Debates of Oct. 5th, 2026

Criminal Code

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

moved that Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief—religious property), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, having served in this place over numerous Parliaments, I know what an honour it is to have the opportunity not only to introduce a private member's bill but to have it debated at second reading. I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-255, the protecting Canada's places of worship act.

Over the past three years, the Holy Rosary Church in Edmonton, Alberta, was the target of three acts of vandalism. On December 23, 2023, a nativity scene in front of the church was set on fire. On September 18, 2024, two individuals spray-painted a church security camera before being startled and running away. On September 20, 2024, a man was filmed spray-painting the church's statue of Pope John Paul II.

Last year, the Ar-Rehman Islamic Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, was vandalized when an individual with a skateboard smashed the front glass doors of the building. In January 2023, the Shri Gauri Shankar Mandir temple in Brampton, Ontario, was defaced when someone spray-painted anti-Hindu messaging on its exterior walls. In April 2025, the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara in Vancouver, B.C., was targeted by vandals who spray-painted exterior walls and parking lot perimeters with graffiti. On August 2, 2025, a man wrote anti-Semitic messages on the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue in Victoria, B.C.

Sadly, I could go on and on with more examples.

In 2015, Statistics Canada reported that there were 66 cases of hate-motivated mischief relating to property used by identifiable groups. In 2025, there were 263. The current peak was in 2024, when there were 274 incidents. This represents a more than 300% increase over the past 10 years.

In light of this trend, I introduced Bill C-255, which would amend the Criminal Code as it relates to mischief to religious property.

As I began to develop this bill, I discussed with my caucus colleagues and subsequently every stakeholder I met with how my sole purpose in introducing this bill was to provide additional tools to protect faith communities across Canada. I was, and remain, convinced that this is not a partisan issue, and that this bill and the broader issue of protecting places of worship in Canada are things that members of Parliament on both sides of this place can and should support.

The freedom of religion and belief is an important fundamental freedom. It is one that the authors of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms understood.

All across our nation, places of worship, including synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, mosques, churches and many more, serve as vital centres in our communities. They are gathering places that provide hope and solace, a sense of meaning and a place of belonging for millions of Canadians. Many of us regularly attend a place of worship and gather with our fellow adherents for fellowship, to worship and to practise our faith.

Both as a Canadian and as a Christian, it distresses me to see a gurdwara, temple, mosque or synagogue vandalized just as much as it does when a church is vandalized. As a person whose faith is an integral part of who I am, I understand the fear and the feeling of vulnerability that would grip someone whose place of worship has been defaced. Finally, as a parliamentarian, I believe I owe it to Canadians, Canadian families and our communities to defend the protection of our freedom to worship in our own way.

By amending the Criminal Code to enhance the protection of places of worship, we send a clear message to faith communities and, indeed, all Canadians that we value this freedom and that vandalizing places of worship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Let me outline how the protecting Canada's places of worship act proposes to change the Criminal Code of Canada.

First, and I think most consequentially, the bill proposes to eliminate the need for police and prosecutors to prove that a crime of mischief committed against a place of worship was motivated by hate. Section 430 of the Criminal Code addresses crimes of mischief. While subsection 430(4.1) addresses crimes of mischief relating to religious property, educational institutions and other properties, it applies only to the commission of mischief if it is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Bill C-255 would not eliminate any of these sections; rather, it would add new subsection 430(4.12) to address mischief relating to places of worship that does not require proof that the vandalism was hate motivated.

It is structured this way for two reasons.

First, there is no reason or need to remove the crime of hate-motivated mischief directed against religious property.

Second, mostly by way of background, I was working with the legislative drafters throughout the summer and early fall of 2025 to develop a bill to address this issue. When Bill C-9 was first introduced in this place on September 19, 2025, it proposed repealing subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) of the Criminal Code, which I was planning to amend. Therefore, I rescued the definition of a place of worship from subsection 430(4.101) as the drafters and I had every reason to believe it was being eliminated through the government's bill.

As we are all aware, over time, Bill C-9 was amended, and subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) remained in place. I am glad they did, as I believe they provide much-needed protection to property used by identifiable groups.

While there are similarities between what is proposed in this bill and what remains in the Criminal Code after Bill C-9 was eventually adopted, the differences are consequential and clear. Removing the requirement that police and prosecutors prove that a crime of mischief was hate motivated would make it easier for police and prosecutors to obtain convictions. Bias, prejudice or hate can be difficult to prove. A video camera can capture the evidence to prove who did it, but what it cannot capture is motivation.

In my opinion, it should not matter what motivated the act. The impact on the victim is still the same. In fact, I would argue that the victims of these crimes would find it more reassuring that someone has been charged and convicted for the offence than they would if they were told the perpetrator was not charged because the police could not prove the suspect's motivation.

