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

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to online cyberbullying, I have had a discussion with the minister responsible. He will be bringing a bill forward in the House of Commons that would address cyberbullying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reflect on the last federal election. We have a newly elected Prime Minister and a government with a full agenda, and it is really quite encouraging to see that not only the Prime Minister, but also the Liberal caucus, has put the whole idea of combatting hate on the agenda by bringing in legislation within six months of being in government. I see that as a positive, especially when I start looking at the stats on the increase in the types of hatred that are out there that is specifically race-based and ethnicity-based. We should all be concerned about that.

Would the member not agree that it is a nice thing to see that eventually this bill will hopefully get to committee and we will be able to get feedback from experts from across the country.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North always has great interventions. I want to show the hon. member that the minister has clearly said that he is open to those changes.

When it comes to committees, they have their own agendas, and if we get something there to be changed or modified, the minister is willing. I would love to see that happen as a constructive step moving forward.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Would anyone like to come visit the intersection of Sheppard and Bathurst in North York on a Sunday afternoon? Every Sunday, a group of thugs shows up at Sheppard and Bathurst in my riding. Most of the thugs cover their faces, and they chant “intifada”, a violent resistance, in protest of a peaceful rally in one of Canada's most Jewish communities.

Sometimes these thugs have a guy dressed and role-playing as Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of October 7. October 7 was not just one of the worst terrorist attacks in modern history; it sparked global jihad, including here in Canada.

For Canada's Jews, this is a sobering moment. My friends, my neighbours, members of my synagogue and fellow Canadians are scared. Hate crimes against Jewish Canadians have more than quadrupled since the Liberals took office, but never mind the statistics. Two weeks ago, a woman was stabbed for shopping in a kosher section of an Ottawa grocery store. A father wearing a kippah was beat up in front of his children in a Montreal park. The Bais Chaya Mushka school for girls, which is a kilometre from where I live, was shot at three times.

What would Bill C-9 do to address this? It would do nothing, or worse than nothing. If passed in its current form, the Liberal hate bill could be weaponized against every Canadian.

I do not want to hear any lectures from the Liberals about anti-Semitism. I dealt with Soviet anti-Semitism, and I lived in Israel during the first intifada. I remember the suicide bombings of restaurants, hotels, markets and buses. There was deadly mayhem everywhere that was perpetuated by the Islamic Jihad.

What do Canada's Jews get from the Liberal government now? They get Canada's recognition of a terrorist state, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, without preconditions. The Liberals should not dare lecture me about anti-Jew hate. They were thanked by Hamas not once, not twice, but three times.

There are enough laws on the books to stop this mayhem. It is already illegal to intimidate someone while physically blocking them from entering a facility. Hatred has been defined by the Supreme Court for 35 years, and we have settled on it. However, as we will hear in a moment, the legislation would water down that definition.

To willfully promote terror is to willfully promote hate. Despite the good work of our police heroes, the municipal, provincial and federal governments are refusing to protect Canada's Jewish community.

What do the Liberals propose instead? They come up with Bill C-9, which should concern every member of the Jewish community and every Canadian. The bill would repeal the requirement of the Attorney General's consent to lay hate charges. This could indeed simplify the process and reduce finger pointing, as we now see in Ontario between the Attorney General's office and the police, but the proposed repeal would also apply to private prosecutions. Vexatious informants would try to lay hate charges against political opponents every day, including, conceivably, against some members of this House.

The bill would create a chill on free speech. While the Crown could intervene to stay or withdraw such charges, the Crown might not take a position. Even if the Crown withdrew or stayed the charges, an informant would be able to appeal that by taking it to judicial review. Such persecution would cause distress to the alleged accused and result in legal fees, reputational risks and travel restrictions.

The bill must be amended so that the Attorney General's consent would be required for hate crime prosecutions started from private information.

What the Liberals propose is very dangerous, and I am rightly scared that political and ideological opponents would try to silence each other using criminal proceedings.

Another major concern is that the new stand-alone hate offence would apply to any offence under any act of Parliament, so an offence under the Canada Elections Act or under the Canada Labour Code could attract criminal prosecution. There is a significant risk of overreach, particularly in view of previous concerns regarding private prosecutions.

I got into politics by counting votes and studying elections law.

What if someday someone accuses a scrutineer of suppressing votes because of hate? Could they then be subjected to a criminal prosecution, including a private prosecution? If someone withheld wages contrary to the Canada Labour Code, should that give rise to a criminal prosecution if hate is alleged? We are talking about tacking on a criminal offence to non-criminal conduct. It is scary, and it is not necessary.

Finally, the government is seeking to dilute the definition of “hatred” as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not understand why the Liberals are looking to lower the threshold for hate speech after 35 years of good common law. In Keegstra, the leading case on the definition of hatred, the Supreme Court defined hatred as “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” In a subsequent case, Whatcott, the Supreme Court said that hatred is limited to the “extreme manifestations” of the words “detestation” and “vilification”. However, Bill C-9 defines hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”.

