House of Commons Hansard #67 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
École Polytechnique de Montréal Members mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, commemorating the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre. They highlight the ongoing crisis of gender-based violence, noting a woman or girl is killed every 48 hours. Speakers discuss its disproportionate impact on Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, which the NDP calls an ongoing genocide, urging collective action to end violence and ensure safety for all. 4700 words, 45 minutes.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Members debate a Conservative motion for the Justice Committee to travel across Canada to hear testimony on Bill C-9. Conservatives argue the bill and a proposed amendment to remove the Criminal Code's religious exemption threaten religious freedom and accuse Liberals of obstructing committee work. The Bloc supports removing the exemption, citing public consensus against incitement to hatred. Liberals accuse Conservatives of filibustering to delay hate crime and bail reform legislation, and spreading misinformation. 26200 words, 3 hours.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-15. The bill implements budget provisions, drawing criticism from opposition parties. The Bloc Québécois rejects it due to insufficient support for Quebec’s demands, increased fossil fuel subsidies, and environmental backsliding. Conservatives denounce the bill for failing to address the affordability crisis, soaring food prices, and record national debt. They also criticize government spending and the impact of taxes on families, seniors, and key economic sectors. Liberals defend the budget's investments in social programs and the economy. 22800 words, 3 hours.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-246. The bill would mandate consecutive sentencing for those convicted of sexual offences. The sponsor argues it would strengthen the justice system and ensure each crime and victim receives full recognition, as current practices allow multiple sentences to be served concurrently. While the Bloc Québécois supports sending the bill to committee, the Liberals argue it is unconstitutional and overly rigid, preferring their own legislative reforms that aim to address similar issues. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. I will ask the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North to please quiet down.
Could the member for Winnipeg North quickly get to the point of his intervention, please?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I know the government House whip as a Christian, and it is distasteful for the member to say what he just put on the record. We would ask that he withdraw the comments and apologize.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
An hon. member
Zero chance.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. I will stand here all day until the House comes back to order.
I will review what was said on the tapes. I will take a look at the blues and come back to the House if necessary.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
An hon. member
He should not have the right to speak.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
An hon. member
Censorship, it is Liberal censorship.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. I will invite the member to please not take the floor when he has not been recognized by the Chair.
The hon. chief government whip is rising on the same point of order.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what was said about me, because I will leave it to the member to do the respectful thing and apologize, the member just yelled out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are participating in Liberal censorship. He owes an apology to the House, to you personally and to the seat that you occupy.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about decorum in the House. How many warnings do you have to give, how many times do you have to yell “order” before you dish out consequences? It is starting to get embarrassing, quite frankly.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing some order and for enforcing your authority in the House.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I thank the hon. member for his comment.
We are now on questions and comments, and I am hoping we can get through the next three and a half minutes without further interruptions and interjections. I will just ask all members to please have some respect. This is a place of debate. This is a place where we should have vigorous debates, but when comments go beyond the debate and get into the questioning of the motivations or the character of individual members, that is where things go too far. I am going to ask members to have some respect for the offices that we hold on behalf of the Canadians who sent us here from coast to coast.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think Quebeckers who are watching what is happening here must be finding it a bit surreal. Everyone is missing the point.
Let us take a good look at the Bloc Québécois's proposal concerning the religious exemption. The Criminal Code says that it is against the law to promote hatred, to incite hatred. Unfortunately, there is a small paragraph that provides an exemption when a religious text is involved. The bill simply removes this religious exemption. Nobody is attacking any religion.
My colleague says that this proposal is steeped in imperialism and colonialism. I would say that 75% of Quebeckers are in favour of this proposal. Moreover, all 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion in favour of this proposal.
Is my colleague saying that 75% of Quebeckers and 100% of the members of the Quebec National Assembly are imperialists and colonialists?
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Jamil Jivani Conservative Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I talked about Liberal colonizers and Liberal imperialists, just to clarify the record.
To my colleague from Quebec, what I would say is that the Bloc Québécois has represented their efforts here in this chamber as pushing back on the encroachment of the federal government. In this situation, with Bill C-9 and the amendment, the Bloc Québécois is actually asking the federal government to have more power over the lives of Quebeckers and all Canadian citizens.
