Debates of March 10th, 2026

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard in response to the Minister of Justice's comments, multiple times, that we should enforce the existing law. Enforcing the existing law is one thing; sending a message to police about what the House of Commons believes we should be doing about hate crimes and adding additional offences is another.

My questions are, one, does the minister have the power to tell the Toronto police, the Montreal police or any other municipal police in this country to enforce the law in the way that the minister intends them to enforce it? In other words, do they have to listen to him? Two, would the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada not be giving a very clear message to the police if we were to adopt the combatting hate act?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his extraordinary advocacy in the House on behalf of the Jewish community, including on Bill C-9.

A direct answer to his question is that it would obviously be an affront to the role that I hold in the House and in this country if I were to start calling up law enforcement and directing them to intervene on individual prosecutions. However, one thing that we can do to make the lives of law enforcement easier when it comes to enforcing the laws that are on the books is to listen to their recommendations and giving clarity on what the definition of hate should actually consist of.

Bill C-9 would take the common-law definition and codify it to give certainty to law enforcement as to when a hate crime exists, which would allow them to independently take action to enforce the law on the books.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9, as drafted, did not seek the removal of a 50-plus-year-old legal defence, nor did any witnesses called by the Liberal committee members speak on behalf of the Liberal Party to remove this long-held defence. In fact, no interventions by any Liberal committee members sought clarification on the removal of the defence.

We had moved to clause by clause, and we were progressing very well. In fact, there was more in common between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the terms of Bill C-9 than not, but approximately one week into clause-by-clause, all of a sudden a secret weekend backroom deal between the Minister of Justice and the Bloc Québécois took precedence.

Why did a political advantage mean more to the Liberal government than the will of the Canadian people and the faith leaders across this country who are adamantly opposed to the removal of this defence?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first let me address the revisionist history and the telling of the story we just sat through. When it comes to the first time the committee heard any testimony or any discussion about the proposed removal of the religious exemption, I know that member was in the room because the question was put to me. If he does not believe me, we thankfully now have video capabilities in the room, and he can see that, when the question was put to me, I said I would remain open to it but that I would leave it to the majority of the members of the committee.

When we sought to build partnerships with all parties to advance a path forward for this bill based on the points of common understanding and agreement that the member signalled, it was very clear that only one other party supported the essence of the bill, which is to combat hate and take a firmer line against hate crimes in this country. What is curious is that the Conservatives maintained the position that we should classify religious practices as something that could constitute the wilful promotion of hate but allow a legal defence on the basis that it is religious speech. Instead, we prefer to take the approach of saying that practising one's faith is never a hate crime to begin with, and that is a position I will stand firmly in defence of.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has tried to paint this picture of their listening to faith communities and making adjustments, but the objective reality is that not a single faith community or organization has changed in its opposition to the removal of the religious defence over the last four months. He cannot point to a single organization that has changed its position in response to this fake attempt to adjust this. In fact, over 350 different Muslim organizations have signed a letter underlining their continuing opposition to this. Christian leaders continue to be opposed to this. The Orthodox Jewish community continues to be opposed to what the government is doing in this regard.

Will the minister tell the truth about what he is hearing from stakeholders, namely that not a single faith organization has changed its position in response to this fake consultation?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting trick in debate that the member just used to hide the fact that there are supporters of this bill. There are religious communities that have supported this bill from inception, including the Jewish community. I find it curious that the member would only survey communities of faith that serve his argument in this moment.

I would say, with respect to the other communities of faith that I have personally engaged with, along with my team and my department, we did hear concerns, but from what we heard, we know that we can accommodate those concerns by building language into the law that would ensure that the practice of a person's faith would not be treated as a hate crime. We are willing to make that change. Part of the reason we are here is that, upon our efforts to do so at committee, we were met with continued Conservative obstruction.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister waxes eloquent about the bill and this motion, saying it is the best thing since sliced bread, that there is nothing to worry about and to trust in him. It reminds me of some words of a certain reptile in the The Jungle Book named Kaa, I believe. The minister says, “Just trust in us. Do not listen to all these religious organizations, all these churches, synagogues and mosques. Just trust in us.” Well, we do not trust in them at all. They have a track record.

Does the minister not recognize that there is such a contradiction between them saying they are promoting the protection of religious communities and, at the same time, removing the defence of religious expression, which was put in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau with Bill C-3, the original hate propaganda bill. Does the minister not recognize the concerns of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians across Canada, and recognize that we do not trust in them?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we know our opponents have lost confidence in their own argument when they resort to attacks based on the trustworthiness of their opponent in a debate.