The second change this bill proposes to make to the Criminal Code is to implement new penalties for mischief directed at places of worship. Similar to the provision in the Criminal Code that outlines punishments for mischief directed at war memorials, this bill proposes mandatory compensation to the victim for the first offence and mandatory minimal jail time, as well as compensation to the victim, for subsequent offences.

I want to state up front that I am aware that the concept of compensation to the property owner, which I am proposing to add, is novel. The Criminal Code includes provisions which mandate fines. However, fines are paid to the Crown, and in cases of mischief committed against places of worship, the Crown is not the victim. The Criminal Code also extends discretion to judges to impose restitution in their sentencing decisions. So as not to conflate a judge's discretionary restitution with a mandatory requirement, with the assistance of our amazing legislative drafters, I termed the monetary penalty proposed in the bill as compensation to “the property owner”. This is not a duplication but an intentional differentiation. Practically, the process of compensating the property owner would function the same as or similar to the process followed by the courts when a judge imposes a sentence of restitution.

I would now like to address how I arrived at the amount of $1,000 for mandatory compensation.

First, this amount aligns with the $1,000 fine imposed in subsection 430(4.11) of the Criminal Code, dealing with mischief directed at war memorials.

Second, the cost to the victim to professionally remove spray paint or replace broken windows or a door is very likely to be at least $1,000, if not more. It is my belief that a minimum of $1,000 is reasonable and would not be unduly punitive to the perpetrator of the crime.

Lastly, the wording in the bill states that compensation is to be “not less than $1,000”, which is again consistent with subsection 430(4.11). This means that a judge would have the discretion to impose a greater amount of compensation to the property owner should it be reasonable, given all of the extenuating circumstances.

To wrap up this portion of my remarks addressing the proposed changes within Bill C-255, I would like to highlight the recent coming into force of Bill C-16. Setting aside my personal views and lack of support for that bill, its passage, I believe, has eliminated the need to defend the mandatory minimums as prescribed in Bill C-255.

In closing, I hope my fellow parliamentarians from all parties will support Bill C-255. Reports of places of worship being vandalized have become all too frequent. They are so frequent that they have become commonplace. It is critical that we address this issue. Regardless of whether or not we are part of a faith-based community, I believe we should not ignore the increase in cases of mischief directed at places of worship.

As parliamentarians, the ability to amend legislation is one of our primary tools to improve the safety, security and, ultimately, lives of Canadians. By passing this bill, we would be signalling to criminals that their actions have real consequences. We would be signalling to victims that we recognize that acts of mischief are deeply hurtful, fear-inducing and costly. We would also be signalling to Canadians that we continue to value our fundamental freedom of religion or belief. Finally, we would be providing law enforcement with a new tool that would make their job of protecting society easier.

On that important note, I am pleased to advise my colleagues in this place that the Canadian Police Association, which represents 60,000 frontline civilian and sworn police personnel across Canada, stated in a recent letter that it supports the objectives of Bill C-255. It said Bill C-255 reflects an important principle. Offences involving religious property should be treated seriously. Those responsible should be held meaningfully accountable, and the people and organizations left to repair the damage should not be forgotten. The association particularly welcomes the bill's emphasis on compensation for the property owners, as well as stronger consequences for repeat offenders.

I have met with organizations across the spectrum of faiths in Canada and from different regions, and to date, everyone I have met with has supported this bill. Between now and the second hour of debate, I encourage all members to meet with faith communities in their riding to talk about the measures proposed in this bill.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe this issue is not a partisan one. I believe it is a small but important change to the Criminal Code that could make a big difference. I look forward to the debate and to any suggestions about how this bill might be improved upon. I understand that sometimes compromise is necessary to make progress.

I thank members for their time and attention, and I look forward to answering any questions my colleagues might have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found the member's comments regarding Bill C-9 interesting. I was here throughout the debate on Bill C-9, and from what I can recall, the member opposite actually voted against that legislation, which addressed hate motivation, dealt with our religious institutions and, in fact, protected our religious institutions from hate.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts. Has she changed her position on Bill C-9?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, my private member's bill was already being drafted when Bill C-9 was first introduced. Without repeating everything I said in my remarks or going through a chronology of the changes that occurred to Bill C-9, I would respectfully submit to the member that Bill C-255 proposes a change to the Criminal Code that was not contemplated in Bill C-9 and does not currently exist.

My objective is simply to put forward that the changes proposed in Bill C-255 are important amendments to the Criminal Code that would provide clarity and are supported by faith communities across the country, and I believe this bill should be adopted.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.

We are aware that my colleague's bill does not replace section 430 of the Criminal Code, which already provides for sanctions in this respect. It simply adds mandatory minimum punishments. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a parliamentary supervision of our courts, telling judges that they cannot impose a sentence that is less than the minimum punishment described.

Does my colleague have any courts or judges in mind that deserve to be subject to such supervision? Can she give us some examples? I cannot think of any off the top of my head.

