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) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(b) repeal the defence based on the expression of opinions on religious subjects or texts in relation to the offences of wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism;
(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 Act

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to share my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour for me to rise as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to speak about and be in strong support of the government's combatting hate bill, strong and decisive measures in Bill C-9 that would protect Canadians from hate, intimidation and violence, while fully respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which makes our beautiful country a beacon of democracy and inclusion.

The bill is very measured, targeted legislation. It would address some gaps in the Criminal Code that leave communities vulnerable to harassment and threats simply because of who they are, how they worship or the spaces they gather in.

Let me share the perspective of those on the front lines. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which sees these actions first-hand, said the following: “FCM welcomes federal efforts to strengthen Canada's legislative framework to protect communities from hate, including hate speech and symbols. Local leaders see first-hand how they can threaten safety, trust and community well-being.”

Our party platform, at page 19, made it crystal clear, a clear commitment to Canadians during the last elections, that we promised to criminalize intimidation and obstruction targeting people who simply want to access their community centres and places of worship. We promised to strengthen protections for communities facing hate-motivated crimes.

I will remind the House that Canadians, including the very brave people in the riding of Carleton, made their choice clear at the ballot box and want the House to implement the commitments made in the election platform. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do. Voting against the bill would literally be voting against the very same things that Canadians voted for on April 28, 2025.

Here is what Bill C-9 would actually do. The bill would protect access to community spaces and religious buildings. It would create offences for obstructing access to buildings used primarily for religious worship or by identifiable groups, including schools, community centres, seniors residences and cultural spaces. It would also criminalize behaviour intended to intimidate individuals trying to access these very same spaces. This would ensure that Canadians can attend religious services, drop their children off at school or participate in community activities without fear.

The bill would create a new stand-alone hate crime offence. Whether it is assault, mischief or other criminal conduct, if it is motivated by hatred towards a protected group based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or other characteristics, law enforcement and courts would now have the tools to treat this hate as an integral part of the crime itself. This is about clarity, consistency and justice for victims.

The bill would also codify the Supreme Court's definition of hatred to ensure that hate-motivated conduct is addressed decisively, while at the same time ensuring that the mere criticism, offence or disagreement is not criminalized. It would require showing proof of an emotion of an intense and extreme nature clearly associated with vilification and detestation.

Finally, the bill would criminalize the wilful public display of symbols associated with hate or terrorist entities, such as the Nazi hakenkreuz. The intent to promote hatred would have to be present, meaning that the mere display alone would not be a crime. This would modernize the law and protect communities from intimidation, while fully respecting freedom of expression.

The need for this legislation was once unanimously recognized by the House. Many elements of the bill originate from the 2024 justice committee report on fighting anti-Semitism that Conservatives supported at the time. They believed in codifying the definition of hatred. They believed in establishing a stand-alone hate crime offence, and they once believed in safeguarding access to religious and community spaces, yet today, in 2026, the same Conservative Party has turned its back on these very same issues.

The Conservatives are clearly divided and inconsistent on the issue. That is why Quebec Conservative members are not standing up to speak to the legislation. They support it, but their leader is barring them from speaking. That is why no progressive Conservative members on that side of the House have spoken out on the bill. They are being told not to.

Who actually emerged as the Conservative champion on the opposition to Bill C-9? It is not their shadow justice minister. It is actually the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. It is the member who previously dismissed the Polytechnique massacre as a “fake holiday”. It is the same member who defended Holocaust deniers on the radio by suggesting that denying the Holocaust is just free speech. It is still the same member who stood up for PEGIDA, a white supremacist organization, following the 2017 Quebec City mosque attack that left six innocent men dead. They were fathers, sons and husbands who were murdered while praying. This is the level of moral bankruptcy guiding the Conservative opposition. It speaks volumes.

Statistics Canada reports 4,777 incidents in 2023, which is a 32% increase from 2022. Religion-based hate rose 67%, while sexual orientation-based hate rose 69% and race or ethnically-based hate continues to grow. These numbers represent real Canadians living under real threat. They are parents, seniors, students and community members targeted simply for who they are.

Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that hate crimes are real. They do not want to protect the most vulnerable communities. It is completely shameful.

I have the privilege of sitting at the justice committee where government members worked constructively with opposition and stakeholders to strengthen protection and clarify the law where it is needed. A “for greater certainty” clause was added to explicitly state that religious speech and practice is not captured by the legislation before us. The definition of hatred was even amended to include the word “extreme”, ensuring alignment with the Supreme Court rulings.

Despite these careful measures, the Conservative Party continues to mislead Canadians. Its members have tried to frame this bill as an attack on religion, claiming that preaching or teaching scripture could be criminalized. That is categorically false. Courts have long held that four existing hate propaganda offences require proof of wilful intent to target an identifiable group, which is a very high legal threshold that peaceful religious expression has never met and never will under this bill.

Instead of supporting practical protections for Canadians, Conservative members have resorted to filibusters, procedural delays, fearmongering and misinformation to block the bill's process. It is politics over people and partisan games over the safety of Canadians who face harassment and intimidation simply for living their lives.

The evidence is clear. Religious communities, LGBTQ Canadians and racialized groups have faced dramatic increases in hate crimes. Police and municipalities report that they lack sufficient tools to respond effectively under the Criminal Code. The bill before us would fix that.

This is a moment for action, not delay. The Conservative Party has the choice to continue spreading fear and misinformation or to stand with Canadians who deserve to live, worship and gather in safety.

We are a government that acts decisively. This bill denounces hate and would protect communities and strengthen the law. It would do so while fully respecting the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression, the right to protest, and while giving law enforcement the clarity and the tools they need to protect Canadians.

It is time to put partisanship aside and support the proposed combatting hate act. It is time to reject fearmongering and misinformation. It is time to stand with Canadians who deserve to live, worship and gather safely.

