the realities of victims who have experienced these acts. Rather, I wanted to put forward the idea that we should live in a society where police officers have power, where people understand what public order is, and where people in society in general do not see their own personal opinion as a fact. Each person needs to understand that, if they act in a hateful or aggressive way, there will be consequences. Other people will stand up and say that the individual in question crossed the line and needs to stop.

The laws are there. They exist. We have no problem analyzing them to see how we can improve them. However, I believe that the core of the issue is that we should be giving power to police officers and border officers so they can fix things. This is how we could make it clear that, across the country, in Quebec and Canada, law and order are paramount and personal freedoms and opinions do not take precedence over social norms.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we said that we were open to studying this bill in committee in order to amend it. The Bloc Québécois will definitely move amendments to have the religious exemption for hate crimes abolished.

The Minister of Justice has said several times that he is open to this idea. He said it again here in the House. I would like to know whether the Conservatives are prepared to support an amendment to abolish the religious exemption for hate crimes.