Second, our Liberal colleague referred to Bill C‑9. In fact, our Conservative colleagues opposed an amendment I proposed, which sought to make it illegal to spread hatred or promote hatred based on a religious text. We wanted to remove that from the Criminal Code.

Does my colleague think that, if somebody commits mischief in relation to property with the goal of inciting hatred on religious grounds, would that be acceptable? The mandatory minimum punishment—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to expand on the remarks related to mandatory minimum punishment prescribed in Bill C-255. First of all, my bill simply mirrors the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials. I mentioned I was glad that the provisions in the Criminal Code that address hate-motivated crimes still exist, but the changes I am proposing in this bill do not require law enforcement and the courts to prove that hate was a motivating factor when the perpetrator committed the crime.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such an awesome bill. As we all see, the rise of persecution against the Christian church across Canada has been profound. We have seen more than 100 churches burned in the last 10 years in Canada alone. It is a modern-day form of religious persecution, and it is very troubling.

I want to ask the member a question that she alluded to earlier. We are seeing responses from the Liberals across the way. This seems like an obvious bill that everyone can support in this place. Are the Liberals going to support her bill?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that today is a day of debate, and we will be hearing from a number of our colleagues, both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House. I hope that throughout the debate, they will note the merits of this bill, and that even if they have already made up their minds to oppose it, they will be open-minded to what is shared here today.

I want to remind them that this bill seeks to accomplish two things. First, it would broaden the scope of mischief by removing the requirement for the mischief offence to be hate-motivated. That is a huge difference. Law enforcement resources are already stretched. Second, this bill would make monetary compensation to the victim by the perpetrator a mandatory part of any sentence. Those provisions already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials. I think the members in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary of the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset, let me make it very clear that, from my understanding, restitution payments exist in law and can be paid to victims. After listening to the member opposite, I note that she seems to be very aware of that. What the member is proposing is a fairly significant change.

I want to paint a bigger picture of what has actually taken place. First and foremost, I think it is universally accepted within the chamber by all members of Parliament that hate has no place inside the country. We all play a very important role to do what we can to promote tolerance and education and, where we can, to call out things that ultimately lead to hatred and acts of violence or vandalism, which cause a great deal of harm in many different ways to the communities we represent.

I think of churches, mosques, gurdwaras, temples and synagogues, all of which have been victims of hate crimes. The issue of hate-motivated mischief is something the government has actually dealt with in its legislative agenda. Coming out of the last federal election, we had a Prime Minister who made a commitment to come forward with a legislative agenda to deal with the issue of crime and safety. That is the reason I posed the question I did to the member opposite.

I sat on the government benches listening to Conservative after Conservative filibuster or speak in opposition to Bill C-9, so it is not because of the Conservative Party that the Combatting Hate Act is now law in Canada. Quite the opposite, it is because of the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government of the day in forcing through the legislation. It was substantial. It dealt with mischief and hatred, which are real, in several different ways. It was part of the overall crime, safety and community safety legislative agenda that the Prime Minister and the government have put forward over the last 18 months, because we take the issue so seriously.

When we think of the core of that legislation, it deals with putting up with, for example, protesters who try to hinder, prevent or intimidate people from being able to attend a church, a synagogue, a gurdwara or a mosque. That legislation is there. It is tangible. We provided it. It is all part of the bigger picture of the agenda of the government.

I provided the member the opportunity to give some clarification on the legislation. Has she changed her position in supporting Bill C-9? From what I recall, not only did the Conservatives vote against it, but they proactively promoted, I would suggest, a lot of hatred toward the legislation. Listen to the debates or read the debates on it from just a year ago.

If we look at what the member is proposing, restitution payments exist today and are a part of our judicial system, not precisely in the way the member is proposing within this piece of legislation, but there is duplication within the legislation being proposed by the member today. That is because of the changes we brought in through Bill C-9 or because of the current criminal act, prior.

Whenever I think of judicial changes and reforms, I often think about the stakeholders and how they feel about the different issues. It is because of Bill C-9 that I posed a question specifically on that issue to the member, but if I was able to provide a follow-up question, it would be on dealing with the stakeholders. Some of the stakeholders are our provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Has the Conservative Party consulted with or had any direct input from our provincial, territorial or even indigenous counterparts? They all have a very strong vested interest in the area.

If we were to canvass our constituents, the average Canadian, we would find that an overwhelming majority, over 90%, of people understand hate-motivated crimes, including the issue of mischief or vandalism. The vandalizing of places of worship, sadly, is not new, and it varies extensively.

The member cited specific examples from outside the province of Alberta and went into a number of jurisdictions. It does not matter. It happens in all regions of our nation and it varies. It varies from graffiti to burning things down, causing significant damage, all of which we are very much concerned about. Vandalism is something we all take very seriously, and I would encourage us to do so. At the end of the day, there is more we can do on the issue of vandalism that goes beyond our church facilities.