Our communities are counting on us. Let us act. Let us pass the combatting hate act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary has been working on this very closely on the justice committee. However, we heard the Minister of Identity and Culture say that the Bible and certain books of the Torah contain categorical hatred and that there should be discretion for prosecutors to press charges. I would ask her very simply whether she agrees with the minister or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say right off the bat that it is not what the Minister of Identity and Culture said.

That being said, this bill is very important. Nothing in the bill says that, if the Bible is quoted and it is not done with the wilful intent to impute hatred on an identifiable group, then it would be captured. That individual or that group of people would not be captured.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary may not recall them, but I actually have the minister's comments.

Can I get unanimous consent to table them?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Does the member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could provide her thoughts on the damage that is caused when we have the official opposition spreading misinformation to the degree they have on Bill C-9. I think of the individuals who attend our gurdwaras, mosques, temples and so forth. The impact, I would suggest, is that it creates fear and does more damage than good.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question because there has been a lot of fearmongering and misinformation being put out by the Conservative Party, and Canadians have responded in emails. They are fretting, asking about what is contained in Bill C-9. Bill C-9 is there to protect Canadians.

As for the rise in hate, I have enumerated stats from Stats Canada, and there are very serious percentages of hate that are rising in our daily lives. Bill C-9 would come in and protect Canadians.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the offence of promoting hatred involves publicly communicating with the wilful intent to target a group. I would like to hear my honourable colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is precisely what is addressed in the bill we will have the opportunity to vote on this evening. I hope this bill will pass unanimously, as its sole purpose is to protect Canadians so that they feel safe. A very specific provision has been included in Bill C-9 to make it clear that a person who recites the Bible or the Torah in the proper manner and in good faith will not be penalized.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a political exercise for a party that does retail politics very well. We know what this is aiming for. This bill would not make anything safe. It would not help anything.

Is it better for the government to enforce the legislation we have on the books when it comes to protecting people rather than doing what it is doing to divide people further?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the colleague should revert to his party and see within his ranks because therein lies the division on this bill, which is only coming in to be able to protect Canadians. On this side of the House, we are all united and we are all for the adoption of protecting the people and individuals who are subject to hate every day. On this side of the House, we are unanimous. The division lies on the other side, unfortunately.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I have been asking for this bill for two years. This is a bill I feel passionately about, and it is a bill that is desperately needed.

In the last month, three synagogues in Toronto were shot at. Jewish institutions were shot at in Belgium and Holland. A synagogue in Detroit was attacked with a car by a guy who was armed. He rammed into the gate. Over and over in this world, we have seen acts of hate directed at many communities, but in particular right now, it is directed at the Jewish community.

In the last year, Jews were killed in Washington, D.C., because they were Jewish, killed in Colorado because they were Jewish, killed in Manchester in the U.K. because they were Jewish, and killed at Bondi Beach in December because they were Jewish and celebrating Hanukkah.

One of the ideas in this bill is something that I started promoting two years ago based off an incident in my riding. During this incident, demonstrators surrounded the Federation CJA and Jewish buildings in Montreal that house the Jewish Public Library and the Montreal Holocaust Museum. For a period of three hours, people were blocked from entering the building to go hear a speaker and from leaving the building after work, all while the Montreal police sat there and did not arrest one person. They did not arrest one person for blocking the Jewish community buildings, including the Jewish Public Library and the Holocaust museum, for hours.

Later that week, the same thing was done outside of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, yet again nobody was arrested. When I talked to the police about it, they said that it was not really that clear that intimidating and obstructing people from entering or leaving a building was a criminal offence. It was not one they felt comfortable charging.

What we then said was that we needed a specific offence for this. We needed a specific intimidation offence, an obstruction offence, to make sure people have the right to enter or leave their churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, places of worship, schools, community centres, seniors homes or LGBT centres. This is included in the bill.

This bill would afford people special protection in the event that they are part of a group in Canada seeking to worship. It would allow people to know that they can enter or leave a space without protesters yelling hateful slogans, carrying terrorist symbols or screaming and yelling at them. To me, that is the core of this legislation.

There are many parts to the legislation, and all of them, as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, were recommended by the justice committee. When we did our study on anti-Semitism in 2024, a study that I moved, we came up with different recommendations. Some were for the federal government, some for the provincial governments, some for municipal governments, some for colleges and universities and some for the police. There are many jurisdictions involved in stopping hate in this country.

Those recommendations included a stand-alone offence for hate, an intimidation or obstruction offence to stop people from blocking people's access to community buildings and something to deal with terrorist symbols and hate symbols to make it harder for people to go out in public, yelling and screaming chants and holding terrorist symbols, such as the symbol of Hamas or Hezbollah, in these demonstrations. These were all recommendations made by the committee, and when we look at the Conservative Party's dissent in the report, it did not dissent on any of those four issues at all.

We also tried in this bill to deal with and accommodate concerns that had been expressed. There were concerns, including from me, related to the way hate was defined and the fact that it did not completely reflect what Keegstra said. We went back and used an amendment that reflected the wording of Keegstra, requiring extreme detestation or vilification to rise to the level of wilfully promoting hate.

While I felt the consent of the provincial attorney general should not be needed for public prosecutions, and I personally advocated for amending the bill to say only that attorney general consent was required for private prosecutions, I listened to my colleagues who had concerns about the attorney general not being needed for public prosecutions. So did my other colleagues from the Liberal Party, including the parliamentary secretary for justice. We voted to remove the part of the bill, as recommended in the anti-Semitism report of the justice committee, that would have removed attorney general consent. We put it back. The attorney general consent is there.

We tried our best, I think, to accommodate the many reasonable comments we got from everyone.

There are two arguments that I hear on this bill, particularly from my Conservative colleagues. The first relates to enforcement. It is the idea that we do not need a new bill. We just need to enforce existing laws. One of the things about enforcing existing laws is that provinces enforce the Criminal Code. In 90-some per cent of cases, it is provincial authorities and the people on the ground who make the decisions on arrests, working with their local prosecutors, which are usually provincial, and the local police. The federal government, and even the Prime Minister, cannot tell the Toronto or Montreal police they have to arrest Mr. X or Mrs. Y. They cannot even do what the attorney general of the province can do, which is provide clear instructions as to when the charge should be laid in a provincial matter.