The codification of hatred in Bill C-9 omits the words “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature”. It also omits the Whatcott alternative, “extreme manifestations”. Why? The effect is to lower the threshold for the definition of hatred, making it easier to convict of hate speech. This is another attack on free speech by the Liberals. It would not protect Jews or anyone, but it would place every Canadian at a greater risk of criminal prosecution.

This bill would lower the threshold for hate speech, couple criminal prosecutions with non-criminal proceedings, and allow private citizens to swear private hate information and lay hate charges without the consent of the Attorney General. In its present form, this bill is an assault on free speech.

As I said, I am a Canadian Jew. I would like the Liberals to insist on the enforcement of existing laws and not be thanked by Hamas every other month. They should go back and rethink the bill, and not make innocent Canadians fear being in legal jeopardy.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of overzealous litigants, that is something I personally identify with as a former municipal councillor, having been the subject of several what I considered to be frivolous and vexatious complaints, using the process as a political tool. However, the proposed act is very clear that the Crown would still have oversight of charges that would move forward.

My question for the member is this: Why does he not have confidence in the professionalism of the courts and the Crowns to move forward appropriately when there are serious allegations of hate?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to clarify. There is no question that our capable and professional Crowns are able to intervene in private prosecutions and stay or withdraw the charges. The problem is that, at times, a Crown may take a non-position. However, even if it would be appropriate to stay or withdraw, and the Crown did take that position and charges were stayed or withdrawn, an informant would be able to appeal to a judicial review, which means that the alleged accused would be subject to legal fees, reputational risks and travel restrictions. One of the common questions when we travel is “Have you ever been subject to criminal proceedings or ever been arrested?”

Regrettably, even if the Crown exercises its due diligence, there is still the prospect of continuous prosecution, putting Canadians' well-being at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several speakers from the government side that Jewish groups are absolutely supportive and in favour of the full content of Bill C-9. I would like to find out this from my colleague: As a proud Jewish resident in his community, has he heard from any other Jewish groups that offer a different view?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since Friday, I have been in regular communication with various Jewish community groups, and essentially all of them have expressed one reservation or another about some of the contents of this bill, which I articulated earlier. The private prosecution concern is top of mind. One of the leading organizations, in fact, is generally concerned with respect to the removal of the AG's consent.

At the end of the day, I think we would all agree it is important that we stick to the letter of the law when it comes to the codification of the word “hatred”. I do not understand why the government is intent on diluting 35 years of good Supreme Court common law. I urge it to go back and redraft that section.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Conservative shadow minister or the member who just spoke, I have a concern after listening to what they had to say. I believe they oppose the legislation, and I hope that does not mean they are going to prevent it from ultimately going to committee.

Does the member believe there is an opportunity for the Conservatives to support allowing the legislation to at least go to committee? The minister himself has indicated that he is very much open to working with members to tune it.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have very serious concerns about the legislation in its current form. We see a serious assault on free speech by virtue of the dilution of the definition of “hatred” and by allowing private prosecutions for hate charges to proceed without Attorney General consent. I am very concerned about essentially non-criminal statutes with prescribed offences being coupled with an allegation of hate, as it could result in criminal proceedings.

This is a very problematic bill the Liberals have brought forward.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country where everyone can speak freely, worship freely and live without fear. I believe that all hon. members of the House agree that no one should face threats because of their race, their faith or who they love, yet today, Canadians are confronting an alarming reality. The police tell us that hate crimes have risen sharply since the Liberals came to power, up 258% nationwide since 2015. Within that increase, anti-Semitic hate crimes have jumped 416%, and hate crimes against South Asians are up 377%. Last year alone, police reported a staggering 4,882 hate crimes across Canada, and the number of police-reported hate crimes have increased for six years in a row.

These numbers are real and are deeply troubling. I agree with the minister that the government must act, but we must separate the goal from the method. Legislating against hate is welcome if it minimally impairs free speech and actually makes our communities safer. However, legislation without enforcement is like a lock without a key. It has potential to be useful, but it is far from effective.

I share the minister's concern for the deterioration of civil discourse in our society and for the victims of hate-motivated crime. The Criminal Code already makes it illegal to utter threats, incite violence or harass someone because of who they are. It contains offences related to mischief, to blocking infrastructure and to property damage. These provisions are clear, court-tested and strong. The problem is that police are too often instructed to just keep the peace instead of enforcing the law. When hate crimes are poorly enforced, victims and witnesses often feel like reporting these incidents is futile.

If authorities fail to investigate thoroughly, prosecute offenders or take clear action, people lose faith in the system. This lack of accountability leaves victims feeling isolated, unsafe and skeptical that their experiences will be taken seriously. Over time, communities become less willing to come forward, allowing bias-motivated behaviour to persist unchecked. Weak enforcement therefore not only undermines justice for individual victims but erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

When offenders avoid meaningful consequences, they are emboldened to push boundaries, disrupt the peace and exploit loopholes, and that is what I fear will happen with this legislation. For example, this legislation refers to places of worship but makes no mention of the predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods, hospitals and other settings that have also been settings for protests. They hold significant risk of leading to violence with hateful things being said. There is a significant risk that with this bill, protesting mobs would simply move back into residential neighbourhoods, where they invite escalation and confrontation and instill real fear in families, seniors and children.

