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

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party is currently reviewing the bill. We will ensure that it truly complements the existing legislation. We are not closed to anything. We are open to discussion, but we believe that this bill needs to go a little further.

Before introducing a whole host of minor details, the government should uphold the existing laws and ensure that they are enforced before going any further.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my hon. colleague to reflect on the question that was put to me by the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, that the police services that she has spoken to welcome the removal of Attorney General consent.

I would like to know, from the perspective of my colleague, what his impression is in terms of enforcement generally with respect to the existing hate legislation as found in the Criminal Code. In the member's opinion, is it uniformly addressed or are there differences?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question. I do believe that it is important to respect the process that has already been established and to ensure that our laws and standards are applied. Starting to make changes, such as removing the consent of the Attorney General, overruling or giving more power to the government, does not seem to me to be the short-term solution.

I think that Parliament has been stripped of a great deal of power in recent years. I think it is important to respect what is there, to strengthen it and to support it. Parliament must support legislation in a strong and meaningful way before it starts restructuring it.

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

Madam Speaker, like many others, Bill C‑9 has some good and some not so good elements, but it also neglects certain aspects of the problem that should have been addressed.

Obviously, we in the Bloc Québécois are sensitive to and concerned about the significant increase in hate crimes. Quebec society and Canadian society have changed in recent years, and the multiculturalism imposed by the Liberal government has given rise to issues that were much less problematic a few decades ago.

Societies around the world are moving toward some sort of clash of cultures, traditions and religious beliefs, and we are no exception to that. In this context, it is crucial that we agree on a clear definition of what our values are, especially if we want to propose a societal model that is consistent, effective and accepted by everyone. The era of vagueness and wishful thinking is over. Apart from the Bloc Québécois's proposals, particularly with regard to respecting Quebec's choices on the French language and secularism, the government is not proposing anything really comprehensive or useful.

Bill C‑9 would set limits on some of the rights and freedoms protected under the charter, including freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression is given free rein in section 319 of the Criminal Code, and despite repeated requests from the Bloc Québécois, including our Bill C‑373 in 2024, and despite the popular will of a huge majority of voters, the government does not seem to care. It is still possible in both Quebec and Canada to promote hatred and antisemitism as long as it is done based on a religious text. We think that is absurd.

The government is proposing legislation to regulate actions seeking to promote hatred. As I was saying, we agree. However, what does section 319 of the Criminal Code say? Subsection 319(2) reads:

Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

That is all well and good, but a little further on, subsection (3) of the same section states:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

Now here is the disturbing part:

(b) if, in good faith, the person 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;

That means a person who “wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group” is allowed do so under subsection (2) provided that person acted “in good faith” on the basis of “an opinion” or “a belief in a religious text”. I do not know about my colleagues, but that makes no sense to me, to the Bloc Québécois or to the vast majority of people in Rivière-du-Nord and across Quebec.

Subsection (2) talks about promoting hatred. We will now turn our attention to subsection (2.1), a later addition, which states:

Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The same provisions and sentence are used for both hate crimes and anti-Semitism. What else is there about subsection 2.1 on anti-Semitism? Let us read a bit further.

Subsection 3.1 uses almost identical wording as was used for hate crimes:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)

Subsection 2.1 is the one about promoting anti-Semitism.

There is one exception that states that a person cannot be convicted of this offence if the statements communicated were true.

Next, no person shall be convicted of this offence under the following circumstances either:

(b) if, in good faith, they 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;

It is the same exception, the same text, word for word, in both cases.

That means that, currently, in Quebec and Canada, a person can deliberately promote hatred against a group or promote anti-Semitism if it is done on the basis of a religious text. I do not know who, in the House, thinks this makes sense. Once again, we in the Bloc Québécois think this makes no sense. It is not enough to say it makes no sense, however. Positive solutions must be proposed. That is why we introduced a bill last year, but it did not get enough support to pass.

When the minister told us here that he would be introducing legislation to regulate actions that promote hatred, we were in agreement. However, I do not understand why the government did not go further. Why did it not deal with these two exceptions that do not make any sense? When I speak with colleagues in the House about this issue, almost everyone believes that it makes no sense, yet when it comes time to vote, nobody believes that they need to stand up at the appropriate time. It is rather surprising.

Having said that, there is obviously the question of how to define hatred. It is a complex concept, and I am sure it will continue to be debated in our courts for some time. The current definition in the bill is as follows:

hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.