The idea that we should not do this because it should just be enforced means that we, as a federal Parliament that can rewrite the Criminal Code, should do nothing. We can say our fancy words and say we are very upset that the police are not arresting people, but we would be doing nothing. Why on earth would we do nothing when we could add the specific offences police have asked for and said would make it easier for them to prosecute the people we want them to prosecute, who are committing hate offences?

The idea that there is already an intimidation and obstruction offence protecting these specific buildings is not true. There is no stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code right now. This bill would add measures. That is why it is important.

The other argument relates to the removal of the defence for wilful promotion of hatred. The argument is that it is somehow going to mean one thing because one member said one thing at one committee meeting that is now being extrapolated.

For someone to be charged with extreme detestation or vilification, they would have to be someone the police arrested and the prosecutor wanted to charge because they were promoting hate wilfully, and that rises to a level of extreme detestation or vilification. It would have to be something that is wilful. The person must knowingly and intentionally want to promote hatred, and that would apply to somebody reading the Torah, the Quran, the Bible or any religious text. It is absolutely asinine. It makes no sense that the person arrested by the police and charged by the prosecutor, agreed to by the provincial attorney general, would be somebody who was benignly reading or preaching a religious text. Everyone here knows that is not true.

When we scare people and pretend something is true, of course they are going to react, sign petitions and call, but it is not true.

I am someone who has always fought against the use of the notwithstanding clause. I opposed it with respect to taking away religious rights in my own province, and I even held rallies for religious freedom, so the idea that I would support something that would do that is ridiculous.

This bill is important. I encourage all of us to adopt it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Even though my colleague and I are from different parties, we have often found ourselves in agreement on a number of issues. We worked on the justice committee together.

I really want to address something he was speaking about at the end. I have two points to make, and I would love an on-point response or rebuttal from him.

The first point is that he spoke about the promotion of hatred and what one of his colleagues said, who is now a cabinet colleague. When I see somebody saying something like reading from the Torah is hateful and then that person gets promoted to cabinet, that is a bit of a problem. The second point is that when the Liberals go along with a Bloc amendment talking about protecting religious people who speak and protecting their freedom of expression, that becomes an issue.

Those are the concerns, not what he said. Those are all laudable concerns.

How would he respond to that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I extend the same appreciation to my colleague, whom I often work with and very much enjoy working with.

The member asked about two things. First, I have called for the repeal of the religious-based defence since early 2024, when CIJA called for it, and I agreed with them, following what happened with Charkaoui in Montreal. I have supported removing that for two years. It has never successfully been used in Canadian history. The fear is that it deters prosecutors from pursuing a case against somebody who clearly and wilfully promotes hate in the street.

Second, as the hon. member knows, hateful speech is not hate speech. There are a lot of things in this country that are hateful but do not rise to the level of prosecuting them under the Criminal Code for the wilful promotion of hatred, which rises to the level of detestation and vilification.

While I may disagree with what my hon. colleague said, he never said that somehow, people would be prosecuted as a result of doing what he said they—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand how it is acceptable, in a secular society like Quebec, to argue that someone should not be criminally prosecuted under a religious exemption even if there is a hateful intent behind it all. That is unacceptable. Quebec has chosen secularism. It is unacceptable, but that is our current reality. This is not misinformation. The Criminal Code allows someone to defend themselves by invoking the religious exemption. It is absurd.

Does my colleague truly fear that, if he decides to read excerpts from his holy book or even display a symbol of his religion without any threat of violence toward anyone, Bill C-9 will infringe upon his freedom of expression?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is no. It is clear that people could read any sacred text, pray to it, or do anything else, and no one would be charged for reading a sacred text. The issue here is the promotion of hatred, that is, deliberately wanting someone to be slandered. The idea that this would happen simply because a person goes to church and reads the Bible there makes no sense. It is not fair. It is not true.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my dad grew up in my hon. colleague's riding. I thank the member for being a tireless defender and an advocate for action on anti-Semitism.

It is shocking to me that in a city like Guelph, members of the Jewish community are worried about their safety. They are looking for leadership. They are looking to us to do something.

I ask my colleague, with regard to the protection of access to community centres and synagogues, to outline how this would also apply to other places of worship. Why are we responding in this moment? How would it apply more broadly to protect people and their faith?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that this bill, when we talk about anti-Semitism, is something that has been asked for by all of the main Jewish organizations in Canada, including CIJA, B’nai Brith and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center. I can go on and on about the Jewish organizations that support the bill and have asked for the bill.

They want to see actual action, not just words. This bill is action. This would change the law to make sure that not only the Jewish community is protected, but that other faith groups and other minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with my hon. colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House, I made a commitment to work to make Canada a freer place. I wish it were not the case, but today I have to make good on that pledge. I will be voting against Bill C-9. This is not a surprise to people who have been following the discussions we have been having over the last few months.

Instead of focusing on the fact that we are not complying with what the Liberals want us to do, I will focus on the fact that they have not actually been engaging with the “why”. It is not just the Conservatives, but so many Canadians, including different parties in this House, who are opposed to what they are doing. It is because they see through it. Canadians know legislation will not protect people of faith or any Canadian from hate when it exposes them to prosecution for expressing good-faith religious beliefs, and even political beliefs as well. All Canadians, and certainly all members of Parliament, must know what is at stake today under the guise of combatting hate, which is a very real problem in this country.

I have spoken about the murder of the Afzaal family in London. This family was killed because of their Muslim faith. I have spoken about the rise in anti-Semitism in Canada. These are egregious, despicable things that happen every day because of laws that are not enforced. I have spoken about the hate facing Christians, Sikhs and Hindus. Hate is real, but it will not be combatted with legislation that goes after sincerely held religious beliefs, that stifles debate, that silences dissent and that criminalizes expression and, yes, potentially even the citation of religious texts.

