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.

Religious Freedom

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House to once again present a petition on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast who are gravely concerned with the passage of Bill C-9 through the House. Their concerns relate, in particular, to the Liberal-Bloc amendment pertaining to Bill C-9, which was passed at the justice committee, that removes the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada.

Bill C-9 would allow the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Bill C-9 would allow the state to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs the government finds offensive. The punishment for such charges is up to two years in prison.

The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. The petitioners ask that the government withdraw Bill C-9 to protect religious freedom and uphold the right to read and share and practice from their sacred text and prevent government intrusion in the practice thereof.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again today to present another petition on behalf of Canadians opposed to government Bill C-9, which they see as a threat to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. We have seen the consequences of that in other jurisdictions. The petitioners are calling upon the government to withdraw this legislation.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the other five petitions I have today are from residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. They are concerned about Bill C-9, which was passed in this House but is still going through the Senate.

They call upon the government to reject any amendments to Bill C-9 that remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, protect Canadians' constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good faith religious discourse or teaching.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition from concerned Canadians across the country on government Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which passed third reading yesterday in the House. The petitioners worry that amendments made by the government would limit religious expression, and they are concerned that the state would be interfering in the ability of faith communities to practise their faith. The petitioners fear that the changes could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. In this petition, Canadians are asking the government to provide assurance that individuals of faith will not face criminal charges simply for reading, sharing and practising their faith, which are fundamental freedoms enshrined in the charter.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have been ready and willing to rise on this adjournment proceeding on behalf of the good people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

The question on which I am following up is one that has become even more timely since I asked the original question of the government in question period, although if we look at the response, we realize that question period is not an appropriate name for it. The question was dealing with the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.

One may wonder why I was asking in question period about a four-year-old decision by the government. That would be a very good question. It is because, in the interceding four years, the Liberal government has failed to accept what now two courts have determined, which is that it violated the fundamental charter rights and freedoms of Canadians.

That is so important because the Federal Court and then the Federal Court of Appeal said that not only was the usage of the Emergencies Act by the Liberal government unlawful, meaning it did not meet the tests set out in the Emergencies Act, but the measures it invoked and deployed using the Emergencies Act violated the fundamental rights of Canadians.

The right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest are things that in a free society, all Canadians should hold dear. It is especially timely at this exact moment, because moments ago the Liberal government voted for and advanced through Bill C-9, which is a bill that it has been giving very similar assurances on: that it will not violate charter rights because the charter is there to protect those rights. However, in the case of the Emergencies Act, that same pledge did not result in real protection.

Just last week, the Attorney General, the justice minister, filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Emergencies Act. It was on the last day by which the government could ask the Supreme Court to take on the case. It was in the last hour of the last day that the government made this move. In doing so, this so-called new government is forced to wear the decision of Justin Trudeau. The so-called new government has a new Attorney General, whom members may know from such extraordinary work as he brought to the immigration and housing files before the Prime Minister decided to put him in charge of justice. He has now had to wear the decision by David Lametti and Marco Mendicino that two courts have found to be unlawful.

This is so important because we have had a discussion in this country about how strong the charter really is and how well the charter will protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

I am a firm believer in the rights enumerated in the charter. These are rights that predated the charter. I would argue they are natural rights, things that need to live in the hearts and minds of Canadians, in the institutions of Canada, including the courts, and certainly in the hearts and minds of those who make the laws. We should never, as lawmakers, pass legislation or make decisions in the hope that the courts will save Canadians from their rights being violated. We must actively seek out ways to protect them in all terms.

In the case of the Emergencies Act, suppose that the government gets its appeal and the Supreme Court hears this case, and suppose that the Supreme Court makes the same finding that the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal did: that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians. What good would that do five years later? The infringement has already taken place.

Why will the government not accept this ruling, vow to uphold the charter and, in doing so, listen to what two courts have said?

