Debates of March 23rd, 2026

Combatting Hate Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has used that example in good faith, and that is one single interpretation.

The justice committee has heard from hundreds, if not thousands, of people and organizations that feel that the government is going down the wrong path and that it has steered away from what it intended to do in the legislation originally to get it passed in a way that they wanted and in the time frame that they wanted, with the Bloc Québécois. As a result of that, they have sowed division and fear such that I have never seen in Canadian society before.

Why? For what reason, might I ask, did they do this? It is for political expediency.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the only people who have anything to fear from Bill C‑9 are those who want to incite hatred—so they are already doing wrong—by hiding behind their religion, using passages from the Bible, the Torah or the Quran, for example. All the bill does is remove the religious exemption. Someone who is accused of inciting hatred would not be able to hide behind a text and say that they are simply quoting it.

The bill includes interpretation provisions stating that, if the speech is part of a sermon and it is only reproducing a text, no charges will be laid. It has to be proven that the aim was to wilfully promote hatred.

Why does my colleague object so strongly to what has been proposed in the bill so far?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say it has been great getting to know the member from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, and playing hockey and building bridges amongst the political parties. In good faith, I really have enjoyed getting to know him. However, we do fundamentally disagree on approaches to secularism in Canada.

I will note as well that my constituents are very concerned about the context of Bill C-9 and Bill 21 from the Quebec National Assembly going before the Supreme Court. My constituents, if they were to move to Quebec and ask to work as a school teacher, would not be permitted to wear a kirpan. That is not acceptable in my version of Canada.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from many members of Parliament today that they have received a lot of responses from a wide range of religious groups and leaders.

On the other hand, we keep hearing from the other side that people and religious leaders are being misled or are being fed misinformation, as if this is an insult or a put-down to these groups. Does my colleague want to comment on that? Is this a put-down or an insult?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are concerned right now.

The script reads like a movie. The Minister of Canadian Identity makes these comments before he is in cabinet. He erupts, people get angry all across Canada, and then the Prime Minister appoints him to cabinet. Then the Liberals make an agreement to amend Bill C-9.

Canadians are right to be concerned about the sneaky approach of the government as it relates to religious freedoms. The Liberals have been arguing throughout this debate that it would not make any difference if the provision were taken out of the Criminal Code. Then why do it in the first place?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since I took office, my office has not received more letters, emails, phone calls or petitions on any single issue than on Bill C-9. Every day, dozens of residents in my riding call my office about the bill, and if the Liberals were honest, they would admit they are hearing the same. These families, religious leaders and ordinary Canadians are not confused. They are not misinformed. They are, however, afraid. They are afraid that the bill would chill free speech, they are afraid that it would erode religious freedom, and they are afraid that their own government is no longer listening to them.

We have seen a strong, unified voice from religious leaders of all faiths, as well as from civil liberties groups from across Canada, condemning the overreach of the bill. Organizations such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Church of Canada, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, among dozens of others, have raised serious concerns. In December, 23 of these organizations issued a joint statement outlining their objections to Bill C-9.

Let us be clear about something. Hate is real, it is wrong and it must be confronted, but here is the truth this government does not want to admit: Hate has festered in this country on its watch, not because we lack laws but because it has failed to enforce the laws we already have. The Criminal Code of Canada already contains clear hate speech provisions in sections 318 and 320. These cover the public and wilful incitement of hatred and the advocacy of genocide against identifiable groups, and include specific provisions addressing the wilful promotion of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. Canada already has the legal tools to deal with hate speech. We already have the means to prosecute those who incite violence and promote hatred. This is not a failure of legislation; it is a failure of enforcement.

