Debates of March 23rd, 2026

Combatting Hate Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was here for my colleague's speech. It was surreal. The fact is, we were treated to some name calling and all sorts of veiled insults. My colleague across the aisle listed some of them. It was very entertaining.

The member talked about radical secularists, radical separatists and radical socialists. One would think we were listening to Donald Trump or one of his buffoons talking about one of his political opponents. Apparently, we are extremists simply because we speak out and we disagree with my colleague. First of all, I find it hard to take this seriously and to believe that the member's opinion and her speech have the Conservative Party's support. It makes no sense.

Which is more extreme? Is it the person who is so obsessed with their religious beliefs that they are incapable of seeing and interpreting any nuances or of explaining the subtleties of a bill with any discernment, or is it the people who critique the bill and want to debate it openly?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there again we heard from someone who does not agree with my seeing a certain bill as overly secular. Instead of just debating the point, the member equated me to the President of the United States.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, through this debate we have come to understand very clearly that we do not need more hate speech law. We already have mechanisms in place in Canada that protect us from hate speech. This is just a redundant matter that the Liberals keep bringing up over and over again. We do not need it. Whenever we say something the Liberals do not agree with, they go to their playbook and say we are misogynist, sexist, racist or homophobic. That seems to be their typical playbook.

Could the hon. member just explain very quickly, very concisely, why we are opposed to this bill?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the questions and the comments from the opposition clearly illustrate why we are opposed to this bill. People who disagree with what we say or our point of view want us to be accused of committing a hate crime. Just saying what we think, even though it is counter to what they think, does not necessarily mean it is an act of hate. We were here when the original hate law was put into place. We were very careful about how we constructed that. The problem is not with the definition of hate. The problem is the enforcement of what is already on the books.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a pastor in my riding named Al Stone, who is actually in Ottawa this week for the National Prayer Breakfast. Pastor Stone wrote a very heartfelt letter about Bill C-9. He said that in his decades in the church, he has never heard a preacher read from the books, even the ones that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said were hateful, and do so from a place of hate. They have done it from a place of love. However, the Liberal government does not respect that fundamental religious freedom or free expression.

The member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke has been in the House for a long time. When did this become such a crisis that no Liberals will stand up for free speech?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it began in 2015. As the woke agenda and everything else rolled out, it became extreme, so I would say 2016 is when it began.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of society and what kind of country do we want to be?

Is it one where the government has the power to decide what we can or cannot say, to decide what religious texts we can or cannot read and which opinions we can or cannot hear, or do we want to be a country where citizens are allowed to express themselves freely without fear of persecution or intimidation from the state, where citizens are allowed to voice their opinions, speak their truths and engage in robust political debate, and where we recognize that the price of free speech includes having to occasionally hear things that we disagree with, that are distasteful, that are repugnant and that at times may even contain hate?

That is the price of free speech, is it not? That is the price of denying government the power to regulate the words we speak and, I should say, that is the price of free speech in Canada today.

In years and generations past, the price paid to protect this fundamental freedom was much greater, measured not in courtrooms, in parliamentary committees or even on the floor of this House but measured on battlefields around the world by the blood spilled and lives lost to defend it. The question of whether to sacrifice some of our freedom to feel more secure and more comfortable is a question as old at least as western civilization itself, but it represents a false choice. Our security, our unity and our strength of spirit as a nation exist not in spite of our freedom but because of it, and attempts by some to erode that for the benefit and glee of others who would regulate, intimidate and control are misguided and wrong.

Over the last 10 years, Liberal governments have consistently introduced legislation that is part of a trend in our country, a trend of increasing the influence of those who would wield the wand of censorship and empowering those who seek to control what we think by controlling what we can see and discuss online. It is a trend of consistently undermining the free expression of individual Canadians and attempting to stifle and socially engineer public debate, whether it was with the former Liberal Bill C-11, which decided the government, in its infinite wisdom, should have the power to manipulate the algorithms and the search results of YouTube, Facebook and other social media companies and thereby influence the information that we see and consume, or the former Bill C-63, which attempted to further criminalize and regulate speech.

Now we have before the House Liberal Bill C-9, a bill that, as originally presented, would have watered down the definition of hate speech and removed important guardrails to reckless and politically motivated prosecutions. It is a bill that, at its very core, would make it easier for the government and any future government to prosecute and jail Canadians based not on their actions but on their words, and make it easier for individuals in positions of authority to wield that power as a tool of intimidation to scare those with minority or unpopular views to seek the safety of self-censorship or else risk the wrath of the almighty state.

