Uqaqtittiji, I join this debate on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, as the voice of Nunavut and as a member of the NDP.
The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada. Almost 5,000 hate crimes were reported in 2024. Police-reported hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity are up 19% from 2022. Yes, we need to combat hate, but we do not need to criminalize people speaking up, and we definitely do not need to keep them jailed for longer.
I am disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The Liberals' failure to include that aspect in this bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada.
We are in polarizing times, for many reasons. People are either for or against Palestine. They are either for or against Israel. Indeed, our political system is getting close to only being Liberal or Conservative. Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized. Our religious beliefs should not spread hate. This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.
There are existing laws that address hate, calling into question the real purpose of this bill. Hate is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. This bill would increase maximum sentences if an offence is motivated by hate. What would that raise sentences to? It would raise them to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment. We are entering a debate where imprisonment is made easier and made longer when, at the same time, we are hearing about an impending austerity budget.
In fact, there are already existing provisions in the Criminal Code addressing situations involving a crime near places of worship. I draw members' attention to the following sections in the Criminal Code: subsection 176(2), “Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings”; subsection 430(4.1), “Mischief relating to religious property”; section 264, “Criminal harassment”; section 264.1, “Uttering threats”; and section 423, “Intimidation”.
New Democrats are concerned with vague language in this bill, because once broad definitions are on the books, they can easily be weaponized against groups. For example, how will intimidating behaviours be interpreted by police? In its current form, the bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.
We know that listing groups on the terror list is a highly political decision, ultimately up to cabinet discretion. New Democrats are concerned that the section of this bill dealing with hate symbols would create a risk that a future government could put forward a new terror list for political purposes to appease certain groups that could then be caught under this provision.
Let me break down some of these concerns a bit more. Surrounding law enforcement, it gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity. Charging people with a hate crime carries a stigma that follows the person for life. If the charge is later dropped, the stigma will remain with the person.
There is the issue of vagueness. What are intimidating behaviours? How will they be defined or interpreted by police? Once broad definitions are on the books, they can be easily weaponized against groups. Hate is already an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code of Canada, as I said earlier. An assault committed out of hatred means the sentence would already be higher than it would be otherwise. This new offence would put the consequences of hatred in the hands of the police's subjective process rather than in those of the sentencing judge.
Second, we have a huge American influence. Advocates want tools that would target groups that openly espouse hatred and racism, would make it illegal to conduct any sort of militant training, for example MMA fight clubs, and would address the business component that allows these groups to become incorporated and therefore fundraise.
On the banning of symbols, other than the swastika and SS bolts, symbols would depend on Canada's terror list. Listing groups on the terror list is a highly political decision that is ultimately up to cabinet's discretion. This creates a risk that a future government could put forward a new terror list for political purposes to appease certain groups that could then be caught under this provision.
The wilful promotion of hatred is already an offence in Canada. The use of the swastika can already be processed through crimes currently on the books. The Liberals adding the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” to the Criminal Code is not the issue. Courts already use this definition, and nothing would change with this addition. The escalating punishment after each offence for someone convicted of the new hate crime would be excessive and disproportionate.
On the new state of fear threshold, Canada already has a system where we recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. This bill would lower that threshold and focuses on elements that are easily politically influenced, like which groups we can and cannot talk about in public. That makes the New Democrats and civil liberties associations nervous.
This crime has the element of intent to provoke a state of fear before going into a specific location. How will these locations be easily identifiable? The definition is too broad. This would cause problems in terms of scope and clarity for peaceful protesters. Provisions are vague, creating the potential for arbitrariness. We should be worried about how police would interpret the bill and about creating a further backlog in the already overburdened criminal justice system.
On freedom of assembly, while freedom of assembly is protected under the charter, with the broad definition of “fear”, any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion.
In the context of the upcoming November budget, the austerity measures the Prime Minister has told us to expect will impact the justice system, potentially with cuts to public prosecution offices. At the same time, this bill would take away some roles of the Attorney General. The Liberals are making cuts to budgets and at the same time are giving departments more power.
With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form. We will ensure that amendments are submitted—