Since last year, we have seen this failure first-hand. A man in Toronto was charged with an array of offences, including advocating genocide. After an eight-month anti-Semitic crime spree, he was released on bail even though he was found with multiple loaded firearms. However, the Liberals in December voted down a motion 18 times to study their own Bill C-14, which would have addressed these issues around bail. Instead of fixing enforcement, the government is doing what it always does. It is layering on more laws, more bureaucracy and more confusion, all while pretending to take action. Bill C-9 would go far beyond what is necessary. In doing so, it would put at risk two of the most fundamental freedoms we have as Canadians: freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

One of the most concerning elements of the bill is the Liberal-Bloc amendment that would remove long-standing protections for religious speech. These protections are not loopholes. They are not technicalities. They are constitutional guardrails. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly recognized that this religious defence is necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional because of how fundamental freedom of expression and freedom of religion are in a free and democratic society.

Let me repeat that. These protections do not exist by accident, but because, without them, the law itself risks violating the charter and the fundamental rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. However, the government, working hand in hand with the Bloc, has chosen to strip them away.

Let me ask a simple question. If this was such a good idea, and if this is such necessary legislation, why did the Liberals not support it in 2023, when the Bloc Québécois introduced nearly identical legislation in Bill C-367? That bill also sought to remove sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b), the very provisions that protect Canadians expressing religious views in good faith, yet from that time, I cannot find a single record of a Liberal MP standing up to champion it. There was not one.

What changed? Did the Liberals suddenly discover principle, or are they now so desperate to pass something, anything, that they are willing to abandon their own cautions and push through a bill that would divide Canadians? Bill C-9 would do more than remove protections. It would lower the threshold for prosecution, it would introduce a new, vague definition of hate, it would remove the requirement for Attorney General consent before charges are laid, and it would eliminate the religious defence. Taken together, these changes would create uncertainty where we need clarity.

They would make it easier for individuals to be investigated, charged and prosecuted, not for inciting violence but for expressing views that others may find controversial. This concern is not hypothetical. We heard at committee from a former Liberal justice committee chair, who stated that there is “clear hatred” in parts of religious texts like the Bible and the Torah, specifically referencing books such as Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. He even doubled down and went further, saying these passages “should not be used [as] a defence” and that prosecutors should be able to proceed with charges.

Let us think about that for a moment: sacred texts held by millions of Canadians being cited as potential grounds for criminal prosecution. This is not a fringe concern. It is the natural consequence of vague and unclear legislation that will ultimately lead to a chilling of free speech and expression like we have seen in nations such as the United Kingdom.

The government says this bill will protect Canadians, but even the so-called safeguards it proposes are weak. The Liberals inserted language claiming the bill would not infringe on charter rights, yet when Conservatives proposed real, concrete protections, they rejected them. At the same time, they used procedural tactics to shut down debate. They cut off discussion. They limited scrutiny. In doing so, they shut out the voices of Canadians, including those most directly affected and concerned by this bill.

Conservatives offered a reasonable solution and a clear path forward: Split the bill and swiftly pass the uncontentious sections. However, the Liberals rejected this and took the easy way out, bundling the good with the bad and forcing it through, teaming up with the Bloc to undermine freedom of expression and religious freedom. The justice minister has also confirmed that the bill would apply to online content, which raises serious concerns about the direction Canada is heading. We have already seen attempts by the government to regulate online speech through legislation like the former online harms act. Now we see another step in that same direction, toward a system where Canadians may begin to self-censor out of fear. That is chilling, not because they intend harm but because they are unsure where the line is.

This bill is not about filling gaps in the law. It is about covering up failures: failures to enforce existing laws, failures to lead and failures to act when it actually matters. Instead of fixing these failures, the government is trying to mask them with sweeping new legislation that goes too far. Hate speech is wrong, but Canada already has the tools to deal with it. What we do not need is a law that risks punishing the very freedoms that define us. I will stand with the Canadians who have written to me. I will stand with faith communities across the country, and Conservatives will stand for the fundamental freedoms that Canadians expect us to defend. For those reasons, I cannot and I will not support Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, we just have this ongoing misinformation here in the House of Commons. The purpose of the combatting hate act is to protect vulnerable communities from what we are seeing on the ground in municipalities across the country, such as acts of growing anti-Semitism, intimidation and targeted harassment, and white supremacist rallies on the streets, with hate symbols and the enacting of acts of hate in public.