I will go back to the most important part. Bill C-9 was deeply flawed and very concerning when it went to the justice committee. It was downright dangerous when it came out. With no witness testimony, no consultation and no meaningful intervention by any of the Liberal members of the committee, the Liberal and Bloc Québécois members teamed up to remove a decades-old protection for religious speech called the religious defence. It was actually something Pierre Trudeau's government put in place. Back then, the Liberals understood the importance of freedom of expression and religious freedom.

I would say even Liberal MPs see the danger of Bill C-9. I would like to quote the Liberal member of Parliament for Nunavut, who said, “This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.” She also said, “the bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent.” That is quite interesting, because the member for Nunavut voted in favour of the report stage of Bill C-9 just a couple of days ago.

The Liberals have even stifled dissent within their own ranks on this bill, just as they have censored debate and dialogue in this House, limiting our discussion at third reading to just a couple of hours of debate on a Wednesday afternoon. We do not have not one full day, but one half day of debate.

I had the great privilege yesterday, alongside dozens of members of Parliament from different parties, of attending the National Prayer Breakfast in Ottawa. This was my first time doing so as a member of Parliament, and my first time attending it all. The Leader of the Opposition was there. He spoke very eloquently about the role of faith in Canadian society. I was grateful to see even the Prime Minister there, yet one day after standing with nearly 2,000 people of faith from across the country, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are putting forward legislation and passing it through the very final stage of the process in the House of Commons that will erode long-standing protections for religious speech.

One thing that is so important to stress is how faith unites Canadians. I am not talking about one religion. I am not talking about one denomination. Over the course of the last few months, I have been doing the consultations the Liberal government never did with faith communities affected by this. I spoke to imams, rabbis, pastors, priests, civil society activists and lawyers who specialize in the Constitution. I have spoken to so many people. One thing that was so apparent as I spoke to faith leaders was how people of faith have so much more in common with each other in terms of what they value.

There is a joke I have shared a couple of times. I hope the Speaker will forgive me for repeating material. I have not shared it in this chamber before. If I had 20 faith leaders, between them I could probably find 25 different opinions on theology, because people of faith have differences on what scripture means and what we are commanded to do in this sense or in that.

If the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals were truly serious about secularism, religious freedom would mean that people of faith have the freedom, without state intervention, to have those discussions and debates. That is why people of faith have united against Bill C-9.

There has been a declaration circulating among Christian churches and groups. As of today, I believe 800 Christian organizations, representing nearly one million people, have signed on, opposing Bill C-9. Just this week, 89 Quebec civil society organizations signed a letter. Again, the Bloc Québécois tries to tell us that there is consensus on this, but even in Quebec that is not true. Two weeks ago, there were 350 Muslim organizations. There were dozens of orthodox Jewish rabbis from the Rabbinical Council of Toronto. The entire Abrahamic faith community understands that Bill C-9 would not protect them if it is jeopardizing their religious beliefs.

We prepared to accept it. We understood that the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois had made their deal. We knew the bill was going to pass. We wanted to minimize the harm as much as possible. The Liberals rejected every single effort to do so. They rejected our offer to set aside the divisive bill so that real consultation could take place, and instead focus on other justice priorities. They said no. We offered up stakeholder concerns made in good faith for the Liberals to incorporate. They ignored it. We offered for language affirming charter freedoms to be put in the bill. They rejected it. We offered to split the bill and speedily pass the things that no one takes issue with. They said no.

The Liberals have said no to people of faith. They have effectively accused people of faith of being so dumb that they cannot understand for themselves what is happening. They are saying that they know better than all of the organizations and all of the people who have been calling and emailing our offices, engaging in good faith with the government on this, or trying to anyway. They are saying that they know better. This is something that is so deeply offensive, not just to people of faith but to all Canadians who value freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

We have heard comments about how this defence should not exist, because it is not necessary because of the charter. Then, we also hear the contradictory argument that the religious defence should not exist, because it is unfair and gives people of faith an unfair advantage in law, so those who are pushing Bill C-9 in its current form are saying two opposing things: that Bill C-9, in removing the religious defence, would do nothing, so we do not need to worry about it, and that it would do something that is so important that we cannot choose not to do it. In the months of discussion about this, no one in the Liberal Party has been able to answer that. Even today, I have no idea whether the Minister of Justice will truly defend the removal of the religious defence, or if his parliamentary secretary will, because they have not wanted to so far. Therefore, we are calling on the Liberals, once and for all, to do the right thing.

However, I want to tell the Canadians who have been speaking out that they have been heard. Their voices have been heard and are so important, and while we will fight to ensure this bill does not become law, if we are not successful we will not give up. I will not give up. I will always stand for religious freedom. I will always stand for freedom of expression. I will always commit to repealing any Liberal censorship law in whatever form it comes, now and forever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too will stand up for religious freedom. I do that all the time. I am going to be voting in favour of the legislation, because the Charter of Rights guarantees every Canadian the right to freedom of religion. It is in our Constitution. There is nothing happening that would take away the religious rights of individual Canadians that is not there today. There is a great deal of misinformation being circulated to create what I would suggest is a false fear.

Can the member opposite provide his thoughts on the Charter of Rights? Does he believe in Canada's Charter of Rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an illustration of what I mentioned in my speech. This is the Liberals doing the “It does not do anything, therefore there is no point in opposing it” argument, to which I would ask, “Then what is the harm in leaving it in?”

I absolutely believe in the rights enumerated in our charter. I only wish the Liberal government had the same view. If it did, it would not be appealing the Emergencies Act decision to the Supreme Court after two courts have said the government violated the charter rights of Canadians despite pretending that it was never going to happen and could never happen. The Liberals made the same arguments when they invoked the Emergencies Act, that the charter would protect people from bad laws, and here we are. They are saying the same things about Bill C-9.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights. However, we have collectively agreed that freedom of expression cannot extend to the offence of promoting hatred. These are not trivial matters, differences of opinion or insults. Promoting hatred is no trivial matter.