I used to chair a youth justice committee, and through that, we had many different discussions about the issue of vandalism in our communities. At the end of the day, what we need in order to deal with a lot of the vandalism that takes place in our communities is to ensure that the offence itself is being better dealt with through enforcement. Often, we have the legislation that is necessary. Our law enforcement agencies, municipalities and provinces, all of which participate in the process, have something to contribute.

The amount of graffiti in our communities, for example, or vandalism that takes place is significant. I think that co-operation among the different stakeholders and different jurisdictions could have a more positive outcome. Yes, restitution does play a role. I know that when we had discussions in regard to vandalism when I was the chair of the justice committee, we recognized that restitution plays a role, and our courts recognize that today.

Having said all that, I question and hope to hear more from the members of the Conservative Party about whether or not they are now onside—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am afraid the time has expired.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, mandatory minimum sentences have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, so I think it would be a real shame to try to rerun that failed script.

We share the concerns about the issue of hate and preventing people from committing mischief against religious property. I believe I can say that all members of Parliament share that value. We do not want to live in a society where people commit mischief just to make a point. That said, there are different ways of tackling this issue of hate.

What the Conservatives are proposing—and, with all due respect, I believe this is an argument I have heard rather frequently since I joined the House nearly 11 years ago—is the idea that the more people we can put behind bars, the safer society will be. It is a valid point, and one that can be defended, but that is not the kind of society I want to live in. I maintain, again respectfully, that it is not the sort of society the vast majority of people wish to live in either.

The Bloc Québécois believes that we need to give our judges some judicial discretion. We have faith in our judges. They are not perfect. They are human and sometimes make mistakes, just like the rest of us, but they generally have a good head on their shoulders, good judgment and a lot of experience. They are able to assess every situation on its merits. Trying to force them to follow a certain criteria or framework that they cannot deviate from is a bit like having them supervised or putting them under parliamentary supervision, as I said earlier when talking to my colleague.

It is one thing for Parliament to determine that a given situation constitutes a crime and to set out a maximum sentence, but minimum punishments are another matter. We are telling our judges that they cannot impose a lighter punishment than the one that has been set out. I think that is deplorable. Such parliamentary control over judicial sentencing is a dangerous tool that should be reserved for genuinely exceptional cases.

I asked my colleague the following question: In this case, is she able to identify judges or courts that are so defective that we need to supervise them in that way? I did not get an answer to that question, but I do not think there are any such judges or courts. Earlier, I said that mistakes can happen. Judges are only human and can make mistakes. If a judge from the Quebec Superior Court, the Court of Quebec or any other provincial or other court makes a mistake, there are courts of appeal that can review that decision. If the litigants feel that the court of appeal also made a mistake, they can appeal to the Supreme Court, which is home to the country's greatest legal minds. There are safeguards in place. Judges cannot hand down any punishment in any way they like without running the risk of having their decision appealed and overturned.

The problem I have with minimum sentences is when people suggest, as some are suggesting here, that they should be imposed for pretty much every offence. Personally, I believe that sentences should be tailored to the circumstances, that we should trust the courts and our judges, who have, for the most part, been carefully selected. I will not repeat the criticisms I have already shared on several occasions regarding the judicial appointment process, which, in my view, needs improvement. Generally speaking, however, we can trust judges to adapt sentences with a view to building a better society, one where the principles of rehabilitation can be applied, for example, along with monetary or other types of compensation that will benefit society and contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders.

We need balanced principles. These people decide what is or is not a crime, but they also decide not to send everyone who commits mischief to prison, but to rehabilitate them instead.

I knew a young man who once graffitied the wall of a convenience store. Fortunately, the police arrested him, but his punishment was not to appear before a judge or go to jail. He had to clean off his graffiti and do a number of hours of community service for the store owner. They became friends. The young man did a lot for the convenience store owner because he realized that his graffiti, while not as bad as detonating a bomb, had caused damage and a lot of inconvenience, and that was something he had to realize. This young person was rehabilitated.

I get that a convenience store and a place of worship are two different things. I understand that, but the principle is the same. Sometimes, I agree that a crime against a place of worship deserves a serious sentence, and in other cases, it deserves a sentence better suited to the circumstances. The only way to adjust these sentences is to let our judges use their discretion on a case-by-case basis.

To no one's great surprise, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, which, I would add, is unnecessary, given that section 430 of the Criminal Code already includes sentencing provisions for mischief. There are even specific provisions in subsection 430(4.1) that deal with mischief motivated by hate. If someone commits mischief inadvertently, to have a bit of fun or because they like to show off is one thing. If someone commits mischief because they harbour hatred toward a religious community or another group, that is something else entirely. That does happen, and there are provisions in the Criminal Code that our judges take into account, so that is reassuring.