What organizations or individuals is the member opposite referring to who are advocating to commit hate crimes in the name of their religion? Who?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I appreciate the question from the member opposite, but such as it is, I do not know of any organizations that I affiliate with that are advocating for hate speech and trying hate speech. The religious organizations I have spoken to, including the United Church, the Catholic bishops and many other pastors and congregations in my riding are absolutely chilled. They are absolutely chilled by the prospect of where this can go, considering the history of the failure to execute by the government on so many different files.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives’ rhetoric. I also see it circulating on social media. The Conservatives are spreading misinformation about the Bloc’s position, and I find that quite unfortunate.

The only thing the Bloc wants is for it to be illegal to use religion to promote hatred. Ultimately, we want to prevent crime from being committed in the name of religion, crimes that could have catastrophic, even fatal, repercussions on the lives of innocent people.

Can the Conservatives respect the Bloc’s position, which was put forward in an amendment and which, at the end of the day, is simply common sense?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. It attempts to drive at some clarity as to motivation, but the Bloc is the sponsor of that amendment. It would have, and would continue to have, a chilling effect on these faith groups across the country. The government does not have a good record with respect to restraining itself from overreach as its ideologues and ideologies evolve through time according to the whims of the current polls. The current government will find the temptation irreversible to encroach upon the limits of the constitutionality of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of Christian groups. I am a Christian myself, and Christians across the country are concerned about this overreach, as the member just said. We have seen recent examples of government overreach as recently as four years ago, when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. I do not believe we can trust the current government with respect to restraining its authority, especially when a sitting minister says that biblical texts could possibly be implicated in this legislation.

I just would ask the member a simple question. We have the Bible here in its entirety for a reason. We believe in it. Does the member believe the Bible in its entirety or the interpretation by the current minister for Canadian heritage?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member from across the way, the Liberal heritage minister, that the Liberals would feel restrained in any way at all. This would simply embolden them to silence dissent, silence opinions that are opposed to theirs and further divide Canadian society. I appreciate the question from my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will actually say this as a practising Christian. When they quote one part of the Bible, particularly Leviticus, where they go back and say, “It is not good to commit adultery, but it is okay if it is your slave girl,” there are some sections pulled out by themselves that one would not regard as inspirational or as the word of God. Let me just get that out of the way.

The point of Bill C-9, which the hon. member for Bow River put so well and which I believe is the core of the problem, is the uncertainty it would create. That is why I am voting against it. We need certainty. If we are going to fight hate crimes, the Criminal Code already provides us with the tools.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the chilling impact of self-censoring goes directly to what the problem is with all of this. The entire population could be subject at different times to exactly that, and that is frightening.

Amendments to Bill C-8

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to raise a point of order respecting three amendments that were adopted in a committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

The three amendments include CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15. When these amendments were moved at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the chair ruled these three amendments out of order. The report respecting the bill was tabled in the House on March 11. I submit that the committee, in adopting these three amendments, exceeded the scope of the bill, which was determined by the second reading vote on October 3, 2025.

Page 649 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.74, sets the limitation of amendments moved in committee to a bill that is adopted after second reading. This limitation, which deals with the scope and principle of the bill, states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In each of the aforementioned three amendments, the chair of the committee ruled CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 inadmissible because they would be proposed concepts that go beyond the scope of the bill. The CPC challenged the ruling of the chair for each of these amendments. The Bloc supported overturning the decision of the chair, and these three amendments were adopted.

Now that the bill is back before the House, I would request that the Speaker review the bill as amended and decide whether the amendments proposed through CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 exceed the scope and the principle of Bill C-8. Should this be the case, I would request that the Speaker order that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House's consideration at report stage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I see two points of order. I have the hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury and then I will go to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like to reserve the privilege of responding to the parliamentary secretary's point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not think I have seen this before, so perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary, at some point later in debate, or the Speaker can answer the question I have.