While at committee, thanks to the determination and perseverance of a handful of Conservative MPs, we were able to remove many of the most dangerous and shameful elements from the legislation. Another new alarming amendment was added. In a deal struck between the Liberals and separatist Bloc Québécois, it was agreed to remove a provision from the existing Criminal Code that prevented the prosecution of Canadians for expressing in good faith the beliefs or words of ancient religious texts, opening the door to politically motivated prosecutions on the basis of religious expression and belief, and in so doing compromising not one but two of Canadians' fundamental charter rights.

To think that in a country where free speech and freedom of religion serve as two of the foundational principles and values, the bedrock on which this nation is built, a government would seek to criminalize the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and to criminalize the reading of certain religious texts just seems so outrageous, so absurd and so fundamentally un-Canadian.

This is not an exaggeration. The Liberal chair of the justice committee at the time literally singled out specific passages from both the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah, declaring them hateful in the context of further criminalizing religious speech. Beyond the obvious issues with infringing on the charter rights of Canadians, there is another issue. It is that this bill ignores, deflects and distracts from the very real and the very same challenges in Canada today that it purports to address.

There is an issue in this country with some trying to hide behind the charter right of free expression to genuinely incite violence, but that is already illegal. There is an issue in our country with some attempting to intimidate and obstruct those seeking to practice and exercise their faith, but that too is already illegal. There is an issue in this country of repeat violent offenders assaulting or otherwise harming those for little or no apparent reason, some of which is undoubtedly motivated by hate.

The government's response has been to repeatedly weaken Canada's justice system over the past 10 years and to refuse to aggressively pursue those guilty of breaking Canada's existing laws today, focusing not on those causing immeasurable physical harm in our cities and our streets, but on redirecting finite police resources to chase down ill-defined crimes of speech and on redeploying officers from our communities and towns to Internet message boards, Facebook posts and tweets.

In the last 10 years, under the Liberal government, violent crime in Canada has increased by 50%. Homicides are up by 27%, and more than a third of these murders have been committed by known offenders on some sort of judicial release. This is the direct result of Liberal bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which have made our communities increasingly less safe by prioritizing the release of violent offenders and by weakening sentences for serious crimes.

If the Liberal government actually cares about the safety and security of Canadians, it should start by fixing the problem it helped create, not by targeting the fundamental charter rights of Canadians, not by making it easier to prosecute speech and not by going after those for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for those that might be following the debate to at least be aware of the fact that we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom. Every member of the chamber is very familiar with that. At the end of the day, when I look at motivation, I question why the Conservative Party continues to promote fear amongst those who attend or participate in whatever way in our faith communities. It all boils down to the self-serving Conservative Party. That is the opposition. That is the reason why the party sends out thousands of emails requesting money and donations and asking to build a databank.

Could the member be straightforward and indicate why the Conservatives are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know it might be hard for my hon. colleague across the way to understand this, but those of us on this side have deeply committed beliefs when it comes to charter rights, free speech and free expression. We are not making a political calculation. This comes down to a simple question: Do we want to live in a country where the government has the right to decide what we can or cannot say, or do we want to live in a country that, despite the fact that people might say things that we disagree with or find disgusting or even hateful, we still defend to the death the right of those individuals to say it?

I know the type of country I want to live in. I wish my colleague across the way wanted to live in the same.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for my colleague is this. Do we want to live in a country where people can incite hatred and use religious text as an excuse to get off scot-free?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, further to the point that I just made, the choice is a simple one. As soon as we start placing these restrictions on free speech and free expression, the question becomes who gets to define where the limits are. Where do we draw the line on what we can or cannot say?

The bill proposes that it is the government that would have the right to look over its citizenry and decide how we are allowed to freely express ourselves. I believe that is a God-given right that rests with every single Canadian, and no government should have the right to control the words that come out of our mouths.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for that excellent speech and for reminding us all that free speech is something we need to protect. Members on this side of the House do not believe it is a political talking point. These are deeply, truly held beliefs on this side of the House.

Could my colleague explain, in very simple terms for those who are watching this today, why the Conservatives want to repeal the bill or to stop it from happening?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply because Conservatives on this side of the House believe in free speech. We believe in free expression, and we believe in freedom of religion. These are the foundational values and principles on which our entire country, the entirety of western civilization, was based upon. Once we start ceding that authority to government, we allow government to control what we can or cannot say.

Who gets to draw the line? Who gets to decide what is or is not permitted or is not hateful? That is not the foundation of a free country. That is a slippery slope to a tyrannical regime.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I was not expecting to participate in this debate today, but I think it is essential. In my life, I have been a victim of hatred because of unchecked speech. I have been subjected to rape, I have been subjected to physical harm, I have been subjected to all sorts of things.