Before I conclude, I would like to say that we need some degree of consistency in the House. We pass a great many laws on various topics. We are not going to start contradicting ourselves from one law to the next. It would be counterproductive and harmful to society as a whole. However, our Conservative colleagues waged an all-out battle against Bill C-9, which was intended to combat hate. Why this all-out battle? It was largely because the Bloc Québécois had proposed an amendment seeking to ban what was known as the so-called religious exemption defence.

Incitement to hatred was recognized as an offence under the Criminal Code unless someone did so based on a belief in a religious text, in which case they would be exempt from this charge both for incitement to hatred and for incitement to anti-Semitism. We said this should be removed from the Criminal Code. Our Conservative colleagues fought hard, arguing that it should remain in the Criminal Code, that people should have the right to incite hatred if their actions were based on a religious text. It made my hair stand on end, but that is what happened.

For the sake of consistency, do our Conservative colleagues believe that someone who commits mischief against religious property would have a valid defence against that charge if they based their actions on a religious text that is part of their faith? I cannot say that I have figured out the answer to that, because the two positions are at odds with one another. I am very keen to hear a Conservative MP reconcile these two ideas and tell us how they deal with it. Is it acceptable for someone to commit mischief against religious property based on a religious text that is part of their faith?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many of us know the quiet satisfaction of spending a weekend puttering around fixing things: repairing a broken window sash, resetting a shifting stone in the garden, repainting a door or securing fresh glass. However, when the paint covers graffiti on a mosque or gurdwara, when the stones being reset are headstones knocked over in a churchyard or when the door being repaired is the one set fire to at a synagogue and the glass has bullet holes in it, there is nothing quiet and nothing satisfying about it.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, mandirs, kingdom halls, shrines, temples and meeting houses, for people of faith, are places to pray, but they are also where our communities go for weddings, funerals, Scouts, craft sales, concerts, recovery groups, community meetings, food banks, pancake breakfasts and commemorations of all kinds. When these places are damaged for any reason, our community lives are interrupted and many people feel a great sense of anxiety and unease.

Right now, the Criminal Code has a specific offence for mischief against religious property, but only when the Crown can prove that the mischief was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. If the police know that somebody smashed the windows of a synagogue or deliberately damaged or disrupted the use of a church but they cannot prove why that person did it, the case generally falls back into the category of ordinary mischief and often escapes prosecution entirely, which is the answer to my hon. colleague's question about why appeals are not the answer and discretion for judges is not sufficient for this kind of incident. This is the gap.

Motive can be very difficult to prove. A person can smash every window in a mosque and say nothing. They can damage a church during a break-in or make a synagogue unusable without leaving a manifesto or shouting a slur. However, it is not ordinary mischief when that place of worship is used for the community writ large. It is extraordinary mischief, and in proposing this bill, my colleague is seeking to close that gap for communities such as mine where there is simply a shortage of places where large crowds can gather.

Bill C-255 says that the place itself deserves special protection. If a person deliberately commits mischief against a place of worship, the Crown would not also have to prove that what was going on inside that person's head was hatred towards the specific group that runs the place, before the special penalty regime proposed by the bill would apply, because the harm to these places is not purely the dollar value of the damage.

If someone breaks a $1,500 window in an ordinary commercial building, “ordinary mischief” may describe the outcome perfectly well. However, if somebody breaks the same window in a place of worship on a Saturday night, the congregation cannot hold services Sunday morning, a bake sale cannot happen that afternoon and the AA group cannot meet in the evening. The consequences of damage to these buildings extend well beyond that pane of glass. Bill C-255 would fill the space between ordinary vandalism and a provable hate crime by saying that deliberately attacking a certain kind of building deserves special treatment in the Criminal Code even when prosecutors cannot prove the offender's motive.

Now, listening to my colleagues, despite support from the Canadian Police Association for the objectives of the bill, the government's answer to all this appears to be that Bill C-255 is redundant. I do not think that is an adequate answer. The various offences passed by the Carney Liberals this session deal inadequately with intimidation and obstruction. Blocking a door is not breaking a window, and intimidating worshippers is not burning down a hall.

Bill C-9 created a general hate crime offence, but that offence still requires proof of hate motivation. None of these provisions does what Bill C-255 would do: create a specific property mischief offence for buildings used widely in our communities for so much more than religious services, which would not depend on proving motive.

As for the comments by my colleagues about mandatory minimum penalties, the government claims to have removed that issue as an obstacle through its constitutional safety valve in Bill C-16.

Since 2014, the Criminal Code has treated mischief against a war memorial, cenotaph or cemetery as its own offence, with penalties that are very similar, identical in fact, to those being proposed by my colleagues. Nobody has to prove that the vandal hated veterans, or the people buried there, if they desecrate a cenotaph. Parliament decided that the character of the property itself justified special treatment. Bill C-255 takes essentially the same approach to buildings used as places of worship.