The issue here is eliminating the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this offence. That means that we continue to guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but not to the extent of promoting hatred.

I would remind the House that, in October 2024, the preacher Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in his prayer at a protest in Montreal. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions determined that he could not prosecute him. That is why this change is being made. We support freedom of expression and religion, but not to the extent of allowing the offence of promoting hatred.

Does my hon. colleague believe that the preacher Adil Charkaoui had a right to call for the death of Jews in his street prayers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question from the Bloc members so many times. I wish they would listen to my response. The case of Adil Charkaoui was a failing in political leadership and prosecutorial discretion. The religious defence was never cited by prosecutors as being a rationale for not charging Charkaoui, and more importantly, the religious defence does not apply to any Criminal Code offences dealing with violence, threats to violence or calls to genocide.

I think the political leadership problem is at issue here and in many of the other cases involving brazen anti-Semitism, but the religious defence applies only to good-faith expression. As such, when we remove it, we are only removing protections for people making religious expressions in good faith.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the hard work he has done on this. I know the folks in my riding of Ponoka—Didsbury certainly appreciate his efforts and the efforts of the Conservative team.

We heard a little while ago from the member for Mount Royal, who cited a whole bunch of examples of why this piece of legislation is needed, yet when we look at the Criminal Code, section 264 deals with harassment where people fear for their safety in their communities; mischief is section 430, which deals with interference with people's lawful enjoyment of property; intimidation is section 423, which deals with obstruction, coercion or making people feel fearful. Plus, there are the hate speech provisions that we already know about in the Criminal Code.

As such, do any of the arguments that the Liberals are using to pass Bill C-9 hold water at all?

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

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is no. I would actually point out that the member for Mount Royal was urged by former Liberal member of Parliament Irwin Cotler to consider leaving the Liberal Party because of anti-Semitism in the Liberal Party. If he wants to talk about inaction, he needs to look around at his colleagues. The Liberal government has no moral high ground to be the arbiters of hate, and let us face it: Canadians do not trust it to draw a line that would not be used to silence dissent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second time this week to speak to Bill C-9, after the Liberals rammed it through committee and this House and are censoring debate on their own censorship bill. At third reading, we are no longer deliberating intentions. We are deciding consequences. The consequence of Bill C-9, as it now stands, is clear: a fundamental change to Canada's Criminal Code that the Liberals have never been able to properly justify, even today.

Let us be clear at the outset: Conservatives believe that hate is real. We believe that Canadians of every faith deserve to be safe in their communities and free from intimidation, violence and harassment. However, what we are dealing with today is not simply a bill about protecting communities. It is a bill that has been altered mid-debate in a way that raises serious legal, constitutional and moral concerns, and we have a government that still refuses to explain why.

The central issue before the House is the removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code, a protection that has existed for 56 years. The government did not campaign on removing it, nor was it in the original bill or even introduced after broad consultation. It appeared late in the process through an amendment supported by the Liberals and the Bloc, and since that moment, Canadians have been asking one simple question: Why?

To this day, not one member of the Liberal Party has been able to give a clear answer. What we have heard instead are shifting justifications, vague references, and an inability to articulate why a long-standing defence, one that has formed part of the legal balance in Canada's hate speech laws since 1970, should suddenly be removed.

Meanwhile, outside this chamber, Canadians have been speaking, and they have been speaking so loudly. Civil liberties organizations, legal experts and faith communities across this country have all raised concerns. We are not talking about a narrow group or a fringe issue. We are talking about millions of Canadians, constituting Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others, who have spoken out against this change and directly written to every single Liberal MP on the other side of the House.

As was noted at committee and in submissions, Canadians hold a wide range of beliefs that some may not agree with, but in a free society, disagreement is not grounds for criminalization. That is the principle that has guided our law for decades, yet the government is now proposing to remove one of the key safeguards that protects that principle.

Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation put it clearly in her analysis of this bill. She warned that what is being proposed here is not simply a technical adjustment but rather a fundamental shift. She wrote that removing the religious defence would gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts, and cautioned that the Liberals do not have justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith. That is the core issue. Parliament does not legislate for the most extreme example. It legislates for the millions of ordinary Canadians whose rights depend on the clarity and balance of our laws.

Van Geyn also pointed to something even more significant: the constitutional foundation of the law itself. In the Supreme Court's decision of Keegstra, the hate propaganda provisions were upheld because of the statutory defences, including the religious defence. She notes that the court viewed these defences as essential to ensuring that the law minimally impairs freedom of expression. If we remove that safeguard, we do not simply change the law. We risk undermining the very basis on which it was upheld.

That is not a theoretical concern. That is a constitutional reality, yet, despite these warnings, these concerns and the clear need for careful study, what did the government do? It shut down debate. Through its programming motion, the government forced this bill through committee. Clause-by-clause consideration resumed under conditions where no further debate was permitted, no amendments could be meaningfully examined, and even the reading of the amendments themselves was curtailed.

This is legislation that would affect the Criminal Code, the most serious law we have, and it was rushed through without the scrutiny it demands, for political reasons only. This raises a deeper question. If the government is confident in this change, why not defend it? Why not allow it to be debated? Why not hear from Canadians and test the arguments openly? Instead, what we have seen is a government that has chosen speed over scrutiny, process over principle and politics over clarity.

We also need to be clear about what this change would actually do. Calls to violence and incitement of hatred are already illegal in Canada and have been so for decades. They are not protected by the religious defence. They never have been. What this defence does is protect good-faith religious expression.

As Van Geyn wrote, “religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human.... These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread.” That is a line we are now being asked to cross, and once crossed, it is not easily redrawn. This is not about protecting hate. It is about protecting the boundary between the state and the conscience of the individual. It is about ensuring that in Canada, the government does not become the arbiter of theology.