I would think that would be an area where the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives would agree: no abuse of federal state power.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Arpan Khanna Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the Bill of Rights, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker said, “I am...free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I [believe is] right, free to oppose what I believe wrong”. Those are the foundations our country was built on, which are the same values the Liberal government is attacking. It is attacking faith all across the spectrum: Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and Christians. Why is the government prioritizing putting away pastors for preaching the Bible as opposed to putting away repeat violent offenders?
The member travels quite a bit across the country, meeting with folks from all walks of life. What is he hearing from different faith leaders across our country?
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Jamil Jivani Conservative Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON
Mr. Speaker, what is uniting faith leaders and faith communities across Canada is concern that we have a Liberal federal government right now that does not understand the boundaries over its own power.
Instead of being humble enough to recognize that people who are sick or struggling in communities across our nation rely on churches, mosques and synagogues as a source of support and strength, the Liberal government instead looks at these institutions and wonders how it can exercise more state power over every function of our lives and communities. It is wrong, and it must be opposed.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, what are the Liberals doing? To those at home who still do not understand what is happening vis-à-vis this bill, let me provide them with a quick summary. It is going to be a professional summary.
The first thing the Liberals are doing is lowering the threshold for the definition of hatred. The Supreme Court has articulated the test for hatred in a case called Keegstra, 35 years ago. It was a good working definition. Now they are lowering the threshold to make it easier to convict for hate speech.
Second, the Liberals are eliminating the requirement prescribed in the Criminal Code for the Attorney General's consent in order to commence hate-related prosecutions. Of course, we have articulated a number of concerns with that. We could have private prosecutions that would be instituted by vexatious litigants potentially putting free speech at risk, especially with a lower threshold.
Further, the Liberals are creating a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence. What is interesting about that offence is that it does not just pertain solely to criminal conduct. Specifically, the language in the section provides that the stand-alone hatred offence can be predicated on any offence contrary to any federal statute. Therefore, one may have an offence under the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Elections Act, and if a prosecutor, perhaps a politically motivated prosecutor, believes it may have been motivated by hatred, then one could be subject to criminal prosecution for what is otherwise civil behaviour.
The Liberals take credit for and suggest that the new intimidation and access to facilities offence changes things. At the justice committee, we had an unbiased professional witness, Mark Sandler, one of the most celebrated criminal defence attorneys in this country, who was invited both by me and the Liberals. He said that the new access and intimidation offence does not do anything that is not already criminal under the Criminal Code. It is criminal to intimidate folks trying to enter their place of worship or school. It is criminal, certainly, to behave in a threatening fashion.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
December 4th, 2025 / 1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind their heckles. I welcome their heckles.
The Liberals did not have the courage to show up at the justice committee today. They cancelled the committee that was to consider the bill clause by clause. They are afraid because they know the bill is going nowhere and that it is a terrible bill. Therefore, we should be travelling across the country, from coast to coast to coast, so that Canadians can learn what a terrible piece of legislation this is.
Almost every witness we heard from at the justice committee said that the Liberals missed the point and that what they should have done is criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. That is what we are seeing on Canada's streets. During the previous Conservative government, we had a law that criminalized the glorification of terrorism, but Justin Trudeau and his minions, in 2017, repealed Bill C-51. Instead, what we have going on right now is folks in my riding dressing like Yahya Sinwar, the worst murderer of Jews since the Holocaust, who is being glorified and celebrated.
This is why I am proud that just a few weeks ago, I brought my first private member's bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity, terrorist groups or any activity of a terrorist group, and I challenge the Liberals. If they actually want to do something about this, if they want to do something about what is happening on Canada's streets, what is happening in my riding, which is one of the most Jewish ridings in the country, they should pass my PMB, Bill C-257, and criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity or terrorist groups.
I would like to take a pause for a minute and speak a bit from the heart. I am joined here by my friend from Saskatchewan. I had a couple of friends over for refreshments at my home last week. My friend asked me if I could talk to him about what it was like in the U.S.S.R. I was born and lived in the Soviet Union until I was almost nine. If I could capture it in one word, it would be fear. As an eight-year-old, one has enough intellectual presence to understand when one's family is afraid.
I first realized that I was of the Jewish faith when I was four or five. It was on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. I walked into my grandparents' bedroom, as I was raised by my grandparents, and I saw my grandpa reading a Siddur, a Jewish prayer book. This would have been in 1984 or 1985. Even then, despite Gorbachev's glasnost and, arguably, perestroika, if a Soviet resident was found with a Jewish prayer book, they could potentially be looking at a labour camp for three to five years. That was one of my first memories. I have asked my dad about it subsequently. He said it was unbelievable that my grandpa had that book.