The Liberals' current approach to stopping damage to these buildings is not working. Churches continue to burn, synagogues continue to be vandalized, and mosques and gurdwaras continue to be defaced, all at an alarming rate. According to Statistics Canada's March 30 release, police reported that hate crimes targeting religion rose 154% between 2020 and 2023, from 530 incidents to a jaw-dropping 1,345 incidents, and remained essentially unchanged through 2024. Mischief accounted for 59% of them, but those are police-reported hate crime statistics. Cases that are not identified by police as hate-motivated are not captured by those numbers, so the very cases that Bill C-255 is trying to reach, where the damage is obvious but there is no evidence establishing a hate motive, are difficult to see in the statistics.

In their speeches today, my colleagues have raised some technical issues with Bill C-255 that deserve to be addressed. Whether compensation floors should apply where the damage is minor is a fair question for committee. So are questions about mandatory penalties and how they would operate across the full range of conduct caught by the offence. However, I would remind the government members that they have argued that Bill C-16's safety valve addresses this problem. They cannot have it both ways.

The member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek brought this bill forward because she wants to protect these places for religious and secular Canadians alike. In communities like mine, where places to gather are in short supply, this is a worthy objective. If the government members are truly interested in the collaboration they so often tell the House is necessary at this time, there is an obvious opportunity here for them to work with her to make this bill satisfactory to all parties.

I was at a wonderful little community craft market just this weekend in the hall of St. Andrew's church, run by Volunteer Nanaimo. This craft market is totally secular and provides a terrific benefit to our community. There is a tea vendor and soaps, crafts, knitted baby clothes and tea towels, Halloween and Christmas decorations, kids' crafts and one business with two budding entrepreneurs selling their 3D-printed wares: a little boy, who is six, overseen by his sister, who is seven. There is even homemade nail polish. Every year, I get my husband a new winter hat from this particular market, and this weekend was no exception. I got him a soft forest green knitted cap that will keep him warm this winter.

We should remember who we are protecting when we protect these buildings. Certainly, we are protecting people of faith, their prayers, weddings and funerals, but we are also protecting AA meetings on Tuesday nights and food banks on Wednesday mornings. A mosque may run a youth program or collect food for families who have never set foot in its prayer hall. Gurdwaras feed people regardless of faith. We do not have to believe in what happens at the altar, the bimah or the prayer mat to have an interest in protecting these buildings.

When someone deliberately attacks these places, the law should look at what was done and where, not require prosecutors to prove motive before an offence with meaningful consequences applies. The current approach has not filled the gap. We see ample evidence of that on the news on a regular basis, but what we do not see often enough are convictions. That is the reason to examine Bill C-255 seriously, amend what needs amending and see whether Parliament can produce something stronger together for the benefit of all our communities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we resume debate, I will just remind the member not to use the name of any member of the House, including the Prime Minister, in their remarks.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-255. The bill proposes to create a new a new criminal offence, mischief to religious property, which would join the existing criminal mischief offences at section 430 of the Criminal Code. The bill further proposes corresponding mandatory minimum jail sentences and a penalty structure whereby the offender would pay money directly to the property owner as part of their punishment.

The existing offence of mischief to property is a broad offence that generally prohibits intentionally damaging, destroying or interfering with someone's lawful use or enjoyment of the property. For example, it could capture throwing a rock through the window of someone's home or vandalizing a building, including a place of worship. We all have an interest in protecting both public and private property from these criminal acts.

The bill's objectives are laudable. This is something we have talked about often in this place in terms of protection of not only places of worship but broader religious spaces. I agree with the sponsor that religious property deserves protection and that property owners, in appropriate circumstances, deserve compensation when damage is suffered. However, after careful consideration, I intend to vote against the bill, and my reasons are these.

First, the bill would duplicate mischief offences in the Criminal Code. Though members who have spoken today suggest there is a hole in the Criminal Code, there is not. This is illegal. Second, the proposed financial penalties are not necessary given the authority of sentencing judges to order restitution to victims and inappropriately risk overcompensating certain victims when damage to their property is less than the $1,000 minimum penalty. Also, the proposals are redundant as a result of the recent changes advanced by the government through the Combatting Hate Act, including a new hate crime offence and new offences that address obstruction of or interference with access to buildings for religious worship.

It has been bizarre to sit here for the last 50 minutes and hear from Conservative members who pretend that Bill C-9 does not exist. Also, we did not hear how they voted, which was against. We also did not hear how they spent months and months delaying the bill, months and months spreading misinformation and disinformation, sowing fear in communities where enough fear exists and suggesting that people will be arrested at the pulpit, which is preposterous given the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They stoked so much fear and division. Many of them sanctimoniously got up with bibles at their hearts to vote against this piece of legislation. However, a few months later, they are here to say we need to be protecting religious places.