This definition came about following various decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, which has never actually validated this text. I admit that I would not want to be in the judge's position, having to decide whether someone acted out of hatred, that is, whether they acted based on an emotion that was stronger than disdain or dislike and that involved detestation or vilification. I predict that this matter will wind up before the Supreme Court, since it must be pretty hard to draw conclusions like that based on the testimony that tends to be heard in court. In any case, we need a definition, and we have one. It can always be improved. Perhaps that is something we can work on in committee. Personally, I cannot think of a better definition at this very moment. It seems to me that we will have to work seriously on this particular aspect in the coming weeks or months if we decide to pass Bill C-9 at second reading.

It is much the same story for hate crimes. I agree that there is a difference between robbing a convenience store for money as opposed to doing it out of hatred for the owner. These situations may need to be treated differently. However, how is a judge going to decide whether the person who robbed the convenience store did so out of hatred, that is, on the basis of an emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike? It makes perfect sense, but it is rather difficult to apply. As I said, we have some serious work to do.

Then there is the issue of restricting access to places of worship. Personally, I am obviously completely opposed to the idea of preventing people from accessing a mosque, a Catholic church, or a Buddhist temple. Regardless of the kind of place it is, I think it is just wrong. We have to reject that. I also think that these are offences that could be dealt with under the current provisions of the Criminal Code and various laws, whether provincial laws or municipal by-laws. Obstructing traffic, paralyzing traffic, or hindering access to public places is prohibited. The bill is looking to make a new provision. There may be some merit to that. I have my doubts. I look forward to hearing from the expert witnesses in committee, if we get there. I always say “if we get there” because I am still not sure whether it is a good idea to refer this bill to committee to be studied.

Since my earliest childhood, I have believed that hatred must be fought. The same holds true for just about everyone in the House. I can guarantee that everyone in the Bloc Québécois shares this view. Hatred must be fought.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, opportunities for hatred or hateful situations have increased significantly over the last decade. This may have even been the case over the last two or three decades, but it has been particularly noticeable in recent years.

I am not against immigration. On the contrary, I believe that immigration enriches a society. The values and religions that other peoples bring from around the world—through their experiences, history and culture—can enrich our society. That is a good thing. However, we need to ensure that people integrate properly. If it becomes a free-for-all, there will be a lot of problems.

In my humble opinion, that is the direction the Liberal government has taken us in recently. It said yes to immigration but did not allocate any budget to integrate newcomers. The provinces found themselves in an impossible financial position, wondering how they would welcome thousands of newcomers.

I understand these invitations are frequently extended as an act of great generosity, since these people are experiencing problems in their home country and need to be taken in. We are generous, especially in Quebec, but no doubt elsewhere as well. We like to help people in need, but they will also need help learning the language and they will need health care, which can be costly.

Every year, the provinces' budget needs shoot up. They are running deficits because they cannot keep up with the demand for services. A family might arrive with three, four or five children. Good for them. That is great. I love children. I am happy to hold them, tell them stories and take care of them. However, they need schooling. They must go to school. How much does all that cost?

These are major issues the federal government has never wanted to address. It told the provinces to take in newcomers and said how nice it was that they were so kind. The provinces said they wanted to be kind, but they needed help. However, the federal government did not want to help them. If I host a party at a friend's house and I tell him he has to pay for the dinner, he will not be very pleased. That is basically what the federal government has been asking us to do for the past few years.

This massive influx of people that the provinces cannot afford to integrate is causing a clash of values. Our values are not superior to theirs, but they are different. We have to find a way to make it all work. The only way to do that is to secure the necessary budget to have people on the ground working with newcomers. Unfortunately, the federal government, in announcing its generous open-door policy, forgot that there was a cost attached to that. I think we are going to have to look at that more closely.

The purpose of Bill C-9 is to combat hate. It tries to clarify the rights and freedoms we enjoy by saying that we have freedom of expression, but that we cannot say that all Jews should be killed, for example, as we heard a preacher in Montreal say not so long ago. The Attorney General of Quebec did not even want to prosecute that preacher. The Attorney General did not say why he did not want to prosecute him, but we can guess why. Under section 319 of the Criminal Code, which I was reading earlier, it would have been a wasted effort. He would have been prosecuting someone while knowing full well that, in the end, he would be told that the defendant had the right to do it because he was basing his actions on a religious text. That is insane.