This debate ultimately comes down to a question of principle. It is not whether hate should be condemned, as it should be, and not whether Canadians should be safe, as they must be, but whether Parliament is prepared to remove a long-standing defence for freedom of expression and freedom of religion without clear justification, without proper debate and in the face of widespread concern from Canadians. This is exactly what this bill would do. It would remove the safeguard that has existed for more than 50 years. It would do so after limiting the very debate meant to test such a change.

Today, Conservatives are offering the Liberal government one more opportunity to get this right. Through our motion, we are asking that Bill C-9 be sent back to committee for one simple purpose: to restore the religious defence in section 319 of the code, which are protections that have long safeguarded good-faith religious expression in Canada.

That is a reasonable, targeted fix that would respond directly to the concerns raised by the broad range of religious communities and civil liberty advocates across this country. It would preserve the ability to combat hate while maintaining the constitutional balance that has guided Canadian law for decades.

The question now is simple: Will the Liberal government listen? Will it listen to the legal experts who have raised constitutional concerns? Will it listen to the millions of Canadians who have spoken out, or will it continue down a path of rushed legislation, limited debate and unnecessary division?

Conservatives will always proudly stand for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, full stop. Today we are giving the Liberal government one final opportunity to stand with us to restore these protections, to respect the concerns of Canadians and to ensure that our Criminal Code reflects both justice and freedom.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 with the view to amend the Bill so as to restore paragraph 319(3)(b) and paragraph 319(3.1)(b) of the Act, in order to preserve longstanding safeguards for good faith religious expression, address concerns raised by a broad range of religious communities across Canada, and protect freedom of expression and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

After careful consideration, the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting amendment. I am not going to be supporting the amendment, obviously, because, yet again, it is another attempt by the Conservative Party of Canada to filibuster. The Conservatives talk about limiting speech. Get serious. This has been on the table and has had hours of debate, whether in committee or in the chamber.

Let us be very clear. The Conservative Party does not want the legislation to pass, ever. It required the government to get the support of another opposition party in order to be able to have the motion that we have today. We know that it has nothing to do with religious freedom. It has more to do with the Conservative drive to raise more money. That is what this is all about for the Conservative Party of Canada. The charter guarantees religious rights. We know that.

How many hours does he believe it would require before the Conservative Party would ever concede defeat and allow the legislation to pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, through all that bluster and noise, I thought I had opened up the door for any member of the Liberal government to stand up and speak directly to the millions of Canadians who would be impacted and are concerned about the position the Liberal government is taking. Why was the bill never drafted to include the removal of a 56-year-old defence? What were the circumstances that caused the government to have a backroom deal with the Bloc Québécois to now remove that defence? Why can the member not justify that reason?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is being proposed despite the fact that the committee had demonstrated its good faith by proposing an interpretive clause. The committee even set aside Bill C-9 to study Bill C-14 at the Conservatives' request. The committee studied Bill C-14 and then went back to Bill C-9, thinking everything would be fine, but no, even though their request was granted, the Conservatives continue to filibuster. They will say that they are not filibustering, but let us call a spade a spade. They are filibustering. They are acting in bad faith.

In the current circumstances, when hate crimes are on the rise and it is important to send a clear message that people cannot hide behind a religious exemption, the Conservatives continue to filibuster.

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

Mr. Speaker, sadly, and she is probably not surprised by this, I certainly do not agree with anything my colleague had to say.

The justice committee did not debate this particular amendment in good faith. There were no witnesses called. There were no expressions by any of the Liberal members to support the Bloc amendment. The only person who raised it was the Bloc representative on the justice committee. He did not call any witnesses to justify why Canada was ready to remove a five-decade-old offence. That is the question that needs to be answered: Why?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his avid defence of religious freedom in this chamber, at committee and across this entire country.

I was listening to the arguments from the Liberals and they seem to not take religious freedom seriously. They chalk it up to a fundraising scheme. I was wondering if my hon. colleague could lay out exactly why a defence of religious freedom is so important, because it seems that the Liberals do not understand why it is fundamental to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. This country is rooted in faith. We have faith communities and faith organizations right across this country, and they do not accept for one minute this Liberal narrative. Liberals say Canadians and faith communities have nothing to worry about and that they are still protected by the charter. It is that same false, erroneous argument they sold to Canadians when they invoked the Emergencies Act.

They had their hands slapped twice because they breached a number of constitutional rights. I suspect that even if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear this case, they are going to get their hands slapped again. Canadians do not trust the Liberal government.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

To put it bluntly, I am not convinced that this legislation, Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places, is necessary. I find it strange therefore that after months of making other legislation a priority, the government now wants to make this a priority.

Given the track record of the Liberal administration, I am also not convinced that this bill will change anything. The reason I say this is that we already have laws on hate crimes in Canada designed to protect vulnerable communities and people. The laws are clear. The crime is well defined. What is lacking is the political will to ensure that the laws are properly enforced. New legislation is just meaningless words without enforcement.

According to the Criminal Code, “Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”

The code defines “genocide” as:

acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

An identifiable group means “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.” That seems pretty clear to me.

It also says:

Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace 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 also clear. Additionally, it says:

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.

The laws are already there. What we have not seen recently is a willingness by police to lay charges, perhaps because there is no political will to enforce Canadian law against certain vocal groups. This selective enforcement has made things worse, not better, as some groups feel the law does not apply to their statements or their actions.

The Criminal Code also goes beyond the condemnation of general expressions of hateful speech to take aim at one of the biggest problems facing Canadian society, which is anti-Semitism. The Criminal Code reads:

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.

It is already there, but the government has chosen not to enforce the law of the land. Why does the Liberal Party believe things will change by adding another law that it probably has no intention of enforcing? Do we not have more important things to do than waste our time with virtue signalling?

Our current laws include a number of exemptions to the hate crime provisions. According to the Criminal Code, “No person shall be convicted of an offence”:

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

(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;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

These have long been seen as reasonable exemptions. The Supreme Court recognized this defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional, understanding how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are.

