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

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, today we begin debate on the combatting hate bill, which would offer additional protections to communities of people across this country that have been the subject of unjust actions of hate, not just toward them as individuals but also toward entire communities.

One of the great promises of Canada is the right of its citizens to live freely, regardless of the colour of their skin, the God they pray to, their gender identity or the person they love. Sadly, too many Canadians are routinely robbed of these freedoms, not necessarily by operation of law but too often by virtue of the actions of hate by their fellow Canadians against them. The prevalence of hate crimes in this country is astounding. It can be disheartening to read day after day in the newspapers of the horrific actions our fellow Canadians are subjected to.

Over the course of my remarks, I hope to cover a number of things, including a canvas of the prevalence of hate crimes in this country and an assessment of the measures we need to adopt, specifically including criminal justice reform. I intend to discuss some of the proposed legislative measures we intend to take to address hate crimes in this country and to encourage members to support the important piece of legislation that is before us.

Today, we begin debate on a very important bill to combat hate across the country. It is important that Canadians are able to live their lives freely without being harassed because of their religion or identity. Unfortunately, many people do not have that freedom because of hate crimes that are committed in their communities.

It is important we understand the scale of what we have observed in Canada's recent history. Nearly 5,000 hate crimes are officially reported by law enforcement annually in this country. We know, through conversations with affected communities, that the true number is much, much higher. The under-reporting of hate crimes is in and of itself a symptom of a societal problem: that people may not have faith that the criminal law is actually equipped to deal with the circumstances they face so routinely in their communities.

It troubles me greatly when I open the newspapers and see such stories. When I meet with Jewish Canadians, they tell me that they are beginning to question whether they have a place in this country, as a result of the hate they have been subjected to. I think about what I have witnessed in my own community, with local police laying charges for the advocating of genocide toward Jewish Canadians. Recently in my home province of Nova Scotia, synagogues have been desecrated with hate symbols that seek to intimidate people of the Jewish faith against practising their religion. The National Holocaust Monument has been desecrated. Is there no limit to indecency?

There are many communities that are impacted. I think about Muslim Canadians, who are suffering from a wave of Islamophobia that we must address. I have met with people and visited their mosques, people who have told me what it is like to be harassed in their communities and told me about the fear they have when they seek to gather and pray.

Sadly, the instances of hate are not limited to simple harassment, behaviour that may inspire fear; it can become deadly. It was only a few years ago that there were horrific shootings in Quebec that claimed the lives of innocent people at a mosque. There have been van attacks in London, Ontario, which, again, took the lives of innocent Canadians by virtue of their being who they were.

I think about the horrific anti-Black racism that takes place too often in this country. In my own community, it is a point of pride that we have shifted our conversation from the days of Viola Desmond's courageously taking a stand at the Roseland Theatre to protect the rights of Black Canadians to be treated equally before the law. We gathered with pride to commemorate her induction as a person of national historic significance to this country. However, the honours we bestow upon her, the commitment to take action in the face of such courage, has to be worth more than the $10 bill on which her face appears.

There is a cognitive dissonance that takes place when we celebrate victories over racism of the past but in the same town see instances of hate, including a young Black man being shot with a nail gun by a co-worker on a job site. I sat with the mother of a young man who suffered such a fate. I understand the impact it has on the entire family, questioning whether their move from another part of the world was a good decision.

Look at the instances of hate we saw in Vancouver during the pandemic against Asian Canadians, with a 300% increase in vandalism, graffiti and violent hate crimes taking place. We need to take action.

There is, routinely, vandalism of gurdwaras and temples. This is completely unacceptable, and the impact is so human. It is one thing to see in the news a violent crime committed against the queer community on campus at Waterloo, a stabbing that has taken place in a gender studies class, but the real impact, when we actually talk to people, is that they are concerned about whether they have the ability to walk freely through the streets holding the hand of their loved one.

We have a decision to make: Are we going to witness hate, offer our thoughts and prayers and move on with our day, or are we going to take action to actually correct some of the horrific behaviours?

If we wish to build a stronger Canada, we need to adopt a whole-of-society approach to this challenging issue. This will involve different levels of government, including provinces' investing in education that will ensure that people, from a young age, understand that hate is not acceptable in our communities. It will include investments in training law enforcement, prosecutors and judges to see hate and to call it out as such when they witness it in our courtrooms. Of course, part of the puzzle will involve changes to our criminal law to ensure that we punish bad actors and send a signal to ensure that hate does not continue to foment in our communities.

Bringing about change within society will not happen without investing in education, providing training for those working in the legal system and overhauling the justice system.

It is in this vein on criminal justice reform that I wish to discuss certain specific measures that are included in the combatting hate bill. The conversation follows upon the recent federal election campaign, where we made a commitment to do more to protect the ability of communities of faith to practise their religion day to day in our country.

In particular, we campaigned on commitments to advance new criminal offences when it comes to the obstruction and intimidation of people who seek to access their religious institutions. Too often, people do not feel safe to practise their religion and to visit their churches, synagogues, mosques or temples. Too often, community centres and schools that have been built for specific communities of interest in this country are targeted by those who wish harm upon the people who use them.

These new criminal offences would create the conditions for a safer experience for Canadians from different communities of faith. By ensuring that we protect against the obstruction of those who wish to gather with their community in prayer, we have the ability to allow them to live more freely as Canadians in this country. By criminalizing the deliberate intimidation of those who seek to practise their religion, we have the ability to create a culture of safety, acceptance and inclusion, which I know most Canadians support.

When I talked to people throughout the course of the development of this legislation, one thing was made eminently clear to me. Instances of hate are not limited to the doorsteps of our religious institutions. They can be observed in our streets, in our parks and on our campuses. They can be found in almost every facet of our community. We have decided to move forward with an additional offence, the crime of hate. We intend to have this new offence operate by attaching itself to any criminal activity that takes place in this country where the motivation of the crime was hatred toward an identifiable group of people.

Members can imagine that assault under any circumstances should be condemned not only by the government but by Canadians writ large. Members can imagine as well, I am sure, that the degree of moral culpability is much higher when the target of a particular assault has been targeted because of the colour of their skin, their particular community of faith or their sexual orientation.

We intend to move forward with this offence to offer protections to people who are being harassed by virtue of the community to which they belong when they seek to study in our universities. We intend to use this offence to ensure that the police have the ability to prevent people from being targeted for robberies, assaults and crimes more broadly.

We also intend to move forward with a fourth offence. We intend to criminalize the wilful promotion of hate through the use of hate symbols. It is important that we acknowledge that the wilful promotion of hatred may exist in the Criminal Code already, but when we speak to communities that have been targeted, we understand that the harm that falls upon the community may be greater when a particular tool is used.

This is not the only instance in the Criminal Code where we have adopted such an approach. Of course, the crime of assault exists, but we recognize that assault with a firearm carries a more serious penalty and a higher degree of culpability. Similarly, we recognize that while the wilful promotion of hatred is illegal in this country, the commission of such a crime with the use of a hate symbol, and the impact it has on a community more broadly, is worth specifically addressing through a new criminal offence.

It is important to understand that as we move forward with these offences, we recognize that the impact of hate crimes is not simply felt by the individual victim. The impact reverberates through the entirety of a community and tears, indeed, at the seams of the social fabric of the nation. By addressing these important reforms, we have the opportunity to build a safer Canada.

It is very important to clarify these new offences. When I began this conversation, I first looked at the commitments we made during the last election campaign, including commitments about offences related to intimidation and obstruction. Many people are unable to live their lives freely because some individuals who hate entire groups commit offences to prevent them from using their places of worship. That is unacceptable. These new offences related to intimidating a person and impeding access to a place of worship will allow people to practise their religion across the country.

When I consulted with the public to advance this legislation, one thing became clear. Hate does not only exist around places of worship. It is in parks, on streets, on campuses and in the broader community. That is why we are creating a new hate offence, in addition to the other offences that already exist.

The government must recognize that, when people are victims of other offences, they suffer more when hatred is the motive. Furthermore, the victims themselves are not the only ones affected; communities are too.

The bill sets out a fourth offence, that of the willful promotion of hatred. An offence already exists, but, in my opinion, we must ensure we enforce it, including when it comes to hate symbols. The repercussions on our communities are greater.

It is essential that we take the time to listen to the communities that have been impacted by hate and adopt laws that will better protect them.

In addition to creating these two new offences, there are certain other measures we are moving forward with that would make it easier for law enforcement to actually lay charges when they see instances of hate in our communities. In particular, we are moving forward with two specific changes. The first would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of hatred to ensure that there is clarity in the law for our officers to enforce with certainty. The second would remove the requirement that hate crimes may only be prosecuted after the consent of the provincial Attorney General has been received.

In my view, hate crimes should not be subject to a political assessment but instead subject to the independent ability of law enforcement to determine where hate exists in their communities and to take action where they deem necessary.

We must listen to communities that are experiencing the impact of hatred. In addition to new offences, we will establish new ways for police to enforce these offences under the Criminal Code.

We are making two changes: codifying in the Criminal Code the definition of hatred, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. I also want to remove the requirement for a provincial attorney general to review the police assessment. It is extremely important to remove politics from the conversation. If we have the opportunity to create a culture of safety, acceptance and inclusion, I think that we have the obligation to bring forward new rules.

It is also important to realize that there will continue to be acts of hate that take place in this country that may not reach a criminal threshold. I fear that, too often, we, as Canadians, are failing our neighbours. We should seek to be better neighbours. We are responsible, in my view, not only for the acts that we ourselves commit, but for the injustices that we see and accept through our acquiescence and through our inaction. When we see instances of hate in our community, we have a duty to condemn them, to speak up and to show support for our fellow Canadians. It should not be too much to ask that our neighbours take care of one another. Should we adopt that approach, we will collectively be better off.

I believe so sincerely in a Canada where people are free to live their lives, free of considerations for the consequences of hate that may befall them and their communities. I believe in a Canada where Canadians should be free to celebrate their culture, to practise their faith, to be who they are and to celebrate their very identity.

We have the opportunity to create a country based on inclusivity, on acceptance of diversity, a country that celebrates people from different communities. Diversity enriches our country.

It is not enough to offer thoughts after a hate-related incident in our community.

It is not enough when we see incidents of hate time and time again, to offer our thoughts and prayers, and to move on with our lives, knowing that our decision not to take action will foment hate and allow it to continue in our communities.

I believe in a Canada where we have equality and justice and where we celebrate our diversity. I believe this legislation will bring us a little closer to that version of Canada, but we cannot simply offer those thoughts and prayers. We must take action.

Those of us who have been invested with the extraordinary ability to bring our community's voice to Ottawa have an obligation to act. We have been empowered, through the ability to cast a vote in support of legislation in this House of Commons, to stand up for our communities and take a stand against hate. I implore every member of this House to vote in favour of the legislation so we may take action to protect Canadians in our communities.

I believe in a Canada where we will read about hate crimes not in our newspapers, but in our history books. It is only when people have the ability to live freely, to practice their faith, to be with the person they love and to be included regardless of the immutable characteristics with which we are born, that we will have achieved freedom for all. That is the great promise of this country.

I urge every member of the House to support this legislation and make it a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister talked about the codification of the term “hatred”. I believe his explanation was that it was a codification from the Supreme Court of Canada.

I am sure the minister recognizes that the decision we are both talking about is a decision known as Regina v. Keegstra. In Regina v. Keegstra, a leading decision on the definition of hatred from the Supreme Court of Canada, hatred can be defined as extreme detestation and extreme vilification, which is not the language that is used in Bill C-9.

Why did the minister and his department see fit to lower the legal threshold?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the conversations we have shared not only on this matter but on a series of different areas of criminal justice reform in recent days.

I think it is important to understand what we are seeking to achieve. We are not seeking to criminalize people who may dislike one another. We are not seeking to protect people from being offended or hearing something that they do not like. We are seeking to protect Canadians against criminal activity that would advance the detestation or vilification of an entire class of Canadians based on characteristics that define who they are.

To the extent that members have questions about the very specific definitions that they wish to debate further in this House, I invite them to place their concerns on the floor. I invite them to adopt the legislation so we may actually discuss, with the benefit of expert testimony at committee, what potential amendments may improve this bill to offer protections to communities.

I will take suggestions in good faith. I do not seek to dig in with a version of the bill that cannot be amended. I want to work with members of the House to ensure we prevent this vilification of people on the basis of who they are.