The previous speaker said the government has an obligation to the sponsor of the bill to work with her. Where was she when Bill C-9 was going through and there was an unwillingness to work through Bill C-9? There was filibuster after filibuster as religious groups were calling for the Conservatives to pass the legislation. What did they do? They spent months fundraising. As religious groups were asking for it, that is what they did. It is interesting to hear now that we should have an obligation to work with this member.

I agree that the member's objectives are laudable, but so too were the objectives of the government in Bill C-9. Those were campaign commitments that we needed to step up, as there was so much debate in this place, in not only this Parliament but the previous Parliament, as we have seen a rise in hate crimes and attacks on religious institutions. The government stepped up, and the Conservatives were nowhere to be found, so it is a little surprising to be here in this place. As I mentioned, I support the intent behind the bill, but I do not believe its specific proposals will enhance criminal law responses to conduct targeting religious property beyond what the existing criminal law already does.

Returning to my concern that the bill would result in duplication, the Criminal Code already contains a mischief offence that applies when any property, including religious property, is damaged. This offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two years or, if the value of the property exceeds $5,000, a maximum of 10 years.

In addition to this general offence, there is a specific offence that prohibits mischief to religious property, which is punishable by a higher maximum penalty if the conduct of the offender was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. This specific offence is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years when prosecuted by indictment, regardless of the value.

Now, the previous speaker said we should not look at motive, and that would be a great thing to say if that was not required by the criminal law in all cases. It has probably been 20 years since I took a criminal law class, but we need to look at motive. That motive needs to be proven. Even in the member's legislation, that motive will need to be proven.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Why? Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of the bill asks why. That is wonderful.

There are two things in a criminal offence that need to be proved: the actus reus, the criminal act, which is very easy to prove; and the mens rea, or the mental component. One needs to prove that the offender was going to do it, the motive behind it, for every crime in the Criminal Code. It is surprising to hear the Conservatives ask, “Why do we need to prove motive?” If we are legislating around the Criminal Code, we should know what elements are required to convict someone of that offence.

The requirement to prove specific motivation, which the existing mischief to religious property offence includes, would not remove the requirement to prove it as an aggravating factor in sentencing. After a conviction, the law already allows for what we are calling for in this place, that the penalty should be higher if someone is attacking places of religious worship or religious gathering. That is already in the Criminal Code, and members on the other side are pretending it does not exist. The power is already in the hands of judges.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

The member on the other side is heckling, Mr. Speaker. He is saying I am out of touch, but he has spent months spreading misinformation and disinformation, and he believes it. It is amazing when they believe their own supply. He is doing nothing but yelling one line. It is somewhat amusing that he has nothing of substance to say except to shoot me down. He knows that all they can do is spread disinformation and raise money, which is shameful. These communities already have enough fear, and now a political party stands up to spread misinformation and disinformation when every member of this House seeks to protect them.

The bill's goals are laudable, as I have said, but they will not do what the members are saying. The member is laughing. He thinks this is funny. He is going to go back to his constituents, raise money and continue that spread of disinformation. That is all he has. The Conservatives are sitting on the other side because Canadians can see through the act. They see through what the Conservative leader does, and that is all they have. There is nothing of substance, though I think the hon. member has brought this forward in a laudable, honourable way and wants to do better and to protect her constituents.

It is reasonable to stand up here and say the law does not necessarily do that, while the member laughs. The member thinks it is funny, and he will just go back to his riding and raise money off that as he tries to shout me down. This is shameful conduct by the Conservatives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Let us have a little order here.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Building Canada Strong Act

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill.

It is an unfortunate fact that Canada's economy is stagnating. There has been 0% growth reported for July 2026, with manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade pulling back in our country. Unemployment is above 6%, with youth unemployment more than double that. Projections for Canada's national economic performance are the worst in the OECD.

We know that Canada needs investment. We know inherently, and through data, statistics and analysis, that our economy requires investment as the foundation for growing gross domestic product, GDP. Unfortunately, in the last decade of the Liberal government, for every dollar of inward foreign direct investment, two dollars has exited. That is not the basis on which we grow our country. The reality is it is a significant contributor to Canada's productivity crisis.

In such dire circumstances, Canada remains a land of great promise. It is a country of strong people and communities. It is a country that possesses great resilience, which has never been more important than now. What we need most is a government that does not seek to determine what is best, does not seek to pick winners and losers in matters of business and industry, but rather facilitates the abilities and capacities of our great nation. There is much more that the government can do to unleash Canada's potential. All of this starts with recognizing that the first job of government is to facilitate, and to do that it must stay out of the way to the greatest extent possible.

Industry and business have been clear to the government that doing business in Canada has become too difficult and too hard to undertake. In particular, the first step in major economic projects is permits and approvals, which are too uncertain to justify the work required to obtain them.