Not to compare apples and oranges, but that is more or less what we saw yesterday and today with the Bloc Québécois motion. The motion indicated that the factum submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Supreme Court would undermine the protection of our values and who we are. I would remind members that, according to this factum, the notwithstanding clause used by Quebec to justify its Act respecting the laicity of the State was absurd. We were talking about secularism and the French language. I said so in a question to the minister yesterday.

Then there was the issue of small claims court proceedings, where lawyers are not allowed. It is not because lawyers are not nice people. I am a big fan of lawyers; I am one. However, lawyers are expensive. I understand that. When a person starts a legal proceeding to claim $3,000 from their brother-in-law, it might be a good idea to settle it without bringing in two lawyers at $300 or $400 an hour. That makes a lot of sense.

Without the possibility of invoking the notwithstanding clause, however, then lawyers would have to be allowed in small claims courts, which might put people in a tough situation. The notwithstanding clause can be invoked to keep that from happening.

How do we proceed with the secularism law? We welcome immigrants, and we are happy to welcome them. However, we wanted to set up a framework to determine who we are. Obviously, when someone acts like a doormat, they should not be surprised when people wipe their feet on them. We decided to stand tall and be welcoming. We decided to take them under our wing, thank them, welcome them, tell them that we are happy to see them and that we will help them.

However, there is a cost associated with that. There is a financial cost, but there is also the political will needed to adopt the legislative framework needed to welcome newcomers appropriately. What is that framework? It includes legislation on French-language training. We talked about Bill 101 and said we were going to improve it. People need to know that when they come to Quebec, they are not arriving in some sort of no man's land. They are arriving in a society that has existed for a long time and that has its own values, its own social foundations, including the fact that the official language, the common language in Quebec, is French.

Yes, many Quebeckers speak and understand English. English speakers will not starve to death; they will still be taken care of. However, when communicating with Quebec authorities, they should do so in French. We think it is important to establish that. It should not be established after the fact. It should be established well in advance, now. People coming to settle in Quebec need to know that.

There is also secularism. In my riding, we respect all religions. People can practise whatever religion they want at home. That is precisely the beauty of the laicity act. It says that all residents, everyone in Quebec, can practise the religion of their choice and believe whatever religious principles suit them. That is what freedom of religion is all about.

In Quebec, maybe more than anywhere else in Canada or the world, we believe that religious freedom is too sacred to allow the state to take up any one religion. We do not try to persuade people that ours is the best. However, we require that people who represent the state do so in a secular way. They cannot wear religious symbols. The state is secular. Citizens can be religious or not; the choice is theirs. Their values are their own, and we respect that.

For that to come about, Quebec had to pass a law: the laicity act. We understand that this legislation may clash with some aspects of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why the Government of Quebec said it would proceed by using the notwithstanding clause. These are our values. They are important enough that we ask they be respected even if it deviates from principles set out in the charter.

The Liberal government has said that it is challenging this right. It wants us to welcome people from all over the world, treat them generously, care for them, educate them, feed them and clothe them. However, the government says that it does not care about our values. That does not work.

Today in the House, our colleagues from the Conservative Party supported our motion calling on the government to withdraw its factum to the Supreme Court. I thank them for that. However, I am deeply disappointed that our Liberal and NDP colleagues voted against the motion.

This means that in a few weeks or months, Supreme Court justices, who are appointed by the federal government and are obviously not elected, will have to rule on this issue. They will have to tell us whether Quebec and the provinces have the right to use the notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I could talk about this at greater length, but perhaps this is not the right time. However, we know very well that this section was drafted by former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and that it was the compromise without which the charter would not have been adopted. It is not a sovereignist, separatist or Quebec invention. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's invention. If a province did not like his charter, at least it had that as a consolation prize. I find it a little strange that it is being taken away from us today.

My time is up. I thank my colleagues, and I look forward to seeing what we can make of Bill C‑9 in committee.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord speak with such nuance.

I must admit that there is a great deal of diversity of opinion when it comes to values in my riding of Thérèse-De Blainville, but there is a lot of harmony as well. We need to be careful about what we say. We must not give the impression that all immigrants bring problems.

In a context where we have to talk about such an important subject as hate, can we count on you and the Bloc Québécois to ensure that the debate is constructive and remain focused on the subject? We must not mix up the various bills, because it is confusing for Canadians. The minister opened the door and said that we were prepared to discuss it in committee.