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

Madam Speaker, while we are on the topic of making suggestions in good faith, I am not sure whether this was an accidental or deliberate oversight by the minister and his team, but unfortunately this bill does not remove the religious exemption for hate speech. It is currently possible to publicly engage in hate speech in the name of religion, and we think that is completely absurd. We introduced a bill to fix this during the last Parliament. I had the opportunity to sponsor it.

Is the minister open to adding this item to the bill if we were to propose an amendment?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, first, allow me to thank my colleague for his question and for giving me the opportunity to practise my French.

During my conversations with visible minority groups, many people told me that the reforms set out in this bill need to be implemented.

Some people made suggestions similar to the one the member just raised. I heard stories about religious leaders using the religious exemption in court. In my view, that does not come from a place of good faith.

I would like to make a suggestion. If members of the Bloc Québécois or the other parties would like to have a conversation, taking into account the expert testimony heard in committee, and if a majority of members vote in favour of adding these measures, I would have no objection to that. It is very important that we work with all members of the House to come up with a bill that protects the community.

In my opinion, the best thing would be if a majority of members from all parties supported this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I know his intentions are good, but I am with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations. I do not think the Liberals have lowered in this bill the definition of hatred; they have just made it impenetrable. I do not understand why, when we already have so many strong pieces of legislation within the Criminal Code and against hate crimes elsewhere, they decided to change the definition of hatred to mean “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” It does not make sense to add new legislation where it is not needed and make it more confusing.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, the questioner knows the affection I have for her as a friend and the respect I have for her as a parliamentary colleague. With enormous respect, my goal here is to offer protections to Canadians who do not see themselves reflected in the hate crimes included in Canada's Criminal Code today. We see too often that people are able to commit heinous acts with impunity against their fellow Canadians who come from particular community groups. As I have said in my response to previous questioners, my real hope is that we can collaborate to advance reforms that will offer protections to Canadians without compromising the ability of others to express themselves freely. I will work in good faith with members on all sides of the aisle in order to implement the kinds of reforms that will help keep our neighbours safe.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the phenomenal presentation.

I am a young, brown, Muslim woman who represents my constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills. The amount of hate that I and my colleagues who are similar to me, women in professional atmospheres, face on a regular basis is oftentimes devastating and hurtful to our functioning as individual citizens and as members of Parliament.

Maybe the minister can help us by clarifying how Bill C-9 would help support women, especially those of colour, to continue to give back to Canada and build our communities stronger.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to share a reflection about the parliamentary work of my colleague. She has been an inspiration to me for many years. I remember what she was subjected to when she had the courage to move forward with what was then Motion No. 103 to deal with Islamophobia in this country. Though I was proud to support it, I was so disappointed with the reaction from some corners of society toward someone who was seeking to make Canada a safer place for all.

This piece of legislation would ensure that a person, no matter what characteristic they are being discriminated for, will have protections through Canada's criminal law as they go about their lives on a day-to-day basis. In particular, for any crime in Canada, if we can identify the motivation of hatred behind it, we would have the opportunity for people to participate freely in their communities, women and women of colour as well, to ensure they will not be subjected to hate without a perpetrator being subjected to criminal law.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, to follow up on the concern articulated by the shadow minister, it was open for the government to lean on the subsequent definition in Whatcott, where the Supreme Court defined “hatred”. I cannot help but notice that the words “extreme manifestations” are missing from the proposed definition in Bill C-9.

To add to that, I have a further concern that I hope the Attorney General can address for us. The legislation seeks to remove the provincial Attorney General's consent to the laying of hate charges, which may in itself be explainable. However, the Attorney General's consent would also catch private prosecutions, which we know are a process where informants lay charges before a provincial magistrate. The consent there would also not be required, opening the process to vexatious litigants. I wonder if the Attorney General is concerned about that.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised two questions.

With respect to the first, by way of summary, we engaged directly with law enforcement who asked for simple definitions that would offer clarity to them and help them in enforcing the criminal law when it comes to hate crimes in this country.

On the second issue, which engages the topic of the requirement that exists today that the Attorney General consent to these charges being laid, or in the member's circumstance, private prosecutions, it is my view that the law would be better left to be enforced by those who have independence from political considerations. When we see that there is a political layer on top of the assessment of law enforcement, we can foresee a set of circumstances where a person in the future, though I do not believe this to be the case with any of my provincial colleagues today, may seek to use their political judgment to not allow a charge to move forward. I think that would have devastating consequences.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister's open-mindedness. In response to a question earlier, he indicated that he was open to reviewing in committee the exemption granted to religious groups when it comes to hate symbols. I would like him to repeat his position, just to be sure.

What I understood from the minister is that he is open to a discussion in committee to see whether the exemption for hate symbols could be removed. I do not believe that any hate symbols should be tolerated based on religious principles.

Did I understand correctly what the minister said earlier?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, my position on this exemption is that there is now an obligation to demonstrate good faith. I do not think it is in good faith for someone to use the exemption to avoid responsibility for a criminal offence.

I am open to that. If the majority of the committee members vote to change the exemption based on the testimony they hear, I am open to that change.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Ethics; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for York—Durham, Housing.

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

Madam Speaker, I have couple of housekeeping matters to address. I seek consent from the House to be able to split my time.

[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.

[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.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rivière‑du‑Nord. I appreciated his speech.

In the member's view, how will police forces be able to tell when an action is motivated by hate?

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

That is a great question, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying in my speech earlier, the definition of hate is a bit—

I hesitate to say ambiguous because I must admit that, if I were to write this myself, I would not have known where to start. That said, I will repeat the definition: “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”.

That description is rather vague. In terms of enforcement, a decision would have to be made as to whether a particular individual carried out a specific action with hateful intent.

I wish the judges good luck.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be respectful. My question, specifically, is this. If we look at the turban, it is part of the identity of an individual. Is the member trying to say that, for example, a member of the RCMP should not be allowed to wear a turban? I am very interested in the Bloc's position on that in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very similar.

Lawyers who appear in court must wear a robe. Nurses must wear scrubs. There are dress codes for different professions. As for police officers, in my humble opinion, there should be secularism requirements in their dress code.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Newton.

I rise in firm support of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, not just as legislation, but as a promise this new Liberal government is delivering for Canadians. This is about more than law; it is about dignity, safety and belonging.

We campaigned on protecting vulnerable communities and confronting hate in all its forms, and that commitment demands action. Bill C-9 is our response to the urgent realities many Canadians face each day.

Recent data from Statistics Canada paints a stark picture: Police-reported hate crimes have more than doubled in the last six years. This increase has hit indigenous peoples, Black and racialized communities, religious minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ people, women and persons with disabilities especially hard, but we know the true story is far worse than even that.

Most hate crimes go unreported. Research suggests as many as four in five victims never contact the police. That means the numbers we are seeing are only the tip of the iceberg. Statistics do not capture the everyday fear, disruption and trauma. Behind each file are a person whose life is shaken and a community whose confidence is eroded.

Crimes motivated by hate are particularly corrosive. They do not just harm bodies. They attack identities. Their impacts ripple outward, damaging families' and entire communities' sense of safety and belonging.

Let me offer one powerful example. In 2024, Bais Chaya Mushka Girls Elementary School in Toronto was targeted in three separate shooting attacks. Luckily, no one was harmed, as the shootings occurred at times when the school was empty, but the emotional toll was severe. Students, staff and the broader Jewish community felt their sanctuary violated and their sense of security shattered. In response, every Jewish institution across the greater Toronto area reviewed security plans, training and monitoring. That is not just reaction; that is the cost of hate, even when physical violence is averted.

These attacks remind us that hate does not wait for opportunity. It strikes where people feel safe. It breeds anxiety, forces communities into defensive postures and thins the line between public life and fear. When hate is expressed as intimidation, threats, harassment and targeting of places of worship, the damage is intense. When access to cultural or faith-based spaces is blocked or obstructed, the harm is both symbolic and real.

Victims describe depression, post-traumatic stress and withdrawal from community life. Their routines collapse under the weight of fear. Communities, too, pay a heavy price. Divisions deepen, trust frays and participation wanes. Over time, community bonds weaken, social cohesion unravels and fragmentation spreads.

That is why Bill C-9 matters. In Canada, everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, should be able to live without fear. This bill answers the calls across the country for stronger protections for religious and cultural spaces, and for communities under threat. It proposes four new criminal offences, each targeted at a distinct danger.

Number one is intimidation or obstruction offences prohibiting those who intimidate or block access to places of worship, schools and community centres. These must be sanctuaries, not targets. The maximum sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment underscores how seriously we take this issue.

Number two is a hate-motivated offence, allowing any federal offence to carry an enhanced charge when motivated by hatred that is grounded in race, religion, sex or other things. This clearly condemns hate as more than a supplement. It is a central aggravating factor.

Number three is an offence for publicly displaying certain hate or terrorist symbols, deliberately with intent to promote hate. This includes symbols associated with listed terrorist groups and the Nazi hakenkreuz. We are not using that word regularly anymore. The more popular, commonly used word has become the Nazi “swastika”. That is why we need a religious exemption. As mentioned in this House previously, a lot of these symbols are linked to other religions and have a long historical past, so it is really important to communities to reclaim their words as well. The Nazi hakenkreuz and the SS bolts are symbols listed in this piece of legislation, but we are explicitly, as mentioned, protecting legitimate uses of these symbols for educational, religious, artistic and journalistic purposes from being caught by this law.

This bill also clarifies the definition of “hatred” using Supreme Court jurisprudence, so police, prosecutors and the public have clear guidance about where lawful expression ends and criminal hate begins. Moreover, Bill C-9 would remove the requirement that the Attorney General must personally consent for hate speech or propaganda charges, a change that gives law enforcement consistency, speed and certainty while retaining prosecutorial oversight.

In closing, this bill is about protecting communities, affirming dignity and sustaining the democratic values we promised to defend. It sends a potent message: Canada will not tolerate hatred, in word or in symbol, in our streets, our schools or our sacred places. This Liberal government campaigned on a promise to confront hate. With Bill C-9, we are acting on that promise. I urge all members to support it swiftly, so its protections may begin without delay.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my friend.

First, why does the government appear to be diluting the definition of “hatred”? The language the Supreme Court articulated, language that we have been relying on for 35 years, includes the words “extreme manifestations” before the words “detestation and vilification”. Why have these been dropped from the definition of “hatred”, thereby diluting the definition and lowering the threshold?

Second, is my friend not concerned that while removing the requirement for consent of the Attorney General, informants who lay charges by way of private prosecutions will be able to do so without any checks and balances, potentially politicizing the issue and targeting their political opponents?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to both of those questions is that the definition of “hatred” was not in the Criminal Code. This piece of legislation now defines it, but that does not do away with precedents of the courts. We have a common-law system in this country, and both the precedents of the court system and our Criminal Code are referred to when judges make decisions.

Prosecutorial oversight is still a thing. The majority of other criminal charges are laid by police of jurisdiction, except in provinces that have specifically given the right to Crown counsel to lay those charges. In particular, B.C. is one example. B.C. has a different system. However, Crown counsel are always able to make the decisions based on the evidence before them as to whether they are going to move forward with a charge in a court of law. Therefore, there is oversight.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have already mentioned, we want to retain some flexibility to amend or remove certain provisions of the bill, particularly those that could unreasonably restrict freedom of expression or the right to protest.

Among the provisions currently proposed, the Bloc is particularly concerned about the ones that would criminalize obstructing or interfering with people's access to certain places. We are going to take the time to review all of this, but we wonder whether this offence might conflict with the right to protest.

I would like to know whether the Liberals share our concerns in this regard.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this country, we have many designated places to protest, and when people approach a cultural institution or religious place of worship and choose that to be their place of protest, it not only hurts the sentiments of the worshippers in that place but creates conflict. We have seen that. I have seen it in my own community. It creates divisions within society.

I believe these are measures that many religious and minority groups have been calling for. We have seen a great rise in hate, hate speech, hate violence and hate crimes occurring in our communities. This bill would provide clear guidelines as to what is appropriate and what is not.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago in my riding, a Jewish woman was stabbed while she was shopping in the kosher section of a grocery store. I have been meeting in living rooms with the Jewish community in my riding, and this is a culmination of what is a deplorable increase in anti-Semitism.