Our justice system remains a revolving door thanks to Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Charges are dropped or pleaded down, trials are delayed and sentences are inconsistent. This bill would do nothing to change that. While the government keeps promising that reform to bail and sentencing is coming, we have yet to see it in this House. People deserve to feel safe in their homes, and they will not without enforcement of the laws currently on the books. New offences are only meaningful if they are clear, enforceable and consistently applied. This bill needs work to pass that test.

While the government claims that the definition of hatred in this legislation simply codifies the language from case law, in fact the definition as articulated sets a materially lower standard. Hatred is defined in the bill as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. That is a confusing mouthful.

The minister himself has admitted that the application of this law will be fact-dependent. That means that both law enforcement and ordinary Canadians will have to do some guessing in the moment as to what might be interpreted as a crime. Detestation and vilification are crimes, but disdain and dislike are a part of free speech. One thing I think all of us in the House know is that one person's disdain is another person's detestation, and one person's dislike certainly feels like vilification to others.

In the case law, the standard was higher, requiring the emotion of hatred to be intense and extreme in nature, the extreme manifestation of the sentiment of hate, and far beyond dislike, disdain and simple offensiveness. I fear that the bill, as drafted, will become more fodder for accusations on social media, vexatious complaints to police and aggression between groups.

History warns us about where lowering the standard for hate speech can lead. Laws meant to stop hatred have been turned against political dissenters and minority voices. We should not give the state broader powers to police thought or symbolism without first trying to make our existing tools against hatred more effective.

Like all hon. members in the House, I reject hate in all its forms. Every Canadian deserves to feel safe at home, in their place of worship and on the street, but safety will not come solely from criminalizing symbols or speech. Safety comes from making sure that when someone assaults another person, threatens a synagogue or vandalizes a mosque, the police investigate and make arrests and the court holds a fair trial and enforces the sentence.

The bill removes the Attorney General's oversight before a hate propaganda charge proceeds. That step has provided an important safeguard against politicization and misuse, especially in the case of private prosecutions. Eliminating it without providing another way to prevent vexatious prosecutions leaves the door wide open to the weaponization of this bill.

Right now, our biggest problem is that enforcement is not consistent. Bail is virtually automatic, and charges are often dropped. Serious charges are plead down. That is where Parliament's attention should be: on stronger enforcement, on swifter prosecutions and on support for victims. Unamended, this bill risks punishing the unpopular while the truly dangerous slip through. While I agree wholeheartedly that rising hate crimes demand action, this bill feels more like a Liberal press release than it does like real protection.

Conservatives believe in limited government, in the rule of law and in freedom of expression, even for speech we find offensive. We believe that what is illegal must be clear and tied to real harm, not to subjective feelings of detestation or vilification, however painful they may be to hear. The right response to hateful ideas is not more censorship. It is more debate, more truth and more courage from citizens willing to challenge hate in the open.

If the government wants to protect Canadians, it should start by enforcing the strong laws we already have. Make sure threats, assaults and property crimes motivated by hate are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the Criminal Code. Give police the resources they need. Support victims, but do not lightly hand the state new powers to decide which ideas may be expressed.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the hon. member for York Centre know I have a great deal of respect for both of them. I have been to Bathurst and Sheppard, as they well know. I have seen those individuals waving Hezbollah flags intentionally to intimidate the members of their Jewish community and my Jewish community who go to those rallies.

I know for a fact that Canadian Women Against Antisemitism supports some of the measures in this bill. The Toronto Police Service has told me it supports some of the measures in this bill.

The hon. member talks about enforcement. That is a provincial issue, not a federal issue. Does she agree that, for the federal government to combat hate, this legislation does go a long way with a lot of the stakeholder groups?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the hon. member for everything he has done to support his community and our communities. He has really shown care. I am personally grateful for that.

When it comes down to whether or not we need new laws, we are only going to find that out when we make a sincere effort to enforce the ones we already have. Yes, that will involve working with our provincial counterparts. I think there is a lot of work to do with respect to signal and tone from the government in that. If it truly wants to protect Canadians, it is going to need to focus on resources for police, support for victims and a consistent application of the Criminal Code.

There is a lot the federal government can do to support our law enforcement. We need to make sure that when someone assaults another person, threatens a synagogue or vandalizes a mosque—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my Conservative colleagues have some concerns about this bill, including with respect to freedom of expression and the right to protest.

To us, the new provision criminalizing the act of obstructing or even interfering with people's access to a place is somewhat more concerning. Obviously we will look into this more and work on the bill in committee.

However, I would like to know whether the Conservatives think this offence interferes with the right to protest. Are they also concerned that this may infringe on the right to protest?