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.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-9.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-9 be amended by deleting the short title.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this great House to speak to the great residents of my riding.

I rise today to speak yet once again to Bill C-9. It is a bill that has many Canadians across all faith communities deeply concerned, and for good reason. The bill was originally presented as a measure to protect places of worship, which is something every member of the House should support. Conservatives certainly do.

However, this is not the bill before us today, because in the middle of the legislative process, the Liberal government made a deliberate political decision to fundamentally change its own legislation. At the last minute, the Liberals supported an amendment to remove a long-standing religious defence from the Criminal Code. This is a defence, I might add, that has been in the code for over 50 years. They did so, regrettably and shamelessly, without consulting the faith communities directly impacted. They did so without hearing from civil liberty experts. They did so without calling one witness. They did so without allowing Parliament the time to fully study the consequences of such a significant legal change.

When those concerns were raised by religious leaders, legal experts and members of the House, the government members did not pause. They did not engage. Instead, they chose to shut down debate and force the bill through. This is why we are here today.

What makes this even more striking is that the very defence they are now trying to remove was originally put in place by their own party under Pierre Trudeau, as part of a careful and deliberate balance in Canadian law.

This religious defence was originally introduced in 1970 under the Trudeau Liberal government as part of Bill C-3. The bill created Canada's modern hate propaganda provisions. At the time, Parliament deliberately included several statutory defences, including truth, good-faith religious expression based on religious texts, public interest and lack of intent. These protections ensured that good-faith religious discussion and theological debate would never be criminalized while still addressing hate propaganda.

This defence was part of the original legislative balance when Canada created its very own hate speech laws. Removing it would be a profound shift in Canadian criminal law, one that threatens to upset the careful balance between protecting Canadians from harm and protecting their fundamental freedoms.

Parliament has occasionally removed or narrowed statutory defences, but these changes occur rarely and only with serious scrutiny. For example, in 1983, the Trudeau government removed a marital exemption that had prevented husbands from being charged with rape. This was a good move. In 1995, Parliament restricted the extreme intoxication defence following the Supreme Court's decision in Regina v. Daviault. This was another good move. In 2015, the Harper government narrowed the provocation defence to prevent misuse in honour killing cases, for a change that was much needed.

Changes to statutory defences are major legal decisions that occur infrequently and only after careful and serious debate, yet the Liberal government now wants to rush through the removal of a 50-year-old defence while simultaneously shutting down all debate.

The removal of the religious defence occurred without meaningful stakeholder consultation. Religious communities across all faiths and backgrounds have raised concerns. Civil liberty organizations have raised concerns. Canadians did not ask for this amendment. Faith communities did not request this change. This was solely a political decision by the Liberal government, not a response to any demand from Canadians or stakeholders.

This amendment was not driven by Canadians, requested by faith communities or the result of calls from civil liberty organizations. In fact, the opposite is true. We have heard directly from Canadians across this country, including faith leaders, community organizations and civil liberty groups, who are deeply concerned about the direction the government is taking.

Hundreds of organizations have spoken out against Bill C-9, most notably about the removal of the religious defence. Over 350 Muslim community organizations have warned that Bill C-9, as currently drafted, would present serious harms to the civil liberties of all Canadian Muslims. They specifically pointed to the removal of the good-faith religious defence and warned that it would send a chilling effect through religious communities. More than 500 churches and Christian organizations have called on Parliament to restore explicit protections for the good-faith expression of sincerely held religious beliefs within the Criminal Code. In the greater Toronto area, 44 rabbis issued an open letter to the government, warning that removing this defence could expose faith leaders, educators and religious individuals to potential criminal liability simply for reading, teaching or discussing passages from religious texts.

This is not a narrow concern coming from one group or one perspective. We have been speaking to faith communities across this country, and there is a clear and broad consensus that this defence must be maintained. I am sure that every member of the Liberal government and party have heard loud and clear the opposition in their own communities. Despite all of this push-back, the government has chosen to double down and not listen.

We even proposed a simple and responsible solution of splitting Bill C-9. It has been done in the past when we have taken out a poisonous pill. We could immediately pass the provisions dealing with protection of places of worship, protection of cultural centres and offences dealing with obstruction and intimidation, and then study squarely the removal of the religious defence. This approach would have allowed protections for religious communities to pass immediately, yet the government refused and instead chose to ram through its controversial amendment.

The Liberals now claim that the Conservatives are obstructing, but the reality is the opposite. Committee work was already under way before the backroom deal was brokered by the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois. Amendments were being debated, and a path existed to pass protections for places of worship immediately. Instead of working with Parliament, the government chose to shut down debate and ram the bill through Parliament. The Liberals are now censoring debate on their very own censorship bill.

The Criminal Code is the most serious law Parliament writes. It governs the most serious offences and carries the most serious consequences for Canadians. Changes to it must be approached with care, scrutiny and full parliamentary debate.