I wonder if the secretary of state could reassure my constituents, who are scared to even go out in public, with what this bill would do to improve things for them.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this piece of legislation would carry very stiff penalties. This crime has been accelerating at a pace that no other has, so it is really important to address it.

I hope all members across the House take this bill seriously and support it and will show the utmost sincerity when studying it in the committee process so that we can protect Canadians and make sure that incidents like the one the member referred to are a thing of the past. It is very tragic what we are dealing with.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a vital piece of legislation that would strengthen the Criminal Code to protect Canadians from acts of hatred, intimidation and obstruction in their communities.

The bill introduces amendments to address two urgent areas: first, the intimidation and obstruction of people accessing community spaces and, second, hate-motivated crimes. It would also clarify what constitutes hate and ensure law enforcement can respond quickly and effectively. Too many Canadians feel unsafe because of who they are, how they worship or where they gather. We have seen a rise in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Sikh hate, anti-Black racism, homophobia and transphobia. These are the realities faced by our neighbours, our families and our communities.

About 5,000 hate crimes were reported to police last year, but we know that most of these incidents are never reported, which means that the true number is far higher. Every one of these crimes is an attack not just on individuals but on the values of equality, dignity and respect that we hold dear as Canadians. Bill C-9 introduces targeted reforms that would give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to act while fully protecting the charter rights that Canadians value, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of protest.

The legislation is built on six pillars. The first pillar is a new obstruction offence. It would be illegal to block or interfere with lawful access to spaces such as religious institutions, cultural centres, schools, seniors' residences or cemeteries. No Canadian should face barriers when they are going to pray, taking their child to school or attending a cultural celebration. For example, it would be a crime to block the front of a synagogue to restrict access for worshippers or to set a fire at the entrance of a school. At the same time, peaceful protest remains fully protected. This is not about creating so-called bubble zones. Peaceful protests, chanting or holding signs is allowed. Only intentional obstruction or intimidation would be considered illegal.

The second pillar is a new intimidation offence. This would target behaviour designed to instill fear in people accessing those same spaces. We have seen cases in which masked individuals stood outside mosques or shouted threats at parents outside a religious school. These acts are intimidation, not protest, and they have no place in Canada.

The third pillar is a new hate crime offence. If someone commits any federal offence, whether under the Criminal Code or another law, and they do it out of hatred for a particular group, it would now be treated as a hate crime. This is about making sure hate-motivated actions are met with the seriousness that they deserve. The bill would also make it an offence to publicly display hate or terrorist symbols to promote hatred; it would remove the Attorney General consent required for hate propaganda charges so that police could move more quickly. When someone vandalizes a gurdwara out of hate or waves a Nazi flag at a rally, Canadians expect law enforcement to respond swiftly and decisively. Bill C-9 would ensure that this will happen.

The fourth pillar is to codify the definition of “hatred”. The bill would provide clarity so that police and courts know what is and what is not covered. Hatred means strong dislike or hostility toward a group, going beyond being rude, offensive or hurtful. This clear definition will help make the law fair and consistent across Canada.

The fifth pillar is streamlining hate propaganda charges. Right now, police need the Attorney General's consent before laying such charges. This step often delays justice. With Bill C-9, that barrier is removed, so law enforcement can act faster and communities are better protected.

The sixth pillar is a new prohibition on displaying hate and terror symbols. The new offence is carefully targeted. It applies only when such symbols are displayed with the intent to promote hatred against a particular group. The list of prohibited symbols is narrow and precise: the swastika and other symbols principally used by or associated with terrorist organizations listed under the Criminal Code.

Canadians should know this does not criminalize opinions or ordinary protest symbols; it is about only a small, closed list of hate and terror symbols displayed to promote hatred. This approach ensures the law is both clear and enforceable.

Let me summarize why this legislation is so important. Too many Canadians feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, their own schools and their own places of worship. Bill C-9 makes it clear: Canada will not tolerate hate. We will not tolerate intimidation. We will not tolerate symbols of violence and terror being used to spread fear.

At the same time, this bill respects charter rights. Peaceful protest remains lawful. Political expression remains lawful. This is about stopping deliberate acts of hate, not silencing voices.

In my riding of Surrey Newton, I see every day how diversity makes us stronger. People of all backgrounds, whether Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or many others, and even those who do not practise, live side by side and work together with respect, but I also hear from families who are worried when they see hate crimes on the rise. Parents are anxious about sending their children to school, and seniors are concerned about attending their places of worship. Canadians should never have to live with that fear.

This legislation equips law enforcement and prosecutors with the tools necessary to respond effectively to intimidation, obstruction, hate crimes and hate propaganda. It protects individuals, strengthens community safety and upholds the values that define Canada. I call on all members of this House to support Bill C-9 and stand with us in protecting the rights, freedoms and safety of all Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns we have seen across the country is, as he has noted, the massive increase in anti-Semitism. I noticed he missed the massive increase in hate attacks on Christians, but on the issue of anti-Semitism, we have seen these horrible riots and protests in the streets, with people carrying vile signage saying “from the river to the sea”. We know “from the river to the sea” means the extermination of the Jewish people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Does the member opposite believe that “from the river to the sea” would be an issue of hate, and would Bill C-9 ban people carrying signs promoting “from the river to the sea”, the extermination of Jewish people in Canada?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Christians, I did mention places of worship, including churches. I will always keep on making sure that Christians are equally protected under Canadian law.

When it comes to displaying any symbol of hate that is attacking any of those communities I mentioned, whether it is the Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Muslim or Hindu community, it will not be tolerated. This bill would make sure that those symbols of hate are banned as acts of hatred that are offences under the law.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in our view, the offence of intimidation is probably the one that represents a truly important need. Among other things, it will make it easier to crack down on online hate speech.

Does my hon. colleague think that the current provisions on intimidation are sufficient? In his opinion, do police forces and prosecutors need more tools than what is being proposed?

[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?

[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—

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

The hon. member for Repentigny has the floor.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have often said that we want to move this bill forward and work on it in committee. However, it is important for us to remind the House that we have concerns, particularly with respect to the right to protest. In Quebec, we have a long history of peaceful protests.

I would like my colleague to tell us at what point he thinks it could become a crime to obstruct access to a place. We see it as a slippery slope. Does my colleague have the same concerns? Where do we draw the line? At what point is someone obstructing access to a place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am a very strong advocate for the Canadian Charter of Rights. I respect our democratic principles, one of which is being able to protest. What I do not respect are hate-motivated protests targeted against a particular ethnic or religious group. I have very little or zero tolerance. I do not believe one should, for example, prevent an individual from being able to go to a place of worship or faith, whether a synagogue or a mosque. I think it is an expectation that people should feel safe to be able to attend things of that nature.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, on September 16, I got a note from Sarabjit Kaur of Abbotsford, because there were hateful comments made around the Nagar Kirtan they had in Abbotsford. She said, “What is the RCMP and other bodies doing about all these hateful things going on? I feel so unsafe about sending our kids out to school. Do you think schools like the Dasmesh School and Khalsa School should have more security in place?”

I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to comment and to give a message to Sarabjit as to why the bill is more important than the Conservatives think.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, whether it is my friend and colleague who just raised the question; the Prime Minister, who has made comments on it; or the general feeling not only within the Liberal caucus but also among many others, people have a right to feel safe to be able to participate in the things my friend and colleague just referenced.

Whether it is a Nagar Kirtan or going to a gurdwara, these are things that are a part of who we are, and we should be celebrating them. We should not have to tolerate targeted hate messaging. We need, collectively, to make a strong statement, and the type of legislation that is before us at least is an important step in doing just that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say this to my hon. colleague: We are trying to combat hate, and this is prompted by a question that was asked earlier, but why do we not go after rage farming and the algorithms, bring back the digital services tax and really deal with the threat that promotes hatred?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Internet in many ways has been such a wonderful thing in terms of advancement of our communities, society and the world in general, but there are a lot of negatives. The rage and hatred we see through different forms of the Internet is something that concerns me, and I suspect it concerns a great number of people. Looking for ideas on how we can minimize the negatives of the Internet is something that I am always open to listening to, at the very least.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

I will be splitting my time with my dear friend, the member of Parliament for Bowmanville—Oshawa North.

I will speak about Gardiner and Voltaire: one an English journalist and the other a French satirist. A.G. Gardiner, in his essay On the Rule of the Road, put it plainly: One's freedom ends where the other person's nose begins. One's right to swing their fist ends when it collides with another's safety. To live together, we accept this social contract, curbing certain impulses so that everyone may move freely. Gardiner used simple ideas like the limits of playing a trombone at midnight to illustrate the point.

True freedom comes with the responsibilities of restraint, rules and tolerance. Without responsibilities, liberties clash and dissolve into anarchy, where no one is free. With these responsibilities, we achieve freedom for all, including minorities.

Voltaire, in his writings and satire, came to the same truth from another perspective. For him, freedom of speech was the lifeblood of progress. A society advances when ideas, even unpopular ones, can be expressed and tested. He fought censorship, knowing that suppression is always the tool of tyranny. A phrase often attributed to him, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, was in fact penned later by Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Voltaire defended free expression, while rejecting incitement, libel and sedition, insisting that open dialogue is the only safeguard of liberty.

Taken together, Gardiner and Voltaire remind us that freedom lives in the balance in between. Without restraint, it collapses into anarchy, and without expression, into tyranny. It is against this balance that we must measure the state of our country today.

Taking into account the understanding that Gardiner and Voltaire provide us with, let us chart out Canada in the last decade and provide three principal critiques of Bill C-9. The hate crime legislation before us right now is legislation that we should have been debating several years ago. We will take no lessons from Liberals when it comes to fighting hate. Let us talk about the last decade.

Since 2015, when the Liberals took office, hate crimes have gone up 258%, police-reported hate crimes have increased six years in a row and anti-Semitic hate crimes are up 416%. We have a government in place that has allowed Jewish Canadians, who account for less than 1% of our population, to become the most-targeted minority in our country. Seventy per cent of all hate crimes are targeted at less than 1% of the population. It is a government that, for far too long, has decided to place political expediency over moral clarity, choosing appeasement over principle.

A synagogue was fire-bombed twice in one year. Two Jewish schools were shot up. A bomb threat targeted Jewish institutions across Canada. A Jewish man was assaulted in a Montreal park. A Jewish woman was stabbed in the kosher section of an Ottawa Loblaws. The government's announcement, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, of granting a state to the people who practise state terror as statecraft, emboldening mobs and violence upon our Jewish communities, is just the latest example.

It has been a decade of waiting for the rule of law over mob rule. Christians across our country have been subjected to over 100 church bombings and attacks. Communities are divided against one another as political projects of Liberals, rather than as a country being raised on the basis of the rule of law for all its people. Truckers took to our streets to protest for their rights and freedoms, as the Prime Minister then betrayed civil liberty and sowed distrust in our financial institutions, calling those very protesters seditious.

Trust is broken in this country. Our institutions, whether media, bureaucratic, judicial, financial or academic, have all been subjected to radical conformity, not critical thinking. The rot of one ideology as supreme against all others has shaken the confidence of Canadians, and restoring that trust requires much more than the performance art and virtue signalling that much of Bill C-9 presents.

The same Liberal members of Parliament who stood and watched as trust eroded and communities were torn apart stand here today to claim that they have solutions for the very problems they caused. They claim they have majestically changed since their new Prime Minister took office. We cannot forget the damage and division they sowed, the trust they have broken.

It is against the backdrop of the rising hate and violence the Liberals have caused that I offer three three principal critiques of Bill C-9. First is the removal of the Attorney General from the process of approving charges for hate crimes. The requirement for AG consent has long served as a safeguard against abuse and as a means for accountability. By removing that oversight, the government would risk giving unelected bureaucrats unchecked discretion over prosecutions, paving the way for radical ideological judges.

My friend, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, put it best on September 24:

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.

Second is a question of identity. Where the bill currently refers to the protection of identity, it shifts attention away from protecting individual dignity. This carve-out from free speech would give Liberals the opportunity to define what they do not like as hate speech. Identities and human association are complex and subjective, but the concepts of the individual's rights and dignity are objective. Our laws should defend every Canadian against intimidation, harassment and violence, not protect abstract categories that are open to interpretation.

