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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good question.

Part of the challenge with this legislation is that it leads to legislative whack-a-mole when we start talking about different locations. I fear that it really will drive people back into residential neighbourhoods. Then we will be constantly trying to chase these protests around to different locations. We have had these protests in so many different locations. I think we need to focus on the activities as opposed to the places.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer and a former adjudicator, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the differing standards of proof. We have the extreme vilification versus the lower standard in Bill C-9. Knowing that our courts are overburdened with cases right now, with Jordan delays being commonplace across Canada, does she feel this confusing threshold will increase the amount of litigation in our criminal courts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a really important point.

One of the real struggles, particularly in the last couple of years, has been for people who are experiencing extreme examples of hatred and violence in their communities and on the streets. We have had a lot of instances where people stand on one side of the street and yell at people on the other side of the street with law enforcement in between. One of the real challenges in all of this is that it is hard to lay charges in public prosecutions. It is very difficult in the moment to find witnesses and be able to ascertain what actually happened, especially with people shrieking. There are often allegations on both sides and lots of cellphone video footage. I think it is going to be chaos.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a bill that represents more than just legislative reform. It reflects our Liberal government's commitment to protecting all Canadians from intimidation, harassment and the very real threat of hate in their communities. The legislation embodies our values as a society and recognizes that when people are afraid to attend their places of worship, schools or cultural centres, the very fabric of our communities is under attack.

We are witnessing a troubling increase in hate across Canada, with Jewish Canadians receiving a disproportionately high amount of hate, along with Muslim, queer and racialized communities across this country. In Hamilton, Jewish Canadians account for less than 1% of the general population but are subject to over 80% of religious-based hate crimes, highlighting the urgent need for targeted protections.

I want to thank the Hamilton Jewish Federation and the Sri Radha Krishna Temple, and their communities, for their valuable input and advocacy in shaping the legislation, and, of course, thank the broader Hamilton Jewish and Hindu communities for their valuable input. I also want to extend my gratitude to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety for their leadership and commitment to addressing hate in all its forms. In particular I would like to recognize the Minister of Public Safety, who visited Hamilton earlier this year to visit with the Hamilton Jewish community, Jewish leaders and Hamilton police.

Recent data from Statistics Canada shows that police-reported hate crimes have more than doubled in the past six years, rising by 169%. This is not just a statistic; it represents families that fear sending their children to school, communities that fear gathering to celebrate or pray, and individuals whose very identities are being targeted. There have been physical assaults and harassment in places of worship, targeted shootings at religious schools, and attacks and bomb threats directed at synagogues, mosques, temples, churches, schools and community centres. In response to these alarming developments, there have been calls from across the country for stronger protections.

Bill C-9 would respond to these calls by introducing new offences to criminalize intimidation and obstruction, enhancing the legal framework for prosecuting hate crimes and addressing the promotion of hatred through symbols associated with terrorism and hate. The bill would introduce a new intimidation offence, which would make it illegal to provoke fear in another person to impede their access to a place of worship, a school or a cultural centre that is primarily used by an identifiable group. Likewise, the bill would introduce a complementary obstruction offence, which would target conduct that intentionally blocks or interferes with lawful access to these spaces.

Both offences would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. It is important to emphasize that these offences would not target peaceful expression or assembly. They would specifically target morally reprehensible criminal behaviours directed against individuals trying to access spaces that are essential to their identity and their community. This is about protecting Canadians from harm, not reducing their rights to protest or to express themselves peacefully.

Another critical provision of the combatting hate bill is the new introduction of a hate crime offence. This offence would apply to any federal offence motivated by hatred based on grounds such as race, ethnicity, religion or sex. By explicitly addressing crimes motivated by hate, the provision would ensure that these acts are clearly condemned and appropriately punished. The offence is structured to allow the Crown to proceed in summary conviction in less serious cases, while escalating penalties for more serious offences. For example, someone convicted of uttering threats under this provision would face a maximum of 10 years in prison if it was for hate-motivated reasons, compared to five years under the current law.

In addition, Bill C-9 would introduce a new hate propaganda offence to criminalize the intentional public display of symbols associated with hate or terrorism for the purpose of promoting hatred against an identifiable group. This includes symbols such as the Nazi swastika, the SS bolts and symbols principally used by or associated with terrorist entities listed in the Criminal Code, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

I want to stress that this offence is carefully tailored. It does not criminalize symbols displayed for legitimate purposes, such as education, journalism or the arts. This ensures that freedom of expression is respected, while giving law enforcement and prosecutors a clear tool to respond to criminally motivated hate.

To further enhance clarity and consistency, the bill codifies the definition of “hatred” in the Criminal Code, based on Supreme Court jurisprudence, focusing on detestation or vilification. It does not include mere disdain or dislike. Codifying this definition ensures that Canadians, law enforcement and the courts have a clear understanding of what constitutes hate in law. This provision is specifically critical to assist police to determine when arrests are warranted and to remove interpretation and ambiguity that may be present with the current laws.