Bill C-9 now contains a controversial amendment that would remove a 50-year-old statutory defence, which was originally brought forth by a Liberal government, to balance the rights to protect Canadians from hate while still safeguarding legitimate expression of religious belief. Instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine that change and allowing members of the House to debate the consequences, the Liberals have chosen to ram the amendment through to silence the debate. They even told the opposition to “put up or shut up”. Now they are shutting down debate altogether.

This is not how responsible criminal law is made or how democratic institutions are supposed to function, and it is certainly not how Parliament should be asked to amend the code. Canadians expect their Parliament to debate serious legal changes openly and transparently, legislation to be studied carefully and representatives to be allowed to do their job.

Conservatives will always stand on the side of freedom of religion and freedom of expression in the country. We will not accept a government that shuts down debate to avoid accountability. We will defend open debate, proper scrutiny of the code and the fundamental principle that Parliament must never be silenced when it comes to laws that govern Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we are trying to push or rush things through, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the misinformation constantly being pumped out of the Conservative caucus is trying to create an impression that there would be changes in our mosques, in our churches and so forth. The misleading information coming from the Conservative Party is actually quite shameful.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why does the Conservative Party continue to spread information that is just not true? The member knows full well that there would not be any impact on the services being provided in our religious facilities today.

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

Mr. Speaker, what an absolutely ridiculous preamble and a ridiculous question. It is the same approach the Liberal government took for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The Liberals said to Canadians, “You have nothing to worry about. Your charter rights are temporarily suspended, but the balance of those charter rights will be upheld.” Now we have had two decisions from the Federal Court, and the Liberals waited until the very last day to file their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canadians do not believe a word they have to say on not having to worry about any infringement on freedom of expression or freedom of religion. They cannot be trusted.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say in his speech that, with the Bloc Québécois's support, the government was preventing or stifling the debate on that. The Conservatives filibustered nine meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thereby preventing constructive debate on this sensitive issue. It is true that the Conservatives have been spreading somewhat distorted information to their base, perhaps to scare them about what Bill C-9 might do. Every time I have spoken in person with people who are concerned about this bill, they leave the conversation completely reassured about the impact, or lack thereof, it would have on their religious practices.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on this. Does he not think that if there had been an opportunity for discussion in committee, we could have made progress on some of the potentially worthwhile points being raised by the Conservatives that might have improved the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is the problem. The government chose not to call any evidence whatsoever to support the Bloc amendment that would remove this 56-year-old religious defence. We asked for more meetings, something that was denied by the Liberal Party. In fact, it was even denied by the member from the Bloc Québécois who sits on the justice committee. We asked for a proper and vigorous study on this defence. We were turned down.

We could have focused on the real issues that Canadians are facing, such as the rising crime levels based on 11 years of a soft-on-crime agenda. We wanted to get to Bill C-14. In fact, we raised the issue before Christmas on 16 occasions. The government chose, every time, to stifle our ability to prioritize community safety instead of going after—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has deep knowledge on this issue. One thing I often hear from constituents is about an attack on faith organizations by the Liberal government, and its response is, “Just trust us.”

I am wondering if my colleague would like to speak to that and give a bit of context about why constituents may feel this way based on previous decisions made by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. As I indicated in my speech, I am sure that the Liberal Party is a deeply divided caucus when it comes to Bill C-9.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, to the people who are heckling me now and to the member for Winnipeg North, we heard from people from Winnipeg, we heard from faith leaders in Winnipeg, and they are absolutely disgusted with the antics of the Liberal government in choosing to ram through a piece of legislation without proper consideration or proper debate. This was for political reasons, not through evidentiary issues or proper debate in the House of Commons. It is disgusting.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, which is a great honour that the good people of my community have given me.

I am very much looking forward to speaking again on Bill C-9, which is a very important piece of legislation. It emanates from a platform commitment that my party, the Liberal Party of Canada, made in the last election after consulting many groups around the country about the importance of having strong anti-hate legislation so that all members of our respective communities feel safe.

I was really proud when this was part of our campaign platform. I am even prouder that it was then converted into a piece of legislation and that we have come to this stage, very close to hopefully passing it through this House and then off to the other place. The context of this legislation is extremely important. We hear about this often from our communities and it has been debated in this House. There has been a very significant rise in hate crimes in our country, particularly when it comes to anti-Semitism. In the last two years, we have seen a very dramatic rise in anti-Semitic acts, not to mention within the Muslim community. The data confirms that there has been rise in Islamophobia, and there are other groups that also have faced hate.

This has led to the question of making sure that we have strengthened provisions within the Criminal Code so that we can deal with this odious hate that is spreading in our communities, especially as it relates to anti-Semitism and, of course, Islamophobia.

I will very quickly share some data with the House. In 2023, there were 4,777 reported incidents of hate, which marked a 32% rise from 2022 to 2023 in hate incidents. This was the third consecutive sharp increase in four years, with the total number of hate crimes more than doubling, to around 145%, since 2019. All this is extremely important, and it provides the necessary context by which we need to bring this legislation.