Third, another concern with Bill C-9 is its approach to defining “hate” itself. As drafted and as the government indicates, the bill would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” as “detestation or vilification”. On its face this seems consistent, but by removing the word “extreme”, the government would lower the legal threshold, enabling police to lay a multitude of charges with less scrutiny and less investigation. In practice, this would risk opening the floodgates to inconsistent prosecution and litigation. This is the kind of overreach we have come to expect in the United Kingdom, but not here in Canada. The Conservatives are the party of free speech, not the party of prosecuting those whose speech we do not agree with.

There is a lot at stake in Bill C-9. We must resist the left's troubling argument that words alone constitute violence. Words are words. Violence is violence. Conflating the two licenses the idea that real violence is a legitimate response to speech, a principle that is both dangerous and indefensible. The only correct response to offensive or hateful words is more words and more debate.

If there has been a rise in hate in Canada, it is not because we fail to police speech; it is because we fail to police actions: barricading neighbourhoods, assaulting members of religious minorities, burning down churches, shooting up synagogues or vandalizing minority-held businesses. It is because we have a government that sows division, pitting one community against another, and that treats one speech as sacrosanct and the other as seditious. It is because our government does not have the resources to act and because the Liberals have created a justice system that lets offenders walk back onto our streets.

The solution to violence is enforcement of the law by police and by courts, accountability for wrongdoers and genuine condemnation by public officials, none of which we have seen. Bill C-9, as written, falls short. As hate crimes have risen across this land, successive public safety and justice ministers have failed to bring focus to the source of these crimes. They have failed to provide both legal and moral leadership to stand against the mob and call for civility in Canada, honouring what Gardiner and Voltaire described. Without them, violent crimes go unchecked.

It is time to jail the haters, not for what they say, but for what they do. Bill C-9 fails to strike the balance Canadians expect. Despite having had the support of the Conservatives since the election, the Liberals only table a law that would essentially repurpose an existing law and would contribute very little to dealing with one of the biggest crises our country has to confront. We must confront hatred with the rule of law and the love of liberty. We must protect Canadians from violence, not expose them to arbitrary prosecutions. We must hold the government accountable for legislation that leaves our communities vulnerable.

That is our responsibility. That is our commitment. That is the standard Canadians expect.

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

Madam Speaker, let us perhaps look in the mirror. The Conservative leader associated with the conspiracy theory convoy. He has used misogynistic keywords in his party's propaganda. He has associated with the alt-right extremist and white supremacist-adjacent group Diagolon. His party spent years appeasing the Conservative Party base, bringing nothing to the table but division and conflict.

What responsibility does the Conservative Party and its leader have for the growing hate and division in Canada?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member should look in the mirror.

This is a government that has spent the last decade dividing Hindus and Sikhs against one another. This is a government that has failed to utter a single word of strength against a majority of hate crimes being levelled against less than 1% of our population. More than 70% of all hate crimes across the country are focused on less than 1% of the population.

Over the last year, what has the government done? It has accelerated hate and poured gas onto the fire. Synagogues have been bombed, schools have been shot and communities have been threatened.

Conservatives will take no lessons from Liberals on what it takes to confront hate when they are the ones who have been promoting it all along.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague was not yet a member of this place or living in Ottawa during the convoy, but I do not think he fully recognizes how awful it was for local businesses and local residents to not be able to sleep and to have horns blowing all the time. We sat in this chamber not knowing if the trucks outside were loaded with explosives.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, no one knew what was in those vehicles. I was told by the RCMP that I needed an escort to get in and out of the building because my face was too well known and that I would not be safe trying to get into the building. The buses were not running. The taxis were not running. It was not safe to walk through a crowd.

Does the hon. member really think that was an acceptable situation for Parliament?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me offer this. It is true that at the time, I was not in the chamber. I did not represent the great people of Calgary Heritage. At the time, I was a writer, a thought leader, at a place called the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

I happened to be in Ottawa at the time of the convoy protest, and I decided to take a look for myself to see exactly what was involved. I walked from one end to the other. I probably encountered a bit too much beer and weed for my taste, but I will tell members that this was a peaceful protest. These were authentic people fighting for their freedoms and doing so in the best interests of our country and our communities.

They were diminished by the farce of what was proposed, the Emergencies Act, against them and against the freedoms of Canadians, freedoms that were shaken in our financial systems with subjective enforcement of the rule of law. These things need to be confronted and should never again be permitted to happen.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have heard from many members of Canada's Hindu community across Durham Region who are concerned that, through Bill C-9, the Liberal government is associating one of their sacred symbols with hate. Has the member for Calgary Heritage heard the same concerns?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his incredible work on restoring trust among our young people and trust between communities.

The Nazi hooked cross was culturally appropriated from the ancient civilization of Hindus and Indians. People of Indian origin and Hindu faith have often seen that symbol, the swastika, as it is properly known, as a symbol of peace, love and prosperity. When the Nazis culturally appropriated it and made it famous as a symbol of hate, they chose to do something terrible in this country.

In how we speak about hate crimes and hate symbols, it is so important for us to learn this lesson of history, to classify the hooked cross of the Nazis correctly, to defend our Hindu community and to defend our—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

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

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about hate speech, I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees with this religious exemption.

Does he agree that certain elements of the Criminal Code can be recognized as hate speech, but that, as long as such speech is religiously motivated, it can be exempted, risk free? Does my colleague think that makes sense?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to discussing these issues with hon. members and with my colleagues in the Bloc. I know we will have an opportunity to do so at committee.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Firearms; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Finance.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, freedom of expression is a special part of Canada's political and cultural tradition. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that everyone in our country has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. When any government seeks to limit or constrain these freedoms, it requires a special trust between the people of the country and that government. Ideally, the people know that when a government seeks to limit their expression, that government has their best interests in mind and that any effort to limit freedom of expression would be done so fairly and justly.

Today, the Liberal government does not have that trust with many Canadians, and it is important that we understand why as we debate the merits of Bill C-9, in which the Liberal government is proposing new ways of limiting free expression in our dear country. A government that is deserving of trust would, of course, be one that is honest with the people of the country. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Bill C-9. Much of this legislation is duplicative of laws already on the books and does not adequately address the core reasons crime has increased.

The problem of crime primarily requires the federal government to more earnestly enforce the laws we already have and support police officers to investigate crimes and lock up criminals. The Liberal government is, frankly, taking attention away from its very real enforcement problem as it pertains to criminal law and the justice system. Instead, it is distracting people with legislation and, in doing so, is not being straight up with the people of our country.

A government that is deserving of trust with legislation like Bill C-9 would be a government that treats all religious communities fairly, and that is not the case. In the rollout of Bill C-9, the Liberal government failed to mention anti-Christian bigotry in explaining how this legislation would address increases in hate in our country. Of course, anti-Christian bigotry has risen dramatically in recent years, as evidenced by over 100 churches being burned down or vandalized. In fact, the government's statements about Bill C-9 seem to go very far out of their way to avoid mentioning Christians and to avoid mentioning what has been happening to Christian communities across our country, despite mentioning other targeted communities.

This is not a surprise to me, and probably not to many in this chamber, as when the Liberal government had an opportunity last year to support Conservative legislation to increase the penalty for arson against churches, which was known as Bill C-411, the Liberal government did nothing. It did not step up to work with us. It did not even articulate support for our efforts. We may recall Bill C-411, introduced by my Conservative colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, introduced mandatory minimum sentences for criminals attacking churches. It was a fantastic idea and an important part of any meaningful response to what has happened to churches across our country.

Despite claims by the current Liberal government that it is something new and different from what we contended with last year, it continues to take the exact same approach to how it deals with Christians in our country, continuing to refuse to step up and take any action. Ultimately, it is important for Christians and non-Christians across our beautiful nation to ask why the Liberals seem unwilling to address the attacks on churches in Bill C-9, Bill C-411 or any bill for that matter. If we are being very honest, I think the answer is that the Liberals like to use their power in government to pick winners and losers. They like to decide who deserves attention and protection, who deserves to have their dignity affirmed and who does not.

Liberals, frankly, do not see Christians as deserving of protection, and Bill C-9 is a very clear example of that, plain and simple, on paper. With that in mind, it is difficult to trust the Liberals to apply these new powers they seek to limit free expression in a way that is fair, just and the same for all Canadians. I anticipate Liberals saying that Bill C-9 is responding to the needs of religious communities by including language for the protection of Canadians who attend places of worship. Believe me, Madam Speaker: I would very much like to see more protections for Canadians who attend places of worship. In August, I submitted a motion to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to discuss precisely this issue.

However, my concern with Bill C-9 is that the Liberals are taking a very real issue, which is that Canadians who attend places of worship need more protections, and using that very real issue to justify the expansion of their government's power to define what constitutes acceptable speech. Liberals have demonstrated, over their last decade in power, an intolerance for Christians and other Canadians who may disagree with them on important social and cultural issues. For that reason, I worry that the government will use the new powers it seeks under Bill C-9 to make it even more difficult for people in our great country to freely practise their faith.

Importantly, it is not just Christians who have concerns about being excluded from Bill C-9; Hindus across our country do as well. I have personally heard from many Hindu Canadians in Bowmanville—Oshawa North and across Durham region, who have expressed concerns over how some of their religious symbols have been characterized in Bill C-9. There is concern for many in the Hindu community that the proposed legislation equates one of their sacred symbols with a symbol of hatred. They are not being treated fairly by the Liberal government either.

Finally, it is very important to note another reason many Canadians do not trust the Liberal government. Under the Liberals' watch, the justice system has become weak and ineffective at protecting our communities. To have a trusting relationship with the public, especially if it has the audacity to ask the public to allow it to limit their free expression even further, the Liberal government should prove that it is willing to listen to cries for help from police officers asking for important justice reforms. Many criminals, whether they are motivated by hate or something else, could be off the street right now if the core problems in the justice system were adequately addressed. Canada needs a justice system that will be tougher on criminals, and that means having real consequences for breaking the law and hurting our people.

I would like to share the words of Durham region's police chief, Peter Moreira, who offered a powerful statement on the topic of justice reform a couple of days ago. He said, “we must establish meaningful consequences that deter convicted individuals from reoffending. Offenders who endanger the public—whether through the use of weapons, threats or reckless driving—should be remanded into custody. Breaching bail conditions should disqualify individuals from future bail, especially when it's their third, fourth, or subsequent release. Bill C-75 began this dangerous trend of multiple releases.... We need justice reform that prioritizes the rights of law-abiding citizens over the 'rights' of repeat offenders.”

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone paying attention why Canadians would be uncomfortable with the Liberal government asking for more power over our lives, and their time would be better spent trying to fix the justice system they have broken.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take great offence to this member coming into the House and trying to suggest that he represents the voice of all Christians. As an individual who is a Christian myself, who was raised in a family that attended service every Sunday, who has their own children in a Christian school and who values Christian beliefs and educates their children to support those beliefs, I take great offence to this member somehow suggesting that my place of worship would not be properly taken care of in this piece of proposed legislation if an event were to happen that is much like the other events he referred to. Based on the language he is using, I would say that this member, and Conservatives, is trying to drive a divide between religions.

Very simply, can the member please explain to me where in the legislation my place of worship, a Christian place of worship, would not be properly taken care of whereas another place of worship would be? Where is it in the legislation?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though I have offended the member opposite. Have I committed a hate crime now? Am I in trouble in terms of Bill C-9 because I have offended this gentleman?

The reality is that instead of throwing all this vitriol toward me, he should ask his colleagues why they have left Christians and anti-Christian bigotry out of any of their public statements concerning Bill C-9. He should ask his colleagues why they refuse to acknowledge over 100 churches being burned down across our country. They will not lift a finger to do anything about it, even when we have given them plenty of opportunity.

Save your energy and direct it to your own side of the aisle.

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

I hope the hon. member is not talking about me. My energy is quite well saved.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find that genuinely fascinating. My colleague is saying that he speaks on behalf of Christians and that he represents Christians. According to him, in the bill, Christians, like people of any other faith, should be defended by members of Parliament. Personally, I believe all religions should be treated equally.

In that regard, does my colleague not think it is necessary to amend Bill C-9 to ensure that hate crimes based on religious speech are prohibited?

I imagine my colleague will agree with that.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, all I am asking for is for Christians to be treated the same as everybody else, yet we can see the kind of reaction we get. Just saying the word “Christian” invokes a certain kind of energy in people in this chamber. I am very curious as to why that is.