Finally, Bill C-9 proposes to remove the requirement for the Attorney General's consent to prosecute certain hate propaganda offences and the new offences, while safeguards remain through the discretion of the Crown prosecution, which assesses the reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest before proceeding with charges.

This bill is about taking action when action is needed. When Canadians fear walking into their synagogue, mosque, church or school, we must act. When individuals are attacked because of who they are, we must act. When speech is used to promote hatred and violence, we must act. With Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, we are taking action. We are acting to protect our communities, defend the fundamental values of our country and affirm that Canada is a country that says no to hate and yes to safety and dignity for everyone.

I will acknowledge that it is unfortunate that this legislation is necessary. It is a direct response to the growing and targeted hatred across Canada, but, of course, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to our government. Freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to protest are cornerstone Canadian values, but no one has the right to promote hate.

Municipalities across Canada, including Hamilton, where I was formerly a city councillor, are already moving forward with municipal by-laws similar to what is intended here, but instead of forcing municipalities and provinces to have a patchwork of individual by-laws to combat the hatred they are seeing in their communities, we are taking action at the federal level to set national standards.

I call on all parliamentarians to support this bill and to work together to ensure that it passes promptly. This is an important step in fulfilling our Liberal government's commitment to strengthen community safety and uphold the fundamental rights of Canadians.

In my conversations with residents across Hamilton who have been subject to hate, it is absolutely heartbreaking to hear the stories of intimidation and hatred that they have faced in their communities. In particular, I want to thank representatives from the Hamilton Jewish Federation for sharing their stories with me, being frank and forward and sharing exactly what it is like to be a member of their community in the city of Hamilton when there are incidents of hate.

Again, I recognize that it is unfortunate that we have to proceed with this legislation, but in consultation with those groups directly affected and also in consultation with law enforcement, we have no doubt that this is the appropriate action at this time.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since 2015, police-reported hate crimes are up 258% across Canada, anti-Semitic hate crimes are up 416%, and hate crimes against south Asians are up 377%. We have also seen well over 100 churches burned down.

It would seem to me that there has been a general lack of enforcing the law but also making sure that people who commit these crimes actually go to jail and stay in jail.

Does the member not agree that it would have been better to reform bail now, as opposed to doing something like this when there are already existing elements to the Criminal Code that criminalize hate propaganda, threats, intimidation and obstruction?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think in these areas there is quite a bit of agreement between our government and the opposition. Going back to the purpose of the legislation and the consultation in the community, the purpose is to make sure all individuals have access to the community spaces central to their identity, to clarify the legal meaning of hatred within the Criminal Code so it takes away some of that ambiguity or discretion that may be in current law and preserve the lawful right to protest under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is definitely a balance there.

Of course, we are moving forward with federal legislation to reform bail and federal sentencing, and I welcome further discussion on that when that legislation comes forward.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, during his speech on his own bill, the Minister of Justice indicated, in response to one of our questions, that he would be open to an amendment on the religious exemption. Let us not forget that, in the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to abolish that exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code. That provision currently allows individuals to engage in hate speech without being arrested, provided the speech is based on religious text. We think that is completely absurd. If I understand correctly, the minister is open to such an amendment.

My question is the following. Given that the Liberals already know our position on this exemption, can my colleague explain to me why we are waiting for an amendment to be proposed when the provision could have already been included in the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an area where I personally have quite a bit of agreement with my colleagues in the Bloc. I personally have issues when religious texts are used at times as a justification for hatred against LGBTQ and queer communities in particular. However, we are trying to reach a balance between freedom of expression and making sure the targeted hate we are seeing in communities is addressed.

Once again, this legislation is supported by municipalities, the local Jewish and Hindu communities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. We welcome further discussion in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to quickly get in two questions for the member about this legislation.

First, has the government engaged with the Hindu community and other communities that use symbols that look like symbols that have an association, in other contexts, with hate but are used in a very different way in their tradition? We want to protect the freedoms of those communities that understand similar looking symbols in very different ways.

Second, I wonder if the member can comment on the significant violence we have seen targeting the Christian community, the burning of churches, and what the government's response, or lack of response, has been to the number of churches that have been vandalized or completely destroyed during the Liberals' tenure in office.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fundamental to our government, including the freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to peaceful protest. However, when that extends to hatred, when that extends to specifically targeting identifiable groups for any reason, it is completely inappropriate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the chamber. Here we have before us a really important issue. The issue of racism and hatred is very much real and has been for many years. Over the last number of years, for different reasons, we have seen the escalation of hatred. This is something that all of us should be concerned about. There are reports of crimes motivated by hatred; I was provided a graph that really highlights the issue. The one that is most concerning is race and ethnicity; we are talking about huge increases over recent years. Religion is the second one, followed by sexual orientation. There are other forms but those are the three big ones.