Religious Freedom

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition regarding Bill C-9. The Canadians who have signed this petition want to remind the government that it has no authority over sacred texts or teachings of any faith community. That boundary is not negotiable. Bill C-9 would overstep the boundary, stripping away long-standing protections that have allowed Canadians to speak and live their faith in good faith.

This is what the petitioners have said. Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I also bring forward a petition addressing Bill C-9, which will be voted on later today.

The petitioning Canadian citizens wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the Liberals have proposed removing from the Criminal Code safeguards that protect good-faith expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs, including those based on religious texts like the Bible, the Quran or the Torah.

Canadians share the Liberals' desire to combat acts that propagate and normalize hate, but the proposal would not achieve that goal and would instead result in the persecution of people who hold and express in good faith sincerely held religious beliefs. Violence and threats are by definition excluded from the scope of that protection for freedom of expression and could never be expressed in good faith. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms worthy of protection and promotion, not persecution.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and oppose any similar proposals in the future, and to protect and promote the religious freedoms of all Canadians, uphold their right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into all matters of faith.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe and also on behalf of my fellow Canadians with concerns about Bill C-9. The concern is that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today regarding Bill C-9. Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.

The state has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today, again, on Bill C-9. I may sound like a broken record here, but some truths just bear repeating.

Petitioners in my community are calling on the government to reverse course and not remove long-standing protections from the Criminal Code that protect people of faith, Canadians of faith, reading sacred texts like the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. The proposal by the Liberals and the Bloc would subject those Canadians to potential criminal prosecution for the simple fact of believing in a faith and expressing that belief publicly. Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and, secondly, to protect and promote religious freedom in Canada.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservative strategy when they lose an argument is to blame the media and throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Let us actually talk about the facts.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, from inception, was designed to protect religious freedoms, to combat hate crimes that were taking place in this country, to protect the ability of the Jewish community to go to their synagogues and the Muslim community their mosques and Christian communities their churches, and to ensure people could pray freely without fear of intimidation or obstruction. We heard loud and clear that people are sick and tired of hate crimes in this country and want their government to do something about it. The Conservative option is to send out fundraising emails. We are—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals are getting their money's worth with their media bailout, but that does not eliminate the many concerns that Canadians have raised across this country. The Liberals say, when these civil liberties concerns are put at their feet, to just trust them that they will not violate charter rights, because the charter protects those rights. However, last week, that very Attorney General appealed the Federal Court of Appeal decision that ruled the use of the Emergencies Act unlawful and found that the government, despite the promises of Justin Trudeau, did violate the constitutional rights of Canadians. If the Liberals truly are serious about protecting these rights, why will they not drop their appeal and drop Bill C-9?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the member's colleagues from Windsor included in her flyer those same tired talking points. The Windsor Star spoke to some of her constituents, who said that her flyer was divisive, inflammatory and insulting to their intelligence, and that they were more concerned with the misinformation from the Conservatives than with the content of the bill.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, is designed to protect religious freedoms, to ensure people of faith can practise within their community of faith without fear of intimidation or obstruction, and to make sure we recognize the moral culpability when a person is targeted for a crime on the basis of their identity. That is good policy that would keep Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, no community in this country will be protected from hate with legislation that threatens to imprison them for deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, but that is precisely what Bill C-9 would do. This is a bill the Liberals are forcing to a vote today despite the cries of millions of Canadians from multiple faiths and civil society groups that this bill would violate their civil liberties. It may appease some people, like the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who believes one needs a black highlighter to read a holy text, but most Canadians want the freedom to live out their beliefs.

Will the Liberals do the right thing, and reduce this divisive and toxic bill to the rubble bin where it belongs?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is a false dichotomy. The Bloc Québécois just made a choice about Bill C-9. It is Parliament's responsibility to protect the rights of religious communities, such as the Jewish community here in Canada, against hate. I am puzzled: Why did the opposition member support Bill C-9, which addresses this issue?