Debates of Oct. 1st, 2025

Combatting Hate Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least we have a definition now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her Keegstra dissent, she wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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