Freedom of speech does not mean anyone can say whatever they want. It is important that we establish standards and set boundaries. This has nothing to do with faith. I would really like to understand what my colleague would do in a situation like mine. We need measures in place to protect Canadians. I am an example, and there may be women among the Conservatives who have gone through this.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years, we have seen violent crime on our streets increase dramatically under the Liberal government. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it is not a surge in speech crimes that needs to be dealt with. It is the fact that the government keeps releasing repeat violent offenders back onto our streets over and over again, such as those who assault people and commit all sorts of other serious crimes. One-third of murders committed are by people on release. This is a distraction, and it undermines a foundational constitutional principle.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Industry; the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Oxford, The Economy.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-9 and, more particularly, to the deeply concerning and controversial Liberal-Bloc amendment that would remove the long-standing good-faith religious defence. This amendment would restrict freedom of expression and freedom of religion in Canada. My opposition to this legislation is not rooted in just my interpretation of this legislation; my concern is shared widely and consistently by faith communities right across the country.

I want to expand on this point just for a moment because I have sat in the House for almost a year, and it is extremely frustrating when the members opposite claim misinformation when Canadians are pushing back against the policy decisions of the government. When we are doing exactly what we were elected to do, they accuse us of being negative or of talking down Canadians. However, the truth is that Conservatives are the only ones standing up for Canadians on this issue and on many others that are concerning to them.

The opposition to this amendment is coming from a wide range of religious organizations that are united on this issue. When that happens, all members should feel a deep sense of responsibility to listen to them. I would suggest that the Liberals, even if they do not want to listen to us, should pay attention to the fact that, while different faith communities do not agree on many things, they are united on this issue. In addition, I would like to point out that the Liberals would likely be more aware of these deep concerns if they had taken the time to consult with different faith communities on this amendment, but they did not. They did not call one witness to speak to it.

Ever since this amendment was introduced at committee, I have received an incredible volume of responses to this issue, including hundreds of signatures on petitions and numerous emails, phone calls and personal messages. Faith leaders are reaching out to their congregants, advising them of the seriousness of this legislation and educating them about the potential consequences.

I want to take this opportunity to read a couple of the messages that have been sent to my office on this legislation.

One person wrote, “I am writing to formally and unequivocally oppose Bill C-9, the so-called anti-hate legislation.

“Bill C-9 infringes on free expression and free speech, which are foundational rights in democratic society. The bill introduces vague and subjective standards that chill lawful speech, empower government overreach, and risk punishing Canadians for opinions, criticism, or debate that fall outside politically approved boundaries.

“Hate crimes are already illegal and under existing law. Bill C-9 does not close the gap. It expands state power into speech regulation, lowers threshold for punishment, and invites abuse through interpretation rather than clear, objective harm.

“Free speech does not exist to protect popular or uncomfortable opinions. It exists precisely to protect speech that is controversial, dissenting or critical of those in power. Bill C-9 moves Canada in the opposite direction.

“ I expect my Member of Parliament to reject Bill C-9 in its entirety and to defend the Charter rights of Canadians rather than erode them....

“Bill C-9 should be withdrawn.”

Here is another one: “I urge you to please vote ‘NO’ to the upcoming Bill C-9. I am very skeptical of the current government's understanding and definition of ‘hatred’ and ‘hate speech’. It is my sincerest fear that this bill will allow law-abiding citizens to be charged with ‘hate crimes’ for sharing or voicing unpopular beliefs or convictions on social and political issues. This has happened in other supposedly democratic and ‘free’ Western countries.

“This censorship is not democratic and endangers our country's constitutionally guaranteed freedom of belief and expression. As a duly elected representative, I ask you to please vote against Bill C-9. Furthermore, I urge the other six Newfoundland and Labrador representatives, regardless of their political affiliation, to also vote NO to this harmful legislation.”

These are messages from people who are genuinely concerned about the direction of this legislation, and there are many more.

I have heard from constituents not just from my riding, but also from Canadians living in Portugal Cove; Mount Pearl; North West River, Labrador; Flat Bay; Conception Bay South and St. John's. They are people who feel that their voices are not being reflected by the government that represents them. Instead of listening, the government has done the opposite. It has used procedural tactics to shut down debate on this bill, cutting off discussion and shutting out the voices of countless Canadians, particularly Canadians of faith who have been writing and calling members of Parliament, urging us to reject Bill C-9. The government should be listening on this issue.

This is not about defending hate. Calls to incite violence or hatred are already illegal in Canada, and they should be. Nothing in the existing religious defence protects that kind of conduct. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the religious defence plays an essential role in keeping our hate speech laws constitutional because of how fundamental freedom of expression and freedom of religion are in our system.

I also want to point out something that Canadians have consistently reminded me of, and it points to why they are so untrusting of the Liberal government when it comes to their faith. They talk about how the government imposed a values test on the Canada summer jobs program, requiring faith-based organizations to attest to positions that conflicted with their deeply held beliefs in order to access funding. They bring up discussions about removing charitable status from organizations engaged in the advancement of religion. They feel that there has been an attack on their faith by the Liberal government. When the government members now say to trust them, that this is not going to compromise Canadians' freedom of expression or of religion, they do not trust them.