Just this last summer, I had the opportunity to sit with some young people from the Sikh community over at the Singh Sabha temple on Sturgeon in Winnipeg. I listened to their thoughts on the issue. The purpose was to talk about racism and hatred. Some of the things that were discussed, I found very beneficial. I think, at the end of the day, there needs to be more dialogue on the issue. Hatred and racism are two things I have zero tolerance for.

As a legislature, I would like us to look at things we could do to ultimately minimize what takes place in our community that is so hurtful in many different ways. There are real people at the other end who are victims, who suffer virtually every day of the year as a direct result.

In the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians. He indicated that he would bring in anti-hate legislation. That is what we are debating today, Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. I think that, overall, it has been fairly well received by Canadians.

The Minister of Justice and the Attorney General was very clear earlier today. In presenting the legislation, he indicated that he is very much open to possible amendments, the sorts of amendments the opposition might have, to give strength and to deal with concerns that opposition parties might have. I say that because I believe that even the Conservative voters in the last federal election wanted to see all political parties work more co-operatively in order to pass good legislation.

If there are things we can do together at the committee stage, in order to pass this legislation, I believe we should do them. The Attorney General has made it very clear that he has an open mind in regard to amendments.

We can look at what the minister has said and what the Prime Minister said in the last election, as an election platform, making that commitment. Not only do we have a government that is prepared to work co-operatively with opposition parties, we also have a mandate to bring in the legislation. I would suggest that the two combined should be enough of an incentive for members to, at the very least, allow the bill to get to committee stage, so that we can hear first-hand what stakeholders and Canadians have to say.

If there are issues or concerns, by all means, members should bring them up. If there are amendments, let us see what they have to say. The shadow minister from the Conservative Party expressed concern about the AG consent. I see the AG consent as a bit of a barrier that could potentially delay the laying of charges.

I do not see the issue with what the Conservatives have raised on this. I really do not see it, even in private prosecutions. I do not quite understand what would cause them to raise the concern that they do not have the same level of confidence that we do in government with respect to law enforcement and our judicial system. I believe that a very high threshold has been established. I have appreciation, respect and confidence in our system to ensure that the law is utilized for the betterment of our communities.

Someone suggested it would cause more action in the courts. Hopefully, it will. I want to see charges being laid. I want to see convictions. I believe this legislation would open the door to making our communities better and safer.

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Combatting Hate Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with my limited time, I will do a bit of an overview. When we look at the issue of combatting hate, we see that the legislation is substantive and would in fact make a significant difference in our communities.

I would also suggest that one needs to look at the last election, where there was a commitment to bring forward legislation of this nature. I say that because the election was not that long ago. A new Prime Minister and new government were elected based on a series of commitments. Those commitments, at least in part, to date, have come in the form of legislation.

I could talk about Bill C-2, the stronger borders legislation; Bill C-4, the middle class tax break for Canadians; Bill C-5, the one Canada economy legislation; Bill C-8, the critical cyber-system legislation; or Bill C-9, which we are debating today, about hate crime. It is very real and very tangible.

With that mandate, not only the government was given a responsibility, but so were all opposition members. It was a very clear mandate given to all of us. Canadians want and expect that their parliamentarians here in Ottawa will work co-operatively in order to have legislation and budgetary measures pass through the system.

My appeal to all members of the House is to recognize the mandate that was given to us by Canadians: Legislation like we are debating today, other pieces of legislation that we have already introduced, or legislation such as our bail reform, which is going to be coming out shortly, should all be allowed to get to the committee stage. That is what is in the best interest of Canadians. This is not to limit debate, because we still have third reading and all sorts of debate and consultations that take place in our standing committees.

With respect to the legislation before us today, it is important that we recognize how much racism and hatred have increased over the last number of years. Race or ethnicity is number one in terms of hate, followed by religion and by sexual orientation. Those are the big three.

Hate happens every day in communities throughout Canada. It is one of the reasons it is so critically important that we not only recognize the legislation as a commitment that was part of our electoral platform but also recognize that communities are hurting and that the bill is legislation that would advance more peaceful communities. I would encourage all members to support it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was here for the first part of the member for Winnipeg North's speech last week, and unfortunately, I was around for the end of it.

I have a simple question: Does the member take any responsibility for his party's action that has seen a massive rise in anti-Semitism in the country? There are attacks on churches and attacks on religions. Does he bear any responsibility, or does he believe it is just a coincidence that the massive rise in hate just happens to coincide with the 10 years the Liberals have been in government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as a government, it is important to look at the actions we can take to minimize hate, such as bringing forward legislation of this nature. Whether it was the previous government or even the Harper government that started an escalation of hatred, we always have to put things into the proper context of time. There are world events that take place. We can look at what is happening in the Middle East. These are very real, live things that are having an impact in the communities we represent. That is why it is important we recognize the legislation for what—