If the Liberal government introduces legislation, names a series of communities it is supposed to help but leaves Christians out, why am I the bad guy for mentioning it? Come on, get serious.

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

I hope the hon. member remembers that he has to speak through the Chair and not direct comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to express the same concerns that my colleague has about the government with the Christian faith. We have seen innumerable churches being attacked, vandalized and burned down. Just recently, there was a historic one in Alberta. When this came up previously, former prime minister Trudeau said it was fully understandable that people were burning down churches.

Does my colleague believe, as the Liberals have said, that it is standing up for this faith to say that it is fully understandable for Christian churches to be burned to the ground?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague points to something very important for us to acknowledge: The effort by the Liberal government to downplay and dismiss anti-Christian bigotry is part of a much larger, broader pattern of behaviour to diminish the place of Christians and their feelings in our democracy. It has also introduced new ideas to take away charitable status from religious organizations. We have seen numerous petitions brought forward in the House to draw attention to that. We have given the Liberal government numerous opportunities to clearly state that it is going to protect the charitable status of religious organizations. It refuses to do so.

This is a deep-rooted problem in the Liberal government. We can see why it is such a sensitive spot to bring up.

The House resumed 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.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nunavut.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, which proposes reforms to the Criminal Code to better protect access to religious and cultural sites and combat the rise of hate in Canada at a critical time.

In 2014, the police recorded 1,295 hate crimes. By 2024, that number had risen sharply to 4,882. Hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity saw a particularly sharp increase, rising from 611 cases in 2014 to 2,377 cases in 2024. Similarly, hate crimes based on religion increased significantly, from 429 cases in 2014 to 1,342 cases in 2024.

Since 2020, the Black community has been the most frequently targeted population for hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity, accounting for 37% of hate crimes in 2024. In 2024, most police-reported hate crimes targeting religion were directed at the Jewish community at 68% and the Muslim community at 17%.

These figures and statistics tell only part of the story. The sad reality is that no community is immune to hate. We continue to hear that Canadians no longer feel safe in places of worship, learning and gathering, or in simple day-to-day life. The government is deeply concerned about this situation and has been very clear that it will take successive measures to improve public safety. Bill C-9 is the next step in this regard.

Let me be very clear. Regardless of an individual's background or who they are, if Canada is their home, then they deserve to live here in peace and free of hatred.

Media reports also continue to highlight the human cost of the spread of hate in our communities. I wish I could say the examples are few. Within the past two years, reports on threats and attacks at places of worship, community centres and religious schools, as well as hate-motivated crime more generally, continue to become more commonplace.

To take but a few examples, reporting from Global News, CBC and the Montreal Gazette during this time includes shootings and attacks on and at synagogues and mosques, evacuations of Jewish schools and Muslim community centres because of bomb threats and reports of attacks against Muslim taxi drivers and women wearing a hijab.

While these particular media stories focus on anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents, we know members of other communities in Canada share similar experiences of hate-motivated conduct, including because they are indigenous, because of the colour of their skin, because of the god they worship or because of who they love. I want to be clear: These incidents are abhorrent and do not reflect the values of Canadian society.

While Canada will always be a place to come together and, at times, disagree on issues, there is no place for intimidation and violence in our homes or where communities gather.

This disturbing rise in hate in Canada, and indeed around the world, must be met with strong condemnation and unity.

At this point, I want to assure my colleagues and all Canadians that there will always be room to have difficult conversations and express our disagreement, and that includes exercising freedom of expression and putting it into practice during lawful protests.

While this bill is a robust response to hateful behaviour, the proposed reforms have been carefully designed to ensure that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are not unreasonably restricted. This bill does not prevent anyone from protesting or expressing opinions or concerns about an issue.

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the measures proposed in Bill C‑9 to demonstrate how they will support the legal system in responding to these disturbing trends, while respecting our shared rights and values.

Bill C‑9 proposes to enact four new Criminal Code offences that will provide clear but appropriate tools for investigators, Crown prosecutors and judges assigned to cases involving these offences.

To address reports of intimidation, harassment, threats and violence at neighbouring religious and cultural institutions, Bill C‑9 proposes to create a specific intimidation offence that prohibits any conduct aimed at instilling fear in someone for the purpose of impeding access to their place of worship or to a place primarily used by an identifiable group for certain purposes.

The bill also proposes to create an offence prohibiting anyone from intentionally impeding access to those same places.

These two new proposed offences will help ensure that police have clear tools to intervene when the behaviour of certain individuals crosses a line and becomes criminal activity in relation to these places.

To be clear, nothing in the two proposed offences would prohibit or restrict the right of individuals to protest in or near these places. These offences apply to criminal conduct. Threats of violence are not forms of peaceful expression or assembly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, if anyone attempts to disrupt a peaceful protest through violence, police can respond appropriately without infringing on the rights of the protesters to express their opinion on a particular issue.

To be clear on this point, the bill specifically includes a defence for any person who attends at or near a place for the sole purpose of obtaining or communicating information. This type of defence already exists for similar offences and its application is clear and well known in the context of protests and picketing activities. As long as it is done in a peaceful manner and access to the place is not significantly impacted, this behaviour would not be targeted by the new proposed offence.

The bill also proposes creating a new hate propaganda offence related to the public display of certain hate and terrorist symbols. I want to assure my colleagues that this is not a blanket ban on symbols, but rather an offence of limited scope that applies exclusively to the public display of symbols deliberately used to promote hate targeting identifiable groups. The offence has been carefully worded and will not apply to public displays of such symbols for legitimate purposes, such as journalistic, educational or artistic purposes.

In addition to these specific offences, Bill C‑9 also proposes to create a new hate crime offence. To address the overall rise of hate in Canada, this new offence would strongly denounce and deter all hate-motivated crimes. This is an important new tool for police and Crown prosecutors across the country.

The new hate crime offence would make it a criminal offence to commit unlawful acts motivated by hate based on such grounds as race, ethnic origin, religion or sex. It would apply generally to the commission of an offence under the Criminal Code or an act of Parliament and would include stiffer penalties depending on the severity of the offence.

Bill C-9 strengthens Canada's legal arsenal against hatred and sends a clear signal that hate has no place in our communities. It is the sincere hope of this government and myself that we can come together to consider and study this bill with the aim of making Canada a safer place for all people who live here.

I urge all members to join me in supporting these essential measures.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the parliamentary secretary has a copy of the Criminal Code handy, but I know she is a lawyer, and I want to ask her whether she agrees that hate symbols are already covered under subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the wilful promotion of hatred, by virtue of the list enumerated in subsection 319(7) of the Criminal Code, which talks about communicating “statements”, which have been interpreted by the courts as very broad and including symbols.

Would the parliamentary secretary acknowledge that?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the Criminal Code with me, but I would tell my colleague opposite that the intent of this law is to regulate and legislate people who have the wilful intent to obstruct and intimidate people who want access to places of worship, religion, community centres and schools.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, intimidation-related offences are probably one of the most urgent issues right now. We see that with online bullying. Bill C‑9 is relatively weak. We in the Bloc believe it could go further in that regard. Obviously, we will be proposing amendments to that effect in committee.

I would like to know why the government seems to have limited its own ability to intervene in order to prevent offences, particularly with regard to online bullying and intimidation.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course, once this bill is being studied at committee, our colleagues will have the opportunity to discuss it and hear from experts on these topics.

We believe that this bill will be well received. I hope the Bloc Québécois will support it so that we can pass and implement this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague has put on the record. I wonder if she could amplify one fact. We made an election commitment to bring forward legislation of this nature. One of the things we have been very aggressive on with the new Prime Minister and the new government is looking at legislative measures that support our election platform, whether it is the tax break, the one Canadian economy or bail reform.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on how important it is that this legislation go to the committee stage as part of our platform?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, as mentioned in my speech, we have seen a rise in hate crime in the last few years, and it is time that this question be addressed and that we adopt this law to be able to protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This is a platform promise that we made and that this government engaged itself in, and we intend for this legislation to see the light of day.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I look at this legislation, I have to agree with the Conservative MP who earlier asked the hon. member if we did not agree that the Criminal Code already covers the offences that are described in this bill relating to symbols. As we are looking at the question of limiting free speech or accidental inferences that there is a hate crime being committed, I would ask the hon. member if those on the Liberal benches could put forward a clear explanation of what additional protections this bill offers that were not already covered by existing hate crime laws.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code currently contains four hate propaganda offences in sections 318 to 319. The bill proposes to create a new, fifth, hate propaganda offence that would make it a crime to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group by publicly displaying certain symbols, including symbols principally used by association with terrorist entities that are listed under the Criminal Code, such as the swastika, the Nazi double rune, also known as the SS bolts—

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

We do have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I join this debate on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, as the voice of Nunavut and as a member of the NDP.

The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada. Almost 5,000 hate crimes were reported in 2024. Police-reported hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity are up 19% from 2022. Yes, we need to combat hate, but we do not need to criminalize people speaking up, and we definitely do not need to keep them jailed for longer.

I am disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The Liberals' failure to include that aspect in this bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada.

We are in polarizing times, for many reasons. People are either for or against Palestine. They are either for or against Israel. Indeed, our political system is getting close to only being Liberal or Conservative. Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized. Our religious beliefs should not spread hate. This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.

There are existing laws that address hate, calling into question the real purpose of this bill. Hate is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. This bill would increase maximum sentences if an offence is motivated by hate. What would that raise sentences to? It would raise them to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment. We are entering a debate where imprisonment is made easier and made longer when, at the same time, we are hearing about an impending austerity budget.

In fact, there are already existing provisions in the Criminal Code addressing situations involving a crime near places of worship. I draw members' attention to the following sections in the Criminal Code: subsection 176(2), “Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings”; subsection 430(4.1), “Mischief relating to religious property”; section 264, “Criminal harassment”; section 264.1, “Uttering threats”; and section 423, “Intimidation”.

New Democrats are concerned with vague language in this bill, because once broad definitions are on the books, they can easily be weaponized against groups. For example, how will intimidating behaviours be interpreted by police? In its current form, the bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.

We know that listing groups on the terror list is a highly political decision, ultimately up to cabinet discretion. New Democrats are concerned that the section of this bill dealing with hate symbols would create a risk that a future government could put forward a new terror list for political purposes to appease certain groups that could then be caught under this provision.

Let me break down some of these concerns a bit more. Surrounding law enforcement, it gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity. Charging people with a hate crime carries a stigma that follows the person for life. If the charge is later dropped, the stigma will remain with the person.

There is the issue of vagueness. What are intimidating behaviours? How will they be defined or interpreted by police? Once broad definitions are on the books, they can be easily weaponized against groups. Hate is already an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code of Canada, as I said earlier. An assault committed out of hatred means the sentence would already be higher than it would be otherwise. This new offence would put the consequences of hatred in the hands of the police's subjective process rather than in those of the sentencing judge.

Second, we have a huge American influence. Advocates want tools that would target groups that openly espouse hatred and racism, would make it illegal to conduct any sort of militant training, for example MMA fight clubs, and would address the business component that allows these groups to become incorporated and therefore fundraise.

On the banning of symbols, other than the swastika and SS bolts, symbols would depend on Canada's terror list. Listing groups on the terror list is a highly political decision that is ultimately up to cabinet's discretion. This creates a risk that a future government could put forward a new terror list for political purposes to appease certain groups that could then be caught under this provision.

The wilful promotion of hatred is already an offence in Canada. The use of the swastika can already be processed through crimes currently on the books. The Liberals adding the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” to the Criminal Code is not the issue. Courts already use this definition, and nothing would change with this addition. The escalating punishment after each offence for someone convicted of the new hate crime would be excessive and disproportionate.

On the new state of fear threshold, Canada already has a system where we recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. This bill would lower that threshold and focuses on elements that are easily politically influenced, like which groups we can and cannot talk about in public. That makes the New Democrats and civil liberties associations nervous.

This crime has the element of intent to provoke a state of fear before going into a specific location. How will these locations be easily identifiable? The definition is too broad. This would cause problems in terms of scope and clarity for peaceful protesters. Provisions are vague, creating the potential for arbitrariness. We should be worried about how police would interpret the bill and about creating a further backlog in the already overburdened criminal justice system.

On freedom of assembly, while freedom of assembly is protected under the charter, with the broad definition of “fear”, any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion.