Conservatives proposed a reasonable path forward. We offered to split the bill, to pass the uncontentious provisions quickly, while allowing proper study and debate on the more controversial elements. The government rejected that proposal. Instead, Liberals chose to move forward with the full bill rather than take the time to get it right. They also introduced language claiming that the bill would not infringe on freedom of expression or religion, but that language offers no real protection. When Conservatives proposed stronger safeguards to protect charter rights, those efforts were rejected.

I want to reiterate something I mentioned earlier. This is not the Conservatives incorrectly interpreting the legislation or opposing just for the sake of opposing. I want to take a minute to reiterate some of the groups that have been vocal about opposing the legislation, and this is not an exhaustive list: the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. This is a cross-section of Canadian society, yet despite all of this, the government continues to double down and push forward.

Conservatives want to know why the government is not pulling back in the face of this opposition. Why continue down this path after hearing from Canadians right across the country, including in their own ridings? Why shut down debate instead of allowing it? Why not spend time conducting meaningful consultation on the amendment instead of shutting it down?

Before I close, I want to point out that there are several faith leaders and people of faith right here in Ottawa for the National Prayer Breakfast. They have taken their time and their resources to be here to pray for our nation. The government should respect their widely held concerns and walk back on the legislation. If Canadians have concerns, the government should listen.

I would also like to point out that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, our faith groups provide services to single moms. They give children Christmas when their families cannot afford it. They run the food banks. They feed the seniors. They are an extremely important part of our communities.

I would like to reiterate the words of my pastor, who said that we, as a faith community, have helped our government in helping society as a whole. From our single moms group and support for those battling addictions to aid for medical emergencies and the children and youth ministry, the church helps to close the gap for those in need. Our government should respect the work of the church and try not to hinder it by removing this protection.

As a person of faith myself, this is extremely important to me. The government is pushing back on an amendment that compromises our beliefs and our teachings. Governments have no place to tell Canadians what they should or should not believe. This is precisely why the amendment raises such concern. Even the perception of legal risk creates a chilling effect. Over time it erodes the freedom that defines us.

In closing, I urge the House to listen to Canadians, restore the good-faith religious defence and protect Canadians, so we do not undermine the freedom that unites us.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the record, the bill was introduced over six months ago. It spent over 33 hours of debate in committee. The Conservatives have just engaged, in that entire time, in a countrywide campaign of misinformation and grift. At its core, the bill codifies the definition of hatred as extreme detestation or vilification, and a hate crime as a public incitement of hate or hate against an identifiable group. This would clarify the law. It would provide clearer tools for law enforcement, so my question to the member opposite is this: What religious organization, what faith, is advocating for hate crimes on behalf of their members?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will note that there was a word in there that would be considered unparliamentary, so I will just ask the member not to do that again.

The hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of comments. I was following the legislation very closely, and there are just a couple of things. When the amendment was passed, they did not consult with any faith groups or faith organizations. They did not call one witness. In addition, I will add that, if the member was listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that there are already laws in place. This is not scripture wrapped up after inciting violence. That is already illegal in this country, so his comments are not relevant.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the start of this debate, I have been wondering whether there are any concrete examples of religious discourse by a pastor, a minister or a rabbi, or any texts or contexts that might cause issues.

For example, I recall a Conservative MP questioning me about a previous Bloc proposal to remove this religious exemption. He told me that his pastor would no longer be allowed to speak out against homosexuals. Does his pastor call for members of the LGBTQ community to be murdered? If so, he should find another pastor.

I would like to know whether my colleague has examples like that. It might shed some light on the hateful remarks made by pastors, imams and rabbis that would require us to maintain legal protection so that they can continue to spread hateful content. Otherwise, I do not understand why the Conservatives would oppose removing the religious exemption.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, several religious faith-based organizations have spoken out about this piece of legislation. Inciting violence is already illegal, and faith teachings are spoken in love, not hatred. His question is precisely the reason the legislation needs to be walked back. It is because it can be taken out of context and people of faith understand that when pastors and teachers are speaking about scripture, they are speaking about it in love, not in hatred, which is already illegal in this country.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I often hear Liberals in this House and across the country say that there should be separation of church and state, and that is their argument for this terrible bill. I am wondering if the member for Long Range Mountains could expand on that and how she feels there should be separation of church and state.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are pushing against the legislation. It is because there is a respect for this perspective about separation of church and state, and in this case, the government would be infringing on religious freedoms, which is actually our attempt to protect the church. The government is coming over into our lane and religious organizations are pushing back as a result, so we are actually respecting the separation of church and state.