When it was introduced, Bill C-9 had a similar provision for the display of hate symbols. It allowed that “No person shall be convicted of an offence":

(a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or

(b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

In an unnecessary piece of legislation that duplicated what can already be found in the Criminal Code, at least there was the understanding that sometimes there can be legitimate disagreement as to just what is hateful, but now the government, in a shameful attempt at gaining the votes it needs to pass this deeply flawed bill, is willing to throw out the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom in public discussion in order to pass bad legislation. If the government has no intention of actually enforcing this anti-hate bill any more than it does the existing Criminal Code provisions, it may not matter, except that any assault on freedom of religion matters. We should not be casually doing away with constitutionally protected freedoms, especially not for political expediency.

The constituents of Edmonton Manning are opposed to this legislation and opposed to removing the religious defence from the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. When I spoke on this bill previously, I noted that the question we need to ask ourselves in the House is, how can we 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?

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. Members should ask themselves if this bill does that.

This legislation will not make Canadians safer. It will certainly not protect anyone from hate, least among them people of faith. Rather than wasting time on this flawed bill, the government should enforce the anti-hate legislation already on the books. That is something the people of Canada would support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to express what I believe is the motivating factor for the Conservative Party in dealing with Bill C-9. Members of the Conservative Party are using a fear factor to generate money for their political party and to generate support. However, it is all based on social media, misinformation and emails, both to build a data bank and to raise money based on disinformation.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts about Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which actually guarantees freedom of religion so that people of faith do not have to worry about their right to freedom of religion.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really thankful to the hon. member for basically repeating what I said. We do have laws in place that protect the freedoms of Canadians, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all that, but the government is refusing to enforce those laws while trying to communicate a political piece of legislation with the intent of gaining some votes in some areas regarding a certain segment of society. The government members are experts in retail politics. That is what the government does best. This legislation is no different from other bills it has introduced in the House.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently witnessing a spike in hateful acts and hate speech. Promoting hate is a criminal offence.

The first groups targeted by hate speech and hateful acts are members of the Jewish faith followed by members of the Muslim faith.

In October 2024, preacher Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer he gave at a protest. Under the Criminal Code, this constitutes the offence of promoting hatred.

Why should we allow the religious exemption to be used as an excuse for promoting hatred? Why not ban it in all its forms?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel for the Bloc Québécois. The Liberals will be sharing the vote gaining in certain places with them.

As for the question, the laws are in place. We need the enforcement. There is no political will out there in the current government to enforce the laws. If the political will were there, we would not see attacks on synagogues or mosques or churches. If the government had any intention of protecting those religious institutions, we would see it emphasizing the political will to make sure that we enforce the laws that we have in place.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, the shadow minister for justice, proposed that the bill, in an amendment, be sent back to committee. The reason is a simple one. There are at least 15 faith-based organizations in the country who have asked that the bill be reconsidered in its current form. These faith-based organizations represent, collectively, millions of Canadians who are concerned about the bill.

Does the hon. member agree that the bill should be sent back to committee to have witnesses at least come in and talk about their concerns and that, perhaps, some more amendments could be made that would make the bill palatable to Canadians? As it stands today, the bill is not.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I think there is no will in the government to do any of that. The by-election is coming soon in Quebec, and that is why the Liberals are rushing this through, to make sure there are no further amendments. If the bill is of value to the government, it would have allowed more consultation and more amendments to take place, so that we could have a better piece of legislation, rather than a useless one like the one we have right now.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a deep irony in the heart of the bill. The government claims it is about protecting Canadians from harm, yet the first thing the Liberals did was remove the good-faith protection that ensured Canadians could express their religious beliefs without fear.

I would ask my colleague why he thinks the government is so determined to remove good faith from the law and from this debate.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the big question. The government will always say something and do the opposite. This is one of the same symptoms we have seen many times over the last 10 years.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm a central New Democrat principle, which is that we must take real, meaningful action to confront hate in Canada without undermining the fundamental freedoms that define our democracy.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more than 40 civil society organizations raised a red flag with respect to the language in Bill C-9.

It said that the bill:

...could be used to criminalize peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression. Instead of meaningfully addressing these concerns, the truncated Committee process did very little to improve the bill and actually made the bill worse by removing the Criminal Code’s good-faith religious defense without putting anything adequate in its place.

New Democrats could not agree more. We understand both the urgency of addressing hate and the necessity of protecting civil liberties. Let me be clear. Hate is real. It is rising. It is harming communities across this country: racialized communities, indigenous people and members of the 2SLGBTQ2+IA community.

However, the legislation must be precise, effective and just. It must target the actual sources of harm, not cast a wide net that risks criminalizing legitimate expression and dissent. That is why we continue to have serious concerns with the bill before us.

In fact, the member for Nunavut, on behalf of the NDP, tabled amendments at committee to try to address some of those concerns, but all of those amendments failed. The NDP position, as articulated by her, remains the same.

She stated:

The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada.

She went on to say:

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.

She continued:

Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized [but this] bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.

This is a profound critique and one we must take seriously. In fact, at committee, this important question was asked of the minister by the member for Nunavut.

She stated:

Wet'suwet'en land defenders were criminalized. Nunavut land defenders were on the verge of being criminalized. Why? It was because they were protesting government decisions.

She went on to say:

In about a week in 2024, between August 29 and September 8, Canadian police killed six first nations people. Racialized people in this country have a similar experience with law enforcement. This bill requires that Canadians trust that the police will know when an action is motivated by hate and when it is not.

Could the minister respond by sharing what safeguards protesters will have that ensure that law enforcement does not use these new powers to criminalize protesters?

No satisfactory answer was provided by the minister.

This is not just theoretical. Just yesterday, the CBC exposed the RCMP's “Native extremism program”, whereby dozens of first nations leaders were put under surveillance by the RCMP and labelled as extremists, based not on credible threats but on a sweeping, intrusive campaign that treated legitimate political advocacy for land rights, self-determination and fair treatment as something to be monitored, controlled and even disrupted, with jaw-dropping intelligence dossiers stuffed with documents, wiretaps, paid informants and covert operatives with code numbers. The operation aimed to divide movements, withdraw funding and interfere with organizing in violation of their right to freedom of association and political expression and privacy.