If the member was actually listening to my responses to previous questions, he would know I said he should not trust any present or future or past government and that he should do an independent assessment of what the laws actually say.

We have been listening to those communities of faith. We have engaged with them and told them we are willing to actually make amendments to reflect the concerns they have, the precise amendments that the Conservatives were contemplating and thinking of putting forward. Upon realizing we were going to say yes, to agree to the amendments that we both heard from the same communities of faith, the Conservatives picked up their filibuster and demonstrated they are not interested in collaborating. They are not interested in allowing the bill to proceed, which is why we are here to advance the debate, so we can actually offer protections to the communities of faith that have justified our including this important law in our campaign platform during the last federal election. Canadians, including Canadian communities of faith, support it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the hon. minister on the matter before us right now, which is shutting down debate on Bill C-9, rather than the details within Bill C-9. I think the bill needs much more debate and discussion, which is why I hope the government will withdraw the attempt at closure on Bill C-9 before we have had an opportunity to discuss it properly.

I know the minister will say it was stuck at clause-by-clause. In this case, I will absolutely agree that the Conservatives were obstructing in the committee on Bill C-9. They have been so routinely accused of filibustering and obstructing when they have not that I feel it is worthwhile pointing out, in this one instance, that there has been an attempt to slow down Bill C-9.

I find much of the bill objectionable. Certainly, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, in its brief to the minister, has pointed out how the intimidation and disruption sections are overly broad and create a really large risk of discretionary enforcement by police that will leave people who are engaged in lawful exercise of their democratic rights and free speech on the wrong side of a law that is vague and discretionary.

I urge the minister to please reconsider and withdraw the motion under debate at the moment so we can have a full discussion and debate, which is what Parliament is for.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I have enormous respect for my colleague representing Saanich—Gulf Islands, who shares a history from my part of the world as well. I understand her concerns, first, about the limitation of debate, which is not normally the approach that I would like to take. However, when we see that important legislation is not being allowed to move forward with debate, when it is being obstructed and filibustered, as she has acknowledged, we have to take an opportunity to move it to the next step.

There will be additional opportunities to put this matter to a vote, not only in the House of Commons but, of course, for our colleagues in the Senate to consider the bill and to propose amendments as they see fit.

With respect to the substantive challenges she has raised, we have gone through efforts to ensure that the ability of Canadians to express themselves freely, to associate with one another, to take part in protests where they share information but do not promote hate, would be protected. My view is that we have done that job. If parliamentarians have an opportunity to put forward amendments, they should know that those would be considered in good faith.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to acknowledge today that by including the removal of the religious defence clause, his actions have actually sown more fear and division in Canadian society. This was a bill on which there was broad consensus when it was first brought forward. With the inclusion of the removal of the religious defence clause, he has diminished public support for the position he is taking.

Will he acknowledge that this amendment will cause more division and fear among religious communities, especially in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, which is one of the most faith-based ridings in all of Canada?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with my colleague's characterization that there was a broad base of support among different parties when the bill was first put forward. I would refer to the testimony at the justice committee when I personally appeared. At least two of the three Conservative members made very clear that they were looking for a reason to oppose the bill because they saw a political opportunity in doing so.

In addition, he has raised concern about the religious exemption. This was a change that came from other parties we worked with and that we were willing to accept because we did not think it would have the impact that they are now describing. We are willing to go a step further, reflect the feedback we have heard from communities of faith and amend the bill to make clear that the practice of one's faith will not be considered a crime in Canada. That is the position of the government.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #83

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion.

Consideration of Government Business No.6

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am Jewish and I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in Canada. I am disgusted by the Liberal government and how it pretends that the Jewish community wants Bill C-9 passed, which is nonsense. The Liberals are saying that while adding fuel to the fire of Jew hatred in Canada.

When the Prime Minister says on the campaign trail that he knows there is genocide in Gaza, he fuels Jew hatred. When Liberals engage in the greatest blood libel of the 21st century, that the Jewish state is using starvation as a weapon of war, they fuel Jew hatred. When they sanction Israel to stop the Gaza war for Hamas to survive, they encourage terrorists in the Middle East and here at home to keep up the jihad. When the Prime Minister recognized the Palestinian state, he rewarded the brutality of Hamas, and he did so on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that.

Why do the Liberals not call for the enforcement of existing laws? Masked thugs chant for intifada every Sunday at Sheppard and Bathurst. Did anyone say, “Stop. It is incitement to violence so arrest them”? When they march on residential streets frightening neighbours, did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Olivia Chow?” Did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Chief of Police Demkiw? It is mischief so arrest them”?