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

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary not to use the word “you”. Members must address their comments through the Chair, even though I do not participate in the debate.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's riding, Thérèse-De Blainville, is next to mine. I am quite familiar with the folks who live in her riding, and I can say that she is right. Like my riding, Thérèse-De Blainville has a large immigrant population.

In my riding, there are organizations in Saint‑Jérôme that are responsible for integrating newcomers. One that comes to mind is Le Coffret, which does tremendous work. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the people who work for that organization.

I do not want to give the wrong impression. I do not view immigration as a problem. Immigration does, however, pose a challenge. That is what we are dealing with. In order to tackle this challenge, we need to work together, get appropriate budgets and clearly articulate what our values are. The newcomers will appreciate that as much as the folks welcoming them do.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was excellent. The symbolism section in Bill C-9 specifically prohibits the wilful public display of the Nazi swastika. There are over one million Hindu Canadians in this country, and part of the symbolism associated with that culture and faith is a symbol that closely resembles the swastika.

[An hon. member]

It is the swastika.

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

Madam Speaker, it is the swastika.

Does my friend feel that this is a glaring error on behalf of the drafters that could lead to unintended consequences and could ultimately lead to criminal charges? I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite a challenge.

This needs to be clear. That is why I tried to make it clear in my speech that people are free to wear their respective religious symbols. If I walk down the street and cross paths with someone wearing a kippah, I have no problem with that. On the contrary, it sparks my curiosity and makes me want to talk to them and learn more about their beliefs.

What we are saying is that government has no religious preference. If I want Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists and everyone else to feel free and welcome to express their ideas, values and religion, I have to make sure that police officers and judges resist the temptation to pass value judgements and accept these people willingly. That means they cannot wear religious symbols.

I understand that it can be frustrating. It is unfortunate if someone decides that they must wear a religious symbol, even at work because they may have to find another job. I do not know. These are the necessary adjustments that will have to be made.

One thing is certain: The secular state is a critical issue these days as people of every religion arrive here from all over the world.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the excellent synopsis he gave. When it comes to immigration, we do not believe that cultural minorities inevitably turn to hate crimes. However, we must be aware that hate inherited from the past is causing tensions today. There are tensions between ethnic groups.

What my colleague seemed to be saying in his speech, which I appreciated, is that the means to resolve interethnic hate should be set out in legislation.

To that end, I would like my colleague to talk about the exemption that the Bloc is trying to bring in so that hate crimes are not permitted under the guise of religious belief. I would like him to focus on that dimension, since the minister seems open to the possibility of amending his bill in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, that is yet another excellent question. Once again, I have to hand it to my colleague and thank him for the question.

I too heard our colleague the Minister of Justice say this afternoon that he would seriously consider our proposals regarding the religious exemption if they were brought forward. That is great to hear.

I just wonder why he did not make those same proposals himself from the beginning. He covered all of the other points that were going to be discussed, but the religious exemption issue never came up. We do not talk about that. I have a hard time understanding why. I imagine that this bill, like many others, was discussed by many different people. I assume that, for all sorts of reasons, they were embarrassed, bothered, uncomfortable to say that the Bloc Québécois had a good idea, and so they did not talk about it.

I thank the minister for his openness. In committee, we will endeavour to tackle this issue head-on, as it is a major one and essential to harmonious coexistence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of areas where I differ from the member opposite, listening to what he has said today and yesterday.

The question I have for him is this. For an individual of Sikh faith, a part of their faith dictates that they have to wear a turban, and many Sikh do, for example, in the RCMP. Does the Bloc feel that an RCMP officer who is of Sikh faith should be allowed to wear a turban?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am not the one deciding on specific cases today. What do we do about Jewish police officers, Sikh teachers or Muslim judges?

I agree that much work remains to be done. However, just because the challenge is great does not mean we should refuse to take it on. I repeat that, in my opinion, for example, if a Muslim, displaying Muslim religious symbols, is arrested by a Jewish police officer, displaying Jewish religious symbols, they might feel uncomfortable. If they go to court and the presiding judge is displaying Sikh or other symbols, it all creates a difficult climate that affects our ability to live together in society.

As I have stated before, I think the state must be secular and that, yes, at home, in our daily lives with our friends, we can display all the religious preferences we hold. We can show them off. However, people who represent the state should, in my opinion, act in a secular way.