Is it at all normal that we would have a point of order to review amendments after committee work has closed on Bill C-8 to ask if it is within scope? Those questions are usually taken up at the moment when the amendments are brought forward. The clerk of the committee and the chair of the committee judge whether the amendment proposed is within scope.

I know retroactivity seems to be a big thing these days, and we just passed Bill C-4, which came into effect 26 years ago, but I question the validity of this point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will wait for more information from other members who want to intervene. The chair will take this under advisement and report back to the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Combatting Hate Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the kind-hearted, loving people who cannot be censored from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-9, an act to fuel hate.

The Liberals claim that their motivation is to combat hate. The hate Canadians have witnessed in our streets is real. The Liberal commitment to fighting it is fake.

Canada was stitched together by people of different faiths, speaking different languages. We have been a country of diversity and inclusion ever since Sir John A. Macdonald began the decolonization of British North America. Our forebears did this with a single thread that ties us together: Every person is equal under the law.

That promise was not realized immediately for everyone, but over time, we strengthened our social fabric to protect everyone's right to be treated equally under the law. Hate became less common in Canada, and then 10 years ago, a radical ideology broke free from the confines of socialist echo chambers and spread across the Internet like a virus. This ideology has worn many labels, such as wokeness, cultural Marxism and American critical race theory. The most accurate description is illiberal progressivism. Really, it is just another form of socialism that devalues the individual and valorizes a social group.

This ideology demands that we treat people differently under the law, based on their race, gender or religion. Its adherents hijacked our culture's aversion to intolerance and declared that anyone who disagreed with the ideology was a racist and a hateful bigot. This cowed many progressive Liberals into silence. For the more ideologically free mercenaries in the Liberal Party, this was an opportunity.

They would fund this ideology to build an activist network they could harness and attack their political opponents with. They hired these activists to build ideological enforcement units throughout the public service. That is how we ended up with a lunatic and anti-Semite getting a federal contract to provide diversity training.

Now they are being hoisted on their own racist petard. They have lost the ability to condemn and call out regular hate marches through neighbourhoods where Jewish Canadians live. They claim this bill is intended to stop the hate marches. We already have the laws we need to do that.

Ontario's minister of justice wrote to the police and told them to enforce the law. The police responded by saying when they do, the Crown prosecutors drop the charges. The Crowns claim they cannot bring cases which do not have a reasonable chance of conviction. The reason they cannot get a judge to convict a masked thug marching with the Hamas flag is that the Liberals have spent 10 years appointing judges who are committed only to upholding the racial, socialist ideology that treats criminals as marginalized victims of a racist society.

The Liberals thought they could exploit the woke, but once they brought this ideology inside, it spread throughout their party. It has changed them. Under Chrétien and Martin, the Liberals were divided between red and blue, left and centre, and then Trudeau swept in and kicked out the old guard. The character of the Liberal Party changed. It adopted a pinko hue.

We need only look at the rhetoric of the Liberals over the last decade. Here are five quotes. The first is, “The opposition party has no plan other than to let the planet burn.” The second is, “Their only answer to climate change is to ignore it and to let the planet burn. This is immoral.” The third is, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” The fourth is, “They are going to let the planet burn, and they are going to force us to pay for it.” The fifth is, “They can enjoy their 10 hours in the car and let the planet burn.” Four of those quotes are from the mouths of Liberal members in the last Parliament. One is from a Batman movie.

It is not enough for the Liberals to say they disagree with our approach to lowering emissions globally by exporting more natural gas to replace coal. No. They have to paint us as supervillains from a comic book, bent on global destruction. If we check the official record, we will see they only started calling us evil, immoral supervillains once they brought a self-described “proud socialist” into their caucus.

This type of rhetoric has just one purpose: to spread hate against their political opponents. Now they want to team up with the separatists to further tear Canada apart by scaring people into silence. Removing the religious text exemption to the hate laws has just one purpose: to instill fear.

This narrow legal defence has never been used. It is not the obstacle to enforcing the hate laws. The only reason to remove it is to make it even easier for the radical socialists to attack and silence those Canadians they see as enemies standing in the way of their utopian fantasy. Rapists and hit men are walking out of court scot-free, but Liberals want preachers and rabbis to watch what they say. This is not some hypothetical concern.