Let us be very clear. In a democracy, disagreement is not a threat; it is a necessity. Protest is not a crime; it is a right. Indigenous leaders fighting for their land rights for self-determination and fair treatment is not extremism. Bill C-9 would open the door wide for Canada's institutions to continue to engage in these nefarious operations. How can we be certain that those who dare to oppose the government's Bill C-5 on major projects, which has already trampled on the rights of indigenous people, would not be criminalized under Bill C-9?

As the member for Nunavut further noted:

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.

She also noted:

On freedom of assembly...any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion.

Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democratic engagement. If legislation creates a chilling effect and if people begin to fear that speaking out could lead to criminal consequences, then we have fundamentally altered the nature of a public discourse. Canada already recognizes that free speech has limits. We recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. That threshold exists for a reason. Lowering it, as this bill proposes, risks capturing conduct that should remain protected. We must be cautious not to conflate offensive speech with criminal conduct.

New laws in Canada must protect communities without perpetrating or creating new injustices. Bill C-9 would create new criminal offences based on vague and subjective standards, particularly based on the idea of causing fear. Let us be honest about what that means in practice. It means police officers deciding in the moment what counts as fear. It means broad discretion. It means inconsistent enforcement.

In this country, we know exactly how that story goes. It is indigenous land defenders who are arrested and surveilled. We have seen, historically and recently, how activists have been monitored and movements disrupted by law enforcement. It is racialized communities that are overpoliced. It is activists and protesters who are treated as threats, not because the law says so explicitly but because vague laws are applied unevenly. This is not justice.

The member for Nunavut is correct to say, “This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.”

I should note that Canada is not starting from zero when it comes to addressing hate. As pointed out by the member for Nunavut, “There are existing laws that address hate, [and hate] is already an aggravating factor in sentencing.” In fact, the Criminal Code already contains robust provisions, including offences related to disturbing religious worship, mischief against religious property, criminal harassment, uttering threats and intimidation.

What, then, is this bill actually doing? The member for Nunavut rightly pointed out that the bill would increase maximum sentences to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment. Let me be very clear: There is no credible evidence, none, that longer sentences deter hate crimes. What reduces crime is prevention, stability and investment in community housing, mental health care, education and opportunity. Evidence-based policy requires us to ask whether these measures would actually reduce harm or simply expand the reach of the criminal justice system in ways that may be counterproductive.

I conclude by returning to where I began. New Democrats are committed to fighting hate unequivocally. We believe in protecting communities, confronting extremism and building a more inclusive society, but we also believe in getting this policy right. We believe that legislation must be targeted, evidence-based and consistent with the charter. It must address real threats like organized white nationalist violence and not cast overly broad nets that risk infringing on fundamental freedoms.

That is why, as noted by the member for Nunavut when she wore the NDP banner, “With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form.” That remains our position. The NDP will not support measures that compromise civil liberties, expand punitive approaches without evidence, or fail to address the root causes of hate. Canadians deserve better. The NDP will remain principled and firm on the issue, and we will oppose Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member from Hamilton, I know it has a very strong activist community that pushed the boundary on a number of issues, as it has every right to do, and I appreciate its contributions.

However, in this context, I want to focus in on the member's comments about white nationalists and white supremacy movements growing in Canada. That is something that we have seen in Hamilton. There have been a number of white supremacist rallies, masked thugs in public with symbols of hate. Why would the member be opposed to taking stronger action against that?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality, of course, is that we already have laws in place. The Criminal Code already targets hate and the incitement of hate. What is needed is the government investing in the enforcement of those kinds of activities. What we have seen is the Liberal government cutting budgets for measures that make sure enforcement is in place. We need to make sure that what goes to the courts results in justice for the people.

Changing the laws, though, and then further criminalizing people who want to exercise their democratic right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression is wrong.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we also need are politicians with a backbone who stand behind law enforcement to enforce hate crimes in this country, but that is another subject.

I want to go back to what the hon. member said about the member for Nunavut. She cited several examples from that member in her opposition to this bill. The member for Nunavut crossed the floor. In about 30 minutes, I suspect that she is going to be voting for this bill. I am not sure how the member for Nunavut can reconcile that, and I am interested in the hon. member's opinion on that as well.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a New Democrat, my principles do not change. People change their political colours. We have seen it in the House quite regularly, both Conservatives and an NDP member crossing over to the Liberals. The question that remains for them is this: Do their principles remain intact? Are they true to what they believe in?

I believe the comments by the member for Nunavut that I cited in the House. They were valid criticisms of the government. More than ever, we need principled stands, and the New Democrats and I take principled stands on Bill C-9. I hope those who cross the floor will do so as well.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment before asking my question. I have been listening to this debate, and clearly, the federal government is out of touch with Quebec's unique circumstances. In Quebec, we understand that secularism is a progressive value that is deeply rooted in Quebec's values since the time of the Quiet Revolution, given our history. It is a very modern and very current principle.

I will now ask my question. For an individual to be convicted of promoting hatred under the provisions of the Criminal Code and the case law, the bar is pretty high. It must involve a public speech that is made wilfully and that targets an identifiable group based on prohibited discriminatory grounds and that expresses hatred in the sense of profound detestation, including statements that expose groups or individuals to the hatred of others. It must be possible for reasonable people, informed of the context and circumstances, to interpret these statements as such.

Does my colleague believe that a protest meets these criteria? Does she not believe, rather, that a protest does not meet these criteria and that the rulings are clear?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the rules and laws are there, and the judges will make those decisions. The problem with Bill C-9, of course, is that it is so subjective and vague that it allows for law enforcement to interpret it however they want to interpret it. There rests the problem.

If we want to bring in precise law, let us do so. Let us not rush this through. Instead of whamming it through and bringing in the guillotine, let us have honest, true debate on the issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 6:02 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 10, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #92

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #93

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), there will be no Private Members' Business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.