In the context of the upcoming November budget, the austerity measures the Prime Minister has told us to expect will impact the justice system, potentially with cuts to public prosecution offices. At the same time, this bill would take away some roles of the Attorney General. The Liberals are making cuts to budgets and at the same time are giving departments more power.

With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form. We will ensure that amendments are submitted—

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

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for bringing up the issue of white nationalist hatred in Canada.

Hamilton recently had a white supremacist mass-deportation protest that was deeply troubling to our community. Even more troubling is that it mirrors Conservative rhetoric, which is anti-immigrant and anti-migrant propaganda, further mirroring the trends we are seeing in the U.S.'s Trump and MAGA authoritarian regime.

The Conservative leader was personally associated with a white nationalist-adjacent group, Diagolon. What further steps do we need to take in Canada to eliminate white nationalist hatred? Also, what can we do to stop the importation of Trump-style U.S. political movements in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. member was making some pretty baseless smears about Conservatives in general, and I am wondering if this is in keeping with how the Liberals view free speech and how they want to weaponize the process against people who—

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

The hon. member knows that I am not going to start that debate in the chamber.

I am going to give the hon. member for Nunavut an opportunity to answer.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, as I said in my speech, we are in quite interesting times. The American influence is quite strong. As rightly pointed out, the “freedom convoy” was the biggest indicator of that. We saw how unsafe we all felt during the “freedom convoy” and how American influence seeped so deeply into Canadian discourse.

We need to make sure that we continue to fund news like the CBC that gives us facts. We need to make sure that we continue to implement the TRC calls to action and the MMIWG calls for justice. A lot of tools have already been given to the Liberal government to help make sure that we are talking more about what Canada can do to address symbols of hate and address what we need to do as Canadians so that we—

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

Let us go to more questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, and I am concerned about this situation, specifically that some of the most despicable aspects of American politics can sometimes slide into Canadian politics, particularly among groups that have a narrow interpretation of nationalism and do not always have good intentions.

However, there is another issue that cannot be ignored, and that is the rise of religious fundamentalism. This rise of religious fundamentalism exists in Europe and pretty much everywhere. I wonder if my colleague is concerned, as I am, that right now, people can brandish symbols of hatred if it is in the name of religion.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am concerned about a lot of things. Being Inuk, I know that religion was used against me and my people to take my language and culture away, so my views on religion might not be the same as what is in my colleague's question.

I know that when we are talking about making a better future for our children and our grandchildren, we need to base that on having faith in knowing that the decisions we are making are for their future so that we do not continue to damage not just the environment but the social communities and global community we have. We need more discourse about how to have a geopolitical environment that allows us to support each other so we can continue to support places like Ukraine and the people of Palestine, who are suffering a great genocide. We need to do a better job helping each other, for humanity.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, is the hon. member certain that this bill would really help as intended?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am not too sure what the question is, but I will quote what one of the member's Conservative colleagues said: “It is time to jail the haters.” We need to be careful about what we discuss and do as lawmakers. We need to make sure we address hate by having discussions, public conversations, about why we need to support each other, not spread hate about each other.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

Our society has changed in recent years. Change can be a good thing. None of us wants to return to a past before we had things like refrigeration and modern medicine, although I suppose there are many who wish we could return to a past without social media. I can certainly sympathize with that. It seems that as a nation, as a people, as humans, we have become much more fractured than in the past, and many of our divisions are fuelled by what we read and hear online.

I do not know if Canadians today are more hateful than in the past, but it does seem that more anger and hatred are being expressed against specific groups in our society. This is a serious issue that merits serious consideration.

I think every member of this House will want to speak to this bill, and some to share personal stories of their experiences with hatred in our society. There is probably not a member of an ethnic, religious, racial or sexual minority who has not at some point had to deal with irrational prejudices that threaten to expand into hatred or violence.

The question we need to ask ourselves in this House is how we can best respond to hatred. Legislation such as Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, may provide a Criminal Code framework for punishment, but is punishing people for their ideas and beliefs going to change those beliefs?

At the same time, we have a responsibility to protect Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians, from being harassed by those whose motivation is hate. It is our responsibility to find a balance between free speech and individual rights. We need to ask ourselves if this bill would do that.

For years, the question of what constitutes hatred has been a matter of personal interpretation. The line between what is acceptable and unacceptable has not been codified in law, which perhaps has made any enforcement of hate legislation difficult. Hate has always been a matter of interpretation.

At least we have a definition now:

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

I am not sure how helpful that will be when it comes to practical application.

Members have probably heard people say, “I am not an expert, but I know good art when I see it.” That is not a definition of art; it is a subjective statement. That, it seems to me, is also the problem with defining hate and one of the problems with this bill. Who decides what is “detestation or vilification?”

Bill C-9 does set out who is protected by this legislation. Hatred would be prohibited when based on the following:

race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity

Human nature cannot be changed by legislation. Irrational hatred, because of its irrationality, would not be eliminated by passing legislation against hate crimes. Making something an offence would not change the feelings of those fuelled by hatred. However, what we can do as parliamentarians is show society's displeasure when hateful thoughts are put into action.

Murderous thoughts about the driver who cuts someone off on their morning commute would not land someone in jail. Murder will. It is actions that are the subject of Bill C-9, not a person's private thoughts.

There is a fine line to be drawn between the right to protest and interference with others. I expect we will hear a lot of debate about the idea of intimidation that is brought forth in this legislation. In theory, protecting those lawfully using a school, a place of worship or any other location is a good thing. Sometimes, however, those places could be considered legitimate targets for protest. If this bill passes, it will be challenging for police and the courts to balance the rights of all involved.

Hate remains an ongoing problem in Canadian society. It is not something government can eliminate, though we have certainly tried. We have had government reports on supporting victims of hate crimes. We have had statistics telling us who has been targeted by hate in Canada. We have Canada's action plan on combatting hate. We have Canada's anti-racism strategy. The RCMP has the national hate crimes task force. However, hate is still with us.

In 2024, the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime released a special report entitled “Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime in Canada”. It noted many of the problems we face in combatting hatred in our country. In 2023, there was a 32% increase in the number of hate crimes reported to police over the previous years. Those numbers are on the rise.

This is not a uniquely Canadian problem. Societies the world over are seeing increased polarization. Minority groups are being demonized for political gain. Violence is increasing. Social media is being used to fuel the fires of hatred. The ombudsman called for the federal government to step forward to provide a legal definition of a hate crime and to enact legislation.

This bill is in response to that. Definitions and laws are, in many ways, just words on paper. They do not convey the human element, the understanding of what hatred does to those who are targets of hate crimes. It is those people and their experiences that bring us to our discussion today.

The combatting hate act is not going to change anyone's mind. It is not going to miraculously convince all Canadians that they should love their neighbours. We, therefore, need to ensure that all Canadians are not being subjected to hate merely because of who they are or what they believe. No Canadians should be expected to live in fear for their lives or livelihood because of race or gender.

No Canadian should be prevented from accessing medical treatment or attending a religious service because the building is being blocked by those spewing hateful words and symbols. Yes, we need to preserve free speech, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows those freedoms “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

There is no constitutional right to promote hatred. Hate crimes are not victimless. They can cause deep psychological harm. Sometimes they can cause physical harm. They are intended to cause fear and intimidation. When we allow one group to be targeted, when we fail to act, we become complicit in the crime. I am sure none of us in the House wants that to happen.

Does the combatting hate act solve the problem of hatred in Canadian society? It does not. It cannot, because legislation does not change hearts and attitudes. That is something best done one on one, and a task that falls on each one of us as we are confronted with hatred.

In the House, we can show our desire for a better Canada, one where people are completely accepted for who they are, regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

Bill C-9 is intended to show society's displeasure with the actions of those who wilfully promote hatred in Canada. I am not convinced this legislation is going to be as effective as the government hopes.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments, and he mentioned in the first part of his speech that many Canadians, especially people of colour, have been victims of hate crimes. I represent the riding of London West, where on June 6, 2021, a Muslim family, a family of colour originally from Pakistan, were just out for a walk and were murdered by someone simply because they were Muslim, simply because they were people of colour.

I followed the member's comments about the importance of protecting families and Canadians like the family in my riding, who were murdered because of their race and religion. Would the member not agree that the bill would do exactly that? Of the many requests that came through the summit on Islamophobia, that was one of them. Why will the member not support the bill?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill is a matter of changing a definition, and nothing but. There is nothing concrete in the bill that would ensure Canadians the protection that the member is suggesting.

We are standing on where Canadians can be protected, regardless of their race, religion, colour, sexual orientation or anything else, but the bill would not do what the hon. member thinks it would do.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, there has been discussion on the existing provisions of the Criminal Code and whether they adequately address existing expressions of hate or alleged hate. I wonder whether the member has a position or an opinion on the existing provisions of section 319 in the code and how they might address the issues that we are talking about today.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us remind one another that the government weakened the Criminal Code a lot when it introduced Bill C-75 in 2016-17. The government did that so badly that we see crime rates and hate rates on the rise in Canada. We seem to be out of control on how to fight crime and make sure we protect Canadians. That is why the bill before us is empty except for a definition, and a definition does not solve problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate when Conservatives give misinformation, as if the proposed legislation would not have a very real and tangible impact. One of the reasons I want the bill go to committee is, for example, very specifically, the judicial manner in which the Attorney General would no longer be needed for consent to lay a charge in a certain situation. I see that as reinforcing the expediting of a charge. I think that is a positive thing.

I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts regarding the actions in the bill that would, in fact, make a profound, positive impact against hate crime.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member and I disagree on this point quite a bit, because I think the government is trying to show that it is serious about the issue, but the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years in dealing seriously with crimes taking place in Canada. That is the addressing that we need to look at. The government has always been virtue signalling and has been very symbolic on everything, but when it comes to action, its rate is zero.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-9, although I have grave concerns, not with the objective, but with the manner in which the Liberals have gone about trying to achieve it.

From the outset, let me say that I am grateful the Liberals have finally recognized there is a wave of hate sweeping this country. I am glad they have realized what the Jewish community in this country, among others, has been crying out for for years, which is a government that will listen to these concerns and understand the very real threats that are targeting them on a regular basis. However, just as the Liberals have done with Bill C-2 and the firearms file, they take a legitimate issue and offer a remedy that attacks the rights of citizens and expands the state’s power, often without the checks and balances necessary.

Bill C-9 would do five things: “repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent” to proceedings for hate charges, “create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place”, “create a hate crime offence of committing an offence...that is motivated by hatred”, “create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship” and “create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.”

Of these five things, three are already covered by existing laws, such as creating an offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying a symbol. Subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code already targets the wilful promotion of hatred. It targets the incitement of hatred, and the courts have been very broad in their interpretation of how that communication must take place. Symbols are a part of that. I can give an example from my own riding, where someone was charged, just within the last two weeks, in Central Elgin, Ontario, with a hate charge under subsection 319(2) after mowing a swastika into their front lawn. The display of a hate symbol led to a hate charge under the existing law.

Creating a hate offence is also redundant because hate motivation is already an aggravating factor under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, and it has consistently been applied by the courts.

Offences of intimidation and obstruction at places of worship are already criminalized under sections 423, 431 and 434.1 of the Criminal Code, as well as under the laws pertaining to threats in section 264.1.

What we are left with when we strip away these three things, which are already covered by existing laws, are two things. Bill C-9 really does two things. Number one, it would remove the requirement for the Attorney General to consent. This has been viewed by activists and advocates on the left and the right in this country as a necessary safeguard against overzealous and political prosecutions by law enforcement or by Crown attorneys who simply do not understand this because it is a rarely applied provision of the law.

The next part is the most egregious part, where I will spend the remainder of my time. The government is codifying a new definition of hate. Bill C-9 describes hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The government has said this is adapted from the Keegstra Supreme Court decision, a seminal free expression case in Canada, but it actually changes something very key. In Keegstra, the court held that hatred “connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” This was expanded upon in the Whatcott decision, which says that hatred is “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words 'detestation' and 'vilification'.” The word “extreme” does not appear in Bill C-9.

The government is very proud of this bill. The Liberals have had all summer to work on it, and they have had I do not know how many stakeholders, staffers, bureaucrats, lawmakers and lawyers go over every clause, I imagine, with a fine-tooth comb. Omitting an operative, very key word in a very key section of this bill is no accident. The government is, to use a legal term, wilfully lowering the threshold on what constitutes hate and, by extension, expanding the state's power and lowering the threshold of what can be regarded as free expression in this country.