I cannot believe that I am sitting in the House right now after hearing the member, who is the Canadian identity and culture minister, essentially suggest that reciting parts of the Bible could somehow be criminalized, almost like a strict liability offence. I cannot fathom that. It is as if we were back in the U.S.S.R., just like the Beatles song.
One of the worst things this bill would do, in addition to now supposedly looking to eliminate the religious defence, is that it would lower the threshold for what is hate speech.
I had a considerable discussion with my friend about it the other week, about how we were taught that we should avoid certain topics. Certain topics were taboo. We were not allowed to discuss the west. We were not allowed to use the word “America”. We were not allowed to use the word “Israel”. We were not allowed to point out that there is no bread, jeans or eggs in the store. That was because the only religion allowed was Communism.
When my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North talks about Liberal colonialism, that is exactly what it is. It is Liberal dictatorship of our freedom of thought. There are no other thoughts allowed, other than Liberal thought. Someone should be ashamed. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues. There should be shame no more.
We know that we are on the right side of this one and so do the Liberals. That is why, this morning, contrary to the suggestion that they wanted to move this bill forward, they cancelled today's justice committee meeting. I was prepared to show up tonight. We were all prepared to show up at 3:30 to discuss, clause by clause, this bill, but they locked us out.
Why are the Liberals saying they are bringing this religious exemption? This is very important. Supposedly, according to the Bloc, it was because of a guy named Adil Charkaoui, who, on October 28, 2024, in an Arabic speech to protesters in Montreal, denounced Zionist aggressors and called on Allah to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza, to spare none of them. The Bloc is suggesting that it is because of a religious exemption that Adil Charkaoui was not charged. That is not true at all.
First of all, we are talking about incitement to violence. If members read paragraph 319(3)(b), it only applies to the government. As to the second section, which is the wilful promotion of hatred in 319, it does not apply to 319(1), so I reject that argument just on legal grounds, to begin with.
Second of all, the section is very clear. In order for a person to avail themself of the defence, the religious speech has to be in good faith. That means that a person cannot wish for the extermination of peoples. If they are wishing for the extermination of peoples, it is no longer in good faith and the defence does not apply.
Finally, as if we do not read the news, the Quebec prosecutorial service came out on this in May of 2025 and explained what transpired. The reason they did not proceed against Charkaoui is not because of a religious defence, but because they said that he did not call for violence against an identifiable group of people. The enemies of Allah, according to the Quebec prosecutors, was not a defined group they could latch onto the incitement to violence provision and charge.
This is a farce. I do not know why we are here. We could be debating bail right now. We have Bill C-14, a very weak attempt to reform bail and sentencing that is presently before the justice committee. Last Tuesday, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of a filibuster. Tonight, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of somehow sabotaging this.
Let us get together tonight. Let us reopen the committee and hear about bail. Let us get some work done. Toronto is turning into Gotham City, yet these Liberals have no shame. Now reality has caught up to them.
Canadians across the country understand that this is a terrible bill. I implore the government to withdraw it. Let us go back to the drawing board. Do not do me any favours. I represent one of the largest Jewish constituencies in the country. This bill does nothing to protect them.
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the amount of misinformation and misleading information pumped out through social media and emails by the Conservative Party really does a disservice to all Canadians.
The member spoke about the committee. Now, the Conservative Party wants to use tax dollars to tour the country to spread even more misinformation. It is truly amazing. As opposed to dealing with hate messaging and the hate being experienced by many Canadians, the Conservatives are obstructing the legislation and want taxpayers to pay for a tour of more misinformation.
Instead of exploiting Canadians, why do the Conservatives not allow the legislation to pass?
Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human RightsRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Roman Baber Conservative York Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has no regard for taxpayer money. The budget that was just passed proposed a $78-billion deficit, so they should not lecture me about taxpayer dollars.
What these Liberals are now trying to do is shield this bill from clear sight by all Canadians who now understand that this is beyond Liberal platitudes. This is not about hate. This is not about defending the Jewish community. There are ample examples of how we can defend the Jewish community. They should set the right tone and have the Attorney General write to the provincial attorney generals and the police forces to say we have laws on the books called incitement to violence and to enforce them. The misinformation is coming from that side of the aisle, and—