Just debating it and just issuing statements saying that hate has no space in our country is not sufficient anymore. I have heard that from my community members, especially from the Jewish community here in Ottawa Centre. They have implored the government and all members of this House, including in the opposition, to pass Bill C-9 as quickly as possible so that we can strengthen those positions.

As my colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations was saying, he is a former prosecutor, so he knows the application of law really well. I have had the honour of serving as the attorney general in this province as well, and I have had to deal with hate crime-related offences and charges. I do bring some experience to the context of why this important piece of legislation is so necessary.

The bill, is targeted, presenting a suite of Criminal Code reforms to protect safe access to community spaces. It denounces hate-motivated crimes. It clarifies the meaning of hatred. It would criminalize the wilful promotion of hatred by publicly displaying hate or terrorism symbols. These are some really important aspects of the bill. If I had to provide a summary, there are five important pillars to this bill that I want to articulate for the benefit of all members.

The first pillar, and the most important aspect of the bill, is the proposal to create a new obstruction offence. The bill would create a new offence that would prohibit blocking or interfering with lawful access to a building primarily used for religious worship, or by an identifiable group, such as a community centre, school or seniors' residence. An example would be a group of people forming a chain in front of a synagogue, for example, or lighting a fire at the entrance of a school to stop people from entering.

The second pillar that is also important is the creation of a new intimidation offence. This bill would create a new offence to prohibit behaviour meant to intimidate, threaten or scare people from entering a building primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group such as community centres, against schools or seniors' residences. An example would be masked individuals staring down worshippers outside a mosque or shouting threats at parents dropping their children at a religious school.

The third pillar of this bill proposes a new stand-alone hate crime offence, and it is extremely important. This stand-alone hate crime offence means that when someone commits any crime because of hatred towards a specific group, such as one based on race, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, that hate is treated as part of the offence itself, not just something considered later at sentencing. In other words, the law would formally recognize the crime as a hate crime from the outset, relying on the existing legal definition of hatred, which is also codified in this bill. I will come to that in a moment.

What does this mean? For example, if someone assaults another person because of their religion or sexual orientation, that assault would be treated differently from a regular assault and could lead to a tougher penalty to clearly denounce crimes committed against people because of who they are.

The fourth pillar, as I mentioned earlier, is the codification of the definition of hatred. Believe it or not, we do not have a definition of hatred in our Criminal Code. We have guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada. What we have done in this instance is we have taken the definition from the Supreme Court of Canada and are now codifying it in the Criminal Code. Importantly, hatred is being defined as an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

Lastly, the fifth pillar proposes a new prohibition on the display of certain symbols. The bill contemplates the existing offence of wilful promotion of hatred by recognizing a modern form of expression, which is the public display of hate and terrorist symbols. When someone displays these symbols with the intent to wilfully promote hatred, beyond just mere display, it becomes a distinct offence. There are many examples of protests taking place where somebody is displaying the Nazi hakenkreuz or the Nazi double Sig-Rune. These are hateful symbols that hearken back to the Holocaust and the senseless murder of six million Jews. As well, symbols associated with terrorist entities listed under the Criminal Code, such as the Proud Boys or al Qaeda, will be covered under this.

We may hear from the opposition that this bill is about one small issue, but this is an extensive piece of legislation that covers so many things. This bill has gone through 30-plus hours of study. More than 35 witnesses, including community organizations, legal experts and faith leaders, have contributed to this bill. What we see from the opposition is obstruction, which is regretful. In my view, the end result is that this is a more thoughtful bill.

Changes have been made to this bill that make it even better and stronger. An example is the removal of the “religious defence” that was added in 1970 before the charter. Now, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have religious protection within the charter. We do not need a stand-alone defence. Regardless, there is a better “for greater certainty” clause included in it. The Attorney General consent piece has been reinstated. The definition of hatred has been strengthened, and there have been some changes in relation to hate symbols.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I am thankful it has come to this stage, and I am hopeful that it will pass through the House very soon, so that we can start working together, enforcing law like this and making sure that all our communities are safe for our Jewish neighbours, our Muslim neighbours and all Canadians.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his thoughtful speech.

This morning, I listened to the debate from the Conservative Party talking about somehow believing our government was not standing with victims of violence and crime. This bill stands with victims of violence and crime, particularly hate crime.

How is it possible that Conservatives are not supporting this bill, which would stand with Jews who have been targeted for hate crimes, with Muslims who have been targeted for hate crimes, and with people like me, gay and lesbian people, who have been targeted with hate crimes? Is this not a victim-centred approach to actually address hate head-on?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is somebody who, by the way, wears a collar. He knows what it means to work with communities and to protect communities. We have seen so much victimization happen in the country over the last few years because of people's religious beliefs. It is incumbent upon us to provide protections for them, to make sure that people are not being victimized because of their faith, sexual orientation or identity. That is precisely what the bill is trying to do. It is an important piece of legislation. Let us not obstruct this any further and pass it through the House as quickly as possible.