It may be a fact some would like to ignore, but investment capital is mobile, and it will go where the opportunity is the best. Over the last 11 years, that has not been Canada. The first effort of the Liberal government to change directions from its prior 10 years of governance has been the Major Projects Office created under Bill C-5. Projects are not, however, getting approved. To date, there have been zero projects approved by the Major Projects Office, despite more than a year since the creation of this new bureaucracy. Everyone does remember the words, “speeds not seen in generations.” Those words were spoken by the Prime Minister, and they remain hollow today.

The path forward is a clear and unambiguous framework for project permitting and approvals that is transparent to all Canadians and allows businesses to plan and to build. Let me say here that I am not suggesting that our country cut corners. We need not sacrifice health and safety or environmental standards and practices in order to grow and develop our economy. As all members of the House know well, Canadian industry leads the world in many areas, including environmental practices, and we must continue to do so.

What we need are reasonable processes that are not in and of themselves the reason projects do not go forward. I think of the northern gateway pipeline project, a project that was very important to my home province of Alberta and indeed to our country as a whole. It was an $8-billion pipeline project that died 10 years ago due to a lack of support from the government. The proponent of that pipeline, Enbridge, spent in excess of $500 million on that project and lost that money. While the press conferences and announcements of today on this subject from the government have been much improved, the anti-business Liberal legacy is large and still overshadows our country.

We need to take politics out of the project approval process when our industry and its expert regulators are doing what they know how to do and what they are expert in. Political approvals are uncertain and a barrier to economic development. We need projects to benefit from a clear, transparent and predictable approval process, not just those projects the government likes. There needs to be a simple harmonization of existing regulations. The one-year time frame or target that has been put in place is not a complete answer to the uncertainty that is holding back our businesses. With the ability of the government to extend that statutory time frame, we end up in the same place, which is political process, political approval and political favouritism. This is not a basis on which we can go forward.

We need more than a process that is a workaround designed to avoid the impacts of bad legislation. We need to remove the bad legislation. We need to fix the foundation on which our economy is built, and that means repealing Bill C-69. We all remember the Impact Assessment Act, known in my part of Canada as the “no more pipelines” act. There is a need as well for a massive overhaul of the regulations that are stifling investment all across the approval framework. These small steps forward, as in this legislation, do not get us to the point we need to get to.

A problem with this legislation is that the year-long time frame only begins once a comprehensive application has been completed. It remains uncertain at what point that approval or that step in the process will be secured. Industry and business have been clear with the government that red tape, the regulatory burden of undertaking business in Canada, is a major barrier to doing business in our country. No reductions in the regulations, pre-approvals and studies required will improve the situation. There is no guarantee these changes are going to have success with business.

The pause on the timeline that the government could put in place is also a recurring problem, as there is no limit on this aspect of the approval process. Business needs to be assured that projects will move forward. We need certainty around timelines so that business has the ability to invest. The creation of zones of national interest is very similar to identifying projects as being in the national interest. Again, it is an uncertainty and a political process, and it is not going to be helpful in moving things forward.

Fundamentally, we need greater transportation infrastructure to support trade. Over the last year, I have served on the international trade committee and we have heard from businesses across all economic sectors that the need for improved transportation infrastructure is critical in Canada. It is going to be one of those things that we will not move forward without. While there are some indications that changes may be made, the bill does not go far enough in that respect. We have much more that we need to do with respect to this process.

An example of transportation missteps is the effort of the government to sell off interests in our airports. That alone, a simple transfer of ownership, like foreign direct investment that comes into Canada to purchase existing assets, does nothing in and of itself to increase business capital available for growth, expansion and development. That is yet another thought that makes me think more of a portfolio manager and less of a Prime Minister, in terms of the disposition of our leadership and the Liberal government.

Going forward, Canada needs an improved foundation for doing business. Conservatives would make those foundational changes and bring in legislation that makes an approval and permitting process clear and certain. I emphasize again that we need cut no corners. We simply need a clear process.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservatives, it is almost like a big, wet, blue blanket on anything. At the end of the day, I think they need to start thinking in terms of how it is that the government, over the last 18 months, has actually been building a stronger and healthier nation. We see that in terms of Toronto, where investors from around the world came in, half a trillion dollars. We can see that in terms of the major projects. There are 24-plus major projects, half a trillion dollars in terms of major projects, from every region of the country. All we hear from the Conservatives is all related to a wet blanket, quite frankly.

Does the member not recognize that Bill C-39 is a part of building—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question, or, really, the statement with a wee little question tucked on the end of it, really belies a fundamental philosophical difference between that side of the aisle and this side, that the government should be directing our economy and that no project should go forward without government approval, political approval and government investment.

I do not believe that projects that can be financed and undertaken by the private sector require government money. The private sector will build economic projects in our country. It will build prosperity in our country. What it needs, what we need and what Canada needs is for the government to get out of the way.