Earlier, I spoke about how the Liberals used tax dollars to build an activist network. One group funded by this network is the anti-Canadian hate network. These activists mix reporting on dangerous neo-Nazi groups with reporting on a pro-life group in my riding. They do not even pretend to report on anything that is hate-related. Their last post targeting my constituents was about a board of directors' dispute.

This is a government-funded attempt to shut down the scope of debate. The goal is to expand the list of topics that are off limits for debate in a tolerant, small “l” liberal democracy. This is why they equate opposition to socialist climate policies with Holocaust denialism. This is why granola-crunching, Birkenstock-wearing, anti-vax hippies were rebranded as far right insurgents. This is why any criticism of the World Economic Forum gets one labelled an anti-Semite. This is why they will fine people $750,000 for not believing a man in a dress is actually a woman. That is why Bill C-9 now removes the religious text defence. The new race socialists cannot win the debate using facts or logic, so they seek to silence all opposition.

I mentioned two types of Liberals. There are those who are cowed into silently supporting an illiberal agenda, and then there are the ideologically free mercenaries. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Justice why hate crimes surged under the Liberal government. His only answer was to claim it was outrageous to hold a government accountable for its policies. As the minister who flip-flopped on spending time with his family when the polls improved, I think we can place him in the ideologically free camp. This is how he could cut a deal with the radical secularists who want an independent Quebec, free of anyone wearing a crucifix or a hijab. He is cutting this deal while asking the Supreme Court to kill Quebec's secularism law by editing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include an asterisk beside section 35.

He has twisted any principles he had into a pretzel to pass this bill, and for what? The bill duplicates existing law. It is already a criminal offence to disrupt or obstruct a religious service. Giving a concurrent sentence for a hate-motivated crime is literally just a virtue signal. Nobody will spend an extra day in prison. All that is left is to remove the very safeguards that make any hate speech law workable under the charter. By removing these safeguards, all it might take is an overzealous Crown attorney to bring a case so egregious that the entire hate speech law is deemed unconstitutional. This is not something anyone should want.

We want a robust culture of free speech and debate. We can draw the line at Klan burning rallies, tiki torch goose-stepping marches and Hamas rallies in Jewish communities. By taking away the safeguards which allow us to distinguish clear-cut cases of hate from overwrought claims by woke warriors, the Liberals risk our ability to make those distinctions. For them, it might not be a bug, but a feature. As long as it serves their political interest to equate any opposition to Liberal rule with hate, we will see more hate. As long as the per capita GDP declines and the government sends an explicit message that access to support or employment is determined by skin colour, we will see more hate.

The fact that the minister who broke our immigration system is now in charge of our justice system is scary. He turned our country into a tinderbox and now, with this bill, he wants to play with matches. He claims to care about social cohesion while passing a bill that acts like a solvent. He is pouring turpentine on the glue that holds the country together and the thread that binds us, which is that every Canadian is equal under the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, some days I do not even know where to start, given the string of conspiracy theories. I am learning so much about this whole other world that most of Canada and most of the world has no idea even exists. It is a whole other language that apparently people need to be plugged into the freedom convoy network to even understand. We have heard about activist networks, ideological enforcement units, radical socialist judges, pinko blue Liberals, utopian fantasies of rapists and hitmen and the World Economic Forum, with some anti-LGBTQ and anti-trans hate sprinkled in just for good measure.

Does the member actually care about freedom of expression or just freedom to do whatever she wants?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member across the aisle said there were anti-LGBQ things in the speech. I did not hear any such thing at all. I would like him to retract that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I think we are going into a matter of debate at this point. I will just ask all members to listen to the speaker who is about to take the floor.

I will go to the hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke for her response.

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

Mr. Speaker, that question illustrated my point. I have a point of view that the member disagrees with, so what does he do? He calls me out as a racist and somebody who is fomenting hate, alleging that we are the ones introducing all these different cultures into Canada.