The reason this is so important to me and to the Canadians who have been speaking out about Bill C-9 to this point is that the government has been, to its credit, very transparent on where it wants to go on free expression.

In the last two Parliaments, under the auspices of tackling so-called online harms, the Liberal government has introduced sweeping censorship bills that have been decried by voices on the left and the right. The Liberals have told us, as recently as last week, that this is coming back. The online harms bill is still very much a live issue, so we cannot look at Bill C-9 in isolation. We cannot disentangle it from the Liberal government's stated attitudes about freedom of expression and, quite frankly, the contempt in which they hold free expression and open debate.

I am going to quote someone for whom I believe the Liberals have a great affinity, and that is former Canadian chief justice Beverley McLachlin.

In her Keegstra dissent, she wrote:

If the guarantee of free expression is to be meaningful, it must protect expression which challenges even the very basic conceptions about our society. A true commitment to freedom of expression demands nothing less.

We do not need to look far to see what happens when the threshold for hate is lowered. In the United Kingdom, police are not even rarely knocking on doors and arresting people over mean tweets, because the same desire that we are seeing behind some of the negative and concerning impulses in Bill C-9 is criminalizing hate based on the grounds that words are violence. Censors justify their limitations on freedom of expression by elevating speech to violence. It is not for the state to discern, let alone prosecute, hate that may exist in one's heart; the law is to punish action, and the existing laws already do this.

I would be remiss not to point out that the Liberals get tough on crime only when they are talking about thought criminals. These are the only people that the Liberals want to put behind bars.

Let us look at some of the real hate crimes across the country. According to Juno News, 130-some churches have been vandalized or victimized by arson since 2021. Synagogues in Canada have been firebombed and vandalized. Jewish schools have been shot at. If the Liberals were serious about real hate crimes, they would be seeking mandatory 10-year prison sentences for these heinous assaults on places of worship. Again, the law should punish bad behaviour and not bad feelings.

To be fair, we cannot confront the hatred that exists in Canada and in Canadian society without acknowledging some of the root causes of it. The crisis of hate is a direct consequence of 10 years of divisive Liberal identity politics and the reckless breaking of the immigration system by the Liberal government. We cannot talk about hate without talking about the breaking of the immigration system that has resulted in the importation of foreign conflicts, and, in some cases, very hateful ideologies into the country.

Much of this happened under the watch of the justice minister who tabled the bill. He was the immigration minister who looked at the first six years of Justin Trudeau's government and how immigration was bungled there and said, “Do not worry; I can do worse”, and he did. It is no coincidence that hate crimes have risen as Canada has become less discerning and more reckless in its handling of the immigration system.

This is a crisis of the Liberals' creation. I do not trust those who caused the problem to solve it. I think that all people who may agree with the motivation behind this bill should be very cautious about handing over this level of power to the Liberals, when they have already demonstrated where they want to go. They have already demonstrated what they want to do.

I will return to another quote by former chief justice McLachlin.

She says:

[It] is not to say that it is always illegitimate for governments to curtail expression, but government attempts to do so must...be viewed with suspicion.

The Liberal government does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on hate. It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on protecting charter liberties. It does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on any of the problems that it has been instrumental in either allowing to fester or, in some cases, in causing outright.

In Bill C-9, the good is already done by additional laws. The bad should be a warning sign. The Liberals should be very ashamed of trying to sneak this through the back door with a lower threshold for hate in a country that needs to protect and double down on free expression.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the real Conservative A-team this afternoon. We have heard repeated Conservative conspiracy theories over and over in the House. If we want to talk about real hate crimes, and I am not quoting alt-right so-called alternative news, there are Jewish members in my community who are covering up their Jewish identity in public. That is the hate we are talking about that this bill seeks to address. I am trying to understand what the member opposite's real objection is to this legislation.

When Conservatives talk about freedom of expression, it seems more and more likely that what they are talking about is freedom for Conservative members to say whatever they want without consequences. Is that the real objection?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had spent less time working on what he thought was a zinger and more time listening to my speech, in which I detailed in excruciating and, I will argue, painful detail the real hate that is occurring against Christians and the Jewish community. I mentioned the firebombing of synagogues and shootings at Jewish schools. By the way, the member should be well aware that the Jewish community has looked at the Liberal government and has been absolutely ashamed to be represented by people who have cozied up to the very people who are responsible for Jew hatred in this country.

I do not take any cues from the member, who wants to accuse Conservatives standing up for freedom of being conspiracy theorists. He should be ashamed of that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, who was telling us that there should be minimum sentences for vandalizing churches or synagogues.

I can understand the principle behind that, but let us take it a step further. I wonder if my colleague would agree that the religious exemption for displaying hate symbols should be repealed. Does he agree with me that the religious exemption should be repealed in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to interrogating what is not in this bill. The reason I raised what I did about the lack of stiff penalties for people who assault places of worship in heinous ways is that this is not theoretical or hypothetical. We see it happening, sadly, on a regular basis in this country, and it is not covered by this proposed Liberal law. Liberals in the past have been endorsing or rationalizing some of these assaults on churches.

This is an important discussion, and I want to see real action on real hate, not lowering the threshold on how we define it.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, peculiarly, this bill the Liberals have put together addresses things that are already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada. There are already laws that provide protection against and speak to things like the swastika and others. Could the member elaborate a bit more on why he thinks those things, already covered by law in Canada, are being virtue-signalled by the Liberals in debate here in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed one of the glaring issues with this. The parts of the bill that there is no objection to by me or my colleagues are about things that are already illegal in Canada, making this redundant in a lot of ways. I pointed to a recent case where someone was charged for displaying a hate symbol under existing hate laws.

I have to draw attention to the fact that not half an hour ago, I pointed this out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, a lawyer herself, and she had no idea. She had no answer. The Liberals have not prepared for the most basic challenging of this. What else have they not investigated on their own legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, providing clarity and strong legislation is critically important. We are seeing that in this bill.

Would the member apply the very same principle that he is talking about now with respect to this bill to private members' bills, which are numerous from the Conservative Party, where the criminal law already covers it? Would he suggest that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not need much time to say what I have already said, because I do not think the member was listening, which is that we need to enforce the existing laws where they already cover what is happening in this country on hate, but, moreover, we cannot allow the Liberal government to sneak into law a lower threshold for defining “hate” that will be used to curb free expression in this country.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Oshawa.

I rise today to address Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, specifically the changes to subsection 319(6) and the introduction of proposed subsection 319(7) to the Criminal Code.

I strongly support protecting religious freedom and ensuring that all Canadians are safe from hate and violence, but Bill C-9 would not do that effectively. I have three serious concerns about Bill C-9. First, it omits the protection of Christians, despite the fact that more than 100 churches have been burned and vandalized in Canada since 2021. Second, it would remove the safeguard of the Attorney General's consent under section 319. This would risk hate speech being weaponized as a political tool by any party in power by letting the government minister decide who gets charged. Third, it would water down the definition of “hatred” to something so vague and subjective that it would risk encroaching on the very right contained in subsection 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Beginning with my first objection to Bill C-9, I find it quite perplexing that Christian hate is not even mentioned in the bill. In recent years, we have seen alarming hate-motivated attacks, including the burning and vandalism of churches across Canada. Just last week, a century-old Ukrainian Orthodox church in Edmonton was burned to the ground. As we have witnessed a record number of sacred spaces being destroyed, Christians have noticed the government's silence. Congregations have been left in fear, and people of faith are feeling abandoned by their government's lack of enforcement of existing laws.

In this context, it is shocking that a bill about combatting hate is completely silent on the rise of Christian hate. The government's press release mentions anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia, yet it makes no mention of the rise in hate crimes toward Christians. This bill would not add new protections for worshippers. Instead, it would expand state powers by removing the legal safeguards and watering down the definition of hate speech. It would pave the path toward politicizing restrictions on speech. It would even risk criminalizing dissent to what some would call thought crimes.

We must exercise caution. Once such powers are granted to the government, they can be weaponized by any government against its critics. The existing Criminal Code already covers the most serious offences. Section 318 makes it a crime to advocate for or promote genocide. Section 319 criminalizes public incitement to hatred, wilful promotion of hate and speech that would lead to a breach of peace. These provisions already strike a careful balance between protecting Canadians from true hate and safeguarding freedom of expression. Bill C-9 attempts to redefine hatred so vaguely that it would risk capturing legitimate debate.

We have seen how this plays out elsewhere in the world. In the U.K., a man was arrested for holding a blank protest sign because authorities said it could be interpreted as offensive. In Australia, parents were investigated for hate speech after questioning gender policies at their school. In New Zealand, academics were threatened with jail for quoting banned manifestos. Canada is not immune.

We are crossing a dangerous line of removing the provincial Attorney General's consent and oversight and leaving charges in the hands of a minister appointed by the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has given us reason to believe that it would weaponize hate speech laws against its political opponents for political gain.

Bill C-9 would introduce a second significant change by adding a subjective, emotionally driven definition of hatred that lowers the threshold that was essentially set by the Supreme Court of Canada. As many members know, this is important because hatred is not defined in our Criminal Code. Rather, its meaning has developed over decades through case law, the most notable case being the 2013 Supreme Court case Saskatchewan v. Whatcott. That case said the term “hatred” must be interpreted as extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification” and should not include representations that merely discredit, offend or insult.

That objective standard set by the Supreme Court protects freedom of expression while targeting real harm. The Liberal government seeks to overturn that Supreme Court definition with Bill C-9 by replacing that decision with a new subsection 319(7), which is found in Bill C-9. In this new subsection, the Liberals wish to redefine hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. Removing the word “extreme” lowers the threshold that the Supreme Court put in place to protect free speech.

By focusing on emotion rather than extreme manifestations, the government’s new definition shifts attention to feelings rather than actual harm. Under the Liberal Bill C-9, citizens may self-censor, and prosecutors would also gain wide discretion to pursue cases based on perceived emotion, not demonstrable harm. This creates a real risk that individuals may be penalized for strong dissent, even without intent to incite hatred.

Why does this matter? It is important to recognize that these harmful parts of Bill C-9 could cause real issues for freedom of speech. Removing the Attorney General's consent and watering down the definition of “hatred” directly threaten our fundamental freedom of expression, which is contained in subsection 2(b) of the charter. Once charged with hate speech, a person's life can be ruined long before a verdict, with careers lost, reputations destroyed and families fractured. Bill C-9 amounts to cancel culture that is enforced by government power.

Laws that protect against hatred toward Christians, Jews, Muslims or any faith group must be enforced under existing laws contained in sections 318 and 319. Bill C-9 would not create new protections; it would create a fake law. It pretends to fight hate while really concentrating power in Ottawa. By removing the Attorney General’s oversight and inserting a vague new definition of hatred, this bill would give the government a tool to harass dissenters and weaponize the law for political gain.

Hate is real, and it must always be confronted, but we do not confront hate by weakening democracy. We do not confront hate by stripping away safeguards, criminalizing emotions and centralizing power in Ottawa. The true test of our democracy is not how we treat speech that we agree with, but how we protect the freedom of those with whom we profoundly disagree. Bill C-9 fails that test. It risks turning the coercive apparatus of the state into a weapon of dissent.

I stand here not just as a member of Parliament for the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk, nor as a lawyer, but as a Canadian and a Christian who believes that freedom of expression is sacred. We already have the laws to punish genuine hatred. We must now guard against a government that uses the language of protection as a cloak for control.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's bringing up the issue of the use of legislation as a political tool. I have seen that first-hand in Hamilton, where activists in the community use accusations of hatred and racism as a tool to silence political opposition. Let us be clear: That is not what is happening here. That is not what is in the bill. The member opposite knows full well what the intentions and purposes of the bill are.

Why does the member not stand with members of her own community, members of minority communities and members of police forces across Canada, who are supportive of the bill, and support what is being asked for as a necessary protection for those groups across Canada?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand with members of all communities that are subject to hate. We know the current Criminal Code has, already contained within it, sections that deal with hate. The proposed law is not about that. The law is about the concentration of government power so that it can be weaponized against dissenters.