Please save your tweets and platitudes. Three synagogues were shot at last week in the city of Toronto. Bill C-9 would do nothing to stop that.

With respect to the bill, the Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do. That is intimidation and contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code.

However, do not listen to me. Listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone in the country and who was invited to testify at the justice committee by both me and the Liberals. He said, “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.” There is nothing new here.

With respect to the new hate-motivated offence, it already effectively exists through sentencing. If an offence is motivated by hate, that is an aggravating factor upon sentencing. However, the new hate-motivated offence in Bill C-9 would not just criminalize criminal conduct. It would also criminalize any hate offence that is tacked onto a civil offence, so non-criminal conduct could now become criminal. This is very dangerous, and the threshold to convict for hatred would be lowered from a good test established by the Supreme Court 40 years ago.

I am telling the Jewish community that Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect us. In fact, I believe that Bill C-9 would be weaponized against us.

However, this is what we can do to protect Canada's Jewish community. First, no one is talking about law enforcement. This is now beyond a local police problem. We need the RCMP in North York. We need the RCMP in Thornhill. We have RCMP units called integrated national security enforcement teams, which work with the CBSA and local police to counter terrorism. One needs to be empowered locally to protect the Jewish community.

Second, there are about 700 IRGC agents in Canada, and according to Global News, there are 450 members linked to Hamas. Why are the Liberals allowing this? Let us investigate these networks and expel these individuals from Canada.

Third is to put political pressure on mayors and police to stop the Jew hatred on our streets that is already criminal. Stop the calls for intifada, which is incitement to violence and is already illegal and criminalized in the U.K. End the intimidation of Jewish-owned businesses. Conservatives will defend the Jewish community, but Bill C-9 is a Trojan horse to limit free speech.

Shame on the Liberals for Bill C-9. Shame on the Liberals for using the Jewish community as a prop. Shame on you for this motion closing debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I remind the hon. member that I did not put forth any motion and that “shame on you” is not actually admissible.

The hon. secretary of state.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, that was a very interesting speech. I met with several synagogues over this last week, especially the ones that were affected by the shootings in Toronto, and the Toronto Islamic Centre, which has been threatened with a mass shooting similar to what we saw in New Zealand. These are horrific incidents of hate that we are seeing across our country. It seems like the member is saying, “Do something now, but do not do anything. Do not put this bill forward. We do not want tweets, yet pressure the mayors; therefore, just tweet.” It is a very contradictory type of message.

Without a law to stop hate, terrorism and symbols of hate in our communities, we need this piece of legislation. Do we not?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what the secretary of state is talking about. I was at the press conference at Shaarei Shomayim three days ago, next to the public safety minister, who was not able to say anything. With respect to concrete solutions, if the secretary of state had listened to my speech, I proposed three concrete solutions at the very least. Number one is to get the RCMP involved. We have a special unit within the RCMP to deal with this. It is now beyond local police. Number two, we have 700 IRGC-connected individuals in Canada, and maybe 450 individuals connected to Hamas according to Global News. How about we investigate those networks and expel those individuals? Number three, why do you not do something and call for law enforcement of existing laws?

It is illegal to call for incitement to violence. It is illegal to call for intifada, which is a violent revolt, and it is illegal to intimidate Jewish businesses. Do something about it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Can I remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair? I cannot do anything about it.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's passionate speech was about laws that are already on the books, and I think that is the comment that we have heard a lot from this side. We just heard the Minister of Justice speak about why he brought in closure. Everything he talked about is already a law on the books, so my question to my learned colleague is this: These laws are already on the books and we are seeing this hate grow in Canada year after year. In 10 years, hate crimes have grown by about 87%.

Why can we not ensure that the laws that are already on the books are enforced to tamp down this hatred of different religions?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually want to specify that, specifically with respect to the Jewish community, since the election of the Liberal government 10 years ago, hate crimes against the Jewish community have more than quadrupled. Shame on them for that. With respect to the specific question that the member is asking, I would like to clarify for the benefit of the House that this is not politics; this is law. We had Mark Sandler saying that the bill would do nothing new with respect to intimidation and obstruction. If someone intimidates me from entering a synagogue or an educational institution, that is intimidation contrary to section 423. If someone is obstructing my entrance physically, that is an assault. This is all common sense.

With respect to the hate-motivated offence, in sentencing, the hate-motivated offence is already factored in. If it is hate motivated, it will be caught in sentencing, but what the bill's hate-motivated offence would do is criminalize hatred with respect to any civil offence contrary to any act of Parliament. They would make non-criminal conduct criminal. This would be a huge error.