We have section 319(2), which protects against hate symbols; section 423 is about intimidation, and section 430 is related to mischief of religious groups. These things are already in the Criminal Code. The Liberals need to enforce the law.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk for her impassioned and informed speech. Like a lot of people in the House, I spend a lot of time visiting places of faith. The only one in all of Edmonton, including Christian, Hindu, Sikh or Muslim, that actually has to have a police car out front at all times is our local synagogue. That is a reflection of the rise in crime under the government.

Does my colleague see anything in the bill that is going to stop the kind of hate that forces the Edmonton Police Service to offer police protection for only one specific faith?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we listened to an impassioned speech by the member for Toronto Centre, who is a person of Jewish heritage and faith. It became very clear that the bill was not designed to protect that community. Right now, people of the Jewish faith cannot even shop in grocery stores in a kosher aisle without being assaulted, yet we have crimes on the book that are not being enforced. People are charged and then the charges are dismissed.

We need to uphold the rule of law. We need to uphold the laws in the Criminal Code that currently exist, rather than creating a fake law that makes people feel good but allows the government to weaponize dissent.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would basically like to come back to the issue of the religious exemption. It seems to me that the government has shown a willingness to potentially study it if the opposition parties bring it to committee.

I would like to know whether my Conservative colleagues share our point of view on the importance of debating this issue, which is happening on the streets of Quebec.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important, when dealing with religious freedoms, that every issue should be on the table and that we should have the capacity to sit down and have meaningful discussions about things that we disagree on. That is the essence of freedom of expression, that we should be able to have discussions from all over the country. That is why the Attorney General's consent for charges of hate speech is so important. It allows geographical input from different provinces, which is channelled through the Attorney General. That is why it is very egregious that Bill C-9 would consider the removal of the Attorney General's consent.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Oshawa. They have entrusted me to be their voice here in Ottawa.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-9, the government's proposed combatting hate act. Let me begin where I think we all agree: I believe that every member of the chamber rejects hate and extremism. Every member should want Canadians to feel safe in their home, in their school, in their place of worship and in their community spaces. Police and prosecutors must have the right tools to protect Canadians from real threats, but the question before us is not whether we oppose hate; the question is whether Bill C-9 would be the serious, effective law Canadians need, or whether it would be a flawed, politically motivated gesture.

Canadians have lived with rising hate in recent years. Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, indigenous and Christian communities have all faced threats, vandalism, harassment and violence. It feels like the government is not really serious about combatting hate crime, as we see the bill arrive now, seemingly timed to coincide with politics. The sad reality is that it feels as if Bill C-9 is less about protecting Canadians and more about protecting Liberal political standing.

After the October 7 massacre in Israel, when Hamas brutally attacked innocent civilians, Jewish Canadians here at home immediately faced an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism. Synagogues were vandalized. Students were harassed simply for attending school. Jewish communities lived in fear. The Liberals' response was that they waited, and then they introduced the bill that is before us so they could say to Jewish Canadians, "Look what we did for you.”

At the very same time, they moved to grant recognition to Palestine, despite the fact that Hamas still holds innocent hostages to this day and was even responsible for the deaths of multiple Canadians. That sends a troubling mixed message; it shows that the government is more interested in political symbolism than in confronting hate with urgency and clarity.

My friend Paula Kelly, when she heard about the bill, sent me this; “my rant", she called it. She said, “it was done to tell minority communities, especially [mine,] the Jewish one, ‘Look what we did for you. You see, we care.’ Then an about turn, and they recognize Palestine [at the worst possible time]. They make me so angry. And how stupid do they think the Jewish community is? And may I add, laws are already in place; [we] just have to enforce said laws.”

Let us not ignore another reality: anti-Christian hate has been rising in Canada, yet it receives little acknowledgement from the government. Since 2021, more than 100 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized, many of them through confirmed arson. These were not just buildings; they were places of worship, community centres and anchors for families, seniors and entire congregations that have been left traumatized.

When synagogues were attacked, when mosques were threatened, when gurdwaras were defaced, leaders rightly stood and denounced those crimes, but when Christian churches were burned, the silence from the federal Liberal government was deafening. If we are serious about combatting hate in all its forms, then we must call it out consistently, no matter who the target is. Hate is hate. Every faith community deserves equal recognition, equal protection and equal respect.

One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-9 is how it carelessly mis-characterizes cultural and religious symbols. For millions of people around the world, a sacred symbol of peace and prosperity has been part of their faith and tradition for thousands of years, yet in the legislation, that same symbol is lumped together with hate imagery, as though it were born of extremism.

I want to be clear that the concerns are not just abstract legal ones. I have heard directly from communities in Oshawa and across the Durham region that are deeply troubled by how the bill mis-characterizes their sacred symbols. For them, what the government is labelling as hateful is in fact a symbol of peace, faith, and prosperity, something that has been part of their cultural and religious tradition for thousands of years.

These residents told me that they now worry that their heritage could be stigmatized or even criminalized because of vague and sloppy drafting in Bill C-9. They feel unseen and unheard and unfairly associated with hate that has nothing to do with their faith.

It is my duty to bring their voices to this chamber. If we are serious about combatting hate, then we must do it with precision and cultural understanding. Sweeping up sacred traditions in the same net as extremist symbols is not only insulting; it undermines the very fairness Canadians expect from their lawmakers.

Another concern is that Canada already has hate laws. The Criminal Code already prohibits advocating genocide, promoting hatred and committing hate-motivated crimes. Bill C-9 would not create new protections; it would simply make certain hate-motivated conduct a separate offence.

What would that achieve? It would achieve more paperwork, more duplication and more symbolism, and perhaps even shorter sentences would be possible. Canadians do not need symbolic legislation. We need laws that are clear, enforceable and effective.

The bill would also remove the requirement for the Attorney General's consent before hate propaganda prosecutions. That safeguard has long ensured that prosecutions are pursued responsibly and consistently. It has prevented frivolous or ideological complaints from overwhelming the courts. Police and prosecutors themselves recognize its value. Removing it would risk abuse and misuse, specifically in private prosecutions.

Then, of course, there is the definition of hatred, as mentioned by many of my colleagues before me. Bill C-9 would codify the definition from the Supreme Court, but it would deliberately strip out important words. By lowering the threshold, the government would risk capturing speech that, while offensive, would remain protected in a free democracy. In a country like ours, people must be able to express views, even unpopular ones, without fear of criminal prosecution, as long as they do not cross into true hate or incitement. Again, these laws already exist.

When the scope of criminal law is expanded carelessly, we risk over-criminalization and uneven enforcement. We risk focusing on political optics instead of the real threats that Canadians face from violent extremists and repeat offenders.

Canadians deserve better than symbolic gestures and flawed drafting. They deserve laws that confront hate directly, consistently and effectively while also defending the freedoms that define us as Canadians. We must protect synagogues, mosques, churches, gurdwaras, schools and cultural centres from threats and intimidation. We must also protect free expression, peaceful protest and civil liberties.

Bill C-9, as written, would not get that balance right. Our duty in this House is not to rubber-stamp legislation; it is our duty to scrutinize it and to challenge it and to demand better, so that every Canadian can live free from hate and free from fear while also being free to speak, free to believe and free to assemble. That is the balance Canadians expect us to strike. That is the balance we must deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is not looking for a rubber stamp from the Conservative opposition. We would like to ultimately see the legislation go to committee.

Just to highlight a couple of very key points, it is important to recognize that this is in fact a campaign promise to make it illegal to physically obstruct or intimidate to prevent access to a space used primarily by an identifiable group for religious, educational, social, cultural or sporting activities. This means mosques, synagogues, churches, schools, cultural community centres and more. It also means criminalizing the intentional incitement of hate by displaying hate symbols.

There are significant changes proposed within this legislation, and the government is putting it forward based on its commitment made to the electors. It is important that we allow the legislation to go to committee, see if the Conservatives have amendments that they can propose and listen to what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course we agree. We want these hateful acts to be criminalized, and they already are. We think that they should be prosecuted. I would argue they are not yet prosecuted to where they should be, but the laws are already in place, as mentioned by my colleagues previously, in sections 319 and 318 and other sections of the Criminal Code. They are already there. We just need to enforce them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question from our delightful colleague from Winnipeg seemed to indicate that the Liberal government, which put forward the bill, believes that there are no redundancies built into the bill and that the things they are criminalizing are not already covered by existing law. I want to ask my hon. colleague about this, because we know that intimidation is already a crime and threats are already a crime. We have several sections of the Criminal Code that would already apply to the very scenario the Liberals are claiming needs a new section. I am wondering what the member makes of that and of the fact that the Liberals do not even seem to understand the laws they are trying to amend.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect that question, because it is very true. Canada already criminalizes the wilful promotion of hatred under section 319, but the bill would create new offences under proposed subsection 319(2.2), so this would be a duplication. It feels like it is more about politics than public safety, but it would go a little further, and the things we are concerned about include removing the Attorney General and changing the definition of “hate”. That is a very serious thing to do. We have to look at that very closely, and we look forward to doing so.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried many times to get a response from my Conservative colleagues but without success. Maybe I will have a better chance this time.

Bill C‑9 continues to include a religious exemption for hate symbols. Does my colleague not find this illogical? Would the Conservative Party be willing to review this situation, perhaps in committee, in which two types of rights are granted? This bill allows the use of hate symbols for religious purposes, but not for political purposes. It makes no sense.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this issue.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the clarity has to come on whether a symbol has been culturally appropriated, and I think the member is referring specifically to the Nazi hakenkreuz. It has been culturally appropriated from the Hindu religion. It is thousands of years old, and I think that my Jewish friends understand that. However, there is a section in the bill that refers to any symbol that looks like that symbol, which I think is too vague, and it has to be clear.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, earlier today we heard the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas issue personal attacks on the Leader of the Opposition using unparliamentary language when he stated that the Conservative leader was personally associated with a white nationalist group.

I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, rule such wording unparliamentary and ask the member to apologize and withdraw those comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for the intervention. I was not in the chair at the time, but the table has reviewed the tape in question.

I would note that, when we are in this place, we should be judicious in our language. While there are often comments flying back and forth, when they personally impugn the motives or character of an hon. member in this place, that goes beyond what is appropriate and does not contribute to the debate.

I would invite the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas to simply withdraw those comments. We could then move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there are all kinds of comments from the opposition impugning the reputation of members. If they would like to state some of those outside and—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We are getting into debate. I have encouraged the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas to withdraw the comments. I would note at this point that perhaps the member will find it difficult to catch the Speaker's eye for the remainder of the sitting day, and we will carry on with resuming debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is about 20 minutes before we will potentially adjourn. However, I think that the decision you, Mr. Speaker, are making is without any sort of indication of the issue being brought forward or the time in which it occurred. At the very least, you should maybe take it as notice for other members who may want to provide comment on it as opposed to making a verdict before others are provided the opportunity to provide their opinion. I would like to take a look at Hansard, for example, and I think that would be fair.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary should know that the Speaker is fully empowered to make decisions in the moment when things are said that are unparliamentary. He does not have to reserve judgment for days and days when people use unparliamentary language. It has also long been a well-established principle in this place that making accusations of involvement with heinous and reprehensible organizations is ruled out of order.

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas should do the right thing and simply withdraw as the Speaker has instructed him to do. If he does not, and if there is not more of a sanction than not being recognized for 20 minutes on a short Wednesday, then this will send a terrible signal to this place. Members would feel free to make all kinds of accusations about the groups members opposite might be associated with. That is a road I do not think any of us wants to go down. I think the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas should do the mature thing: apologize and withdraw,

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Saskatoon West has the floor.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. I thank him for the point.

Hate cannot be tolerated, no matter what justification is given by the former prime minister's former principal secretary. I hope that we all keep that in mind as we approach commentary around the present legislation.

I myself was distressed when the Conservative justice shadow critic brought up this problem of church burnings and was met with laughter from the other side. I did think that this was inappropriate, so I thank the member for raising the point.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively simple question and I would like a relatively simple answer. There is currently an exemption in the Criminal Code known as the religious exemption.

Does my colleague agree with that exemption?

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

Mr. Speaker, I fear it is not a simple question. It goes to the heart of what I was talking about in the John Stuart Mill quote and philosophical liberalism. What one person means when they say something from a different culture or a different religion can be taken differently. That is why we have to have a bias toward philosophical liberalism that I fear the government is abandoning with the present legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that it pass on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:42 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.