Mr. Speaker, I rise today to affirm a central New Democrat principle, which is that we must take real, meaningful action to confront hate in Canada without undermining the fundamental freedoms that define our democracy.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more than 40 civil society organizations raised a red flag with respect to the language in Bill C-9.
It said that the bill:
...could be used to criminalize peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression. Instead of meaningfully addressing these concerns, the truncated Committee process did very little to improve the bill and actually made the bill worse by removing the Criminal Code’s good-faith religious defense without putting anything adequate in its place.
New Democrats could not agree more. We understand both the urgency of addressing hate and the necessity of protecting civil liberties. Let me be clear. Hate is real. It is rising. It is harming communities across this country: racialized communities, indigenous people and members of the 2SLGBTQ2+IA community.
However, the legislation must be precise, effective and just. It must target the actual sources of harm, not cast a wide net that risks criminalizing legitimate expression and dissent. That is why we continue to have serious concerns with the bill before us.
In fact, the member for Nunavut, on behalf of the NDP, tabled amendments at committee to try to address some of those concerns, but all of those amendments failed. The NDP position, as articulated by her, remains the same.
She stated:
The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada.
She went on to say:
Yes, we need to combat hate, but we do not need to criminalize people speaking up, and we definitely do not need to keep them jailed for longer.
I am disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The Liberals' failure to include that aspect in this bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada.
We are in polarizing times, for many reasons. People are either for or against Palestine. They are either for or against Israel.
She continued:
Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized [but this] bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.
This is a profound critique and one we must take seriously. In fact, at committee, this important question was asked of the minister by the member for Nunavut.
She stated:
Wet'suwet'en land defenders were criminalized. Nunavut land defenders were on the verge of being criminalized. Why? It was because they were protesting government decisions.
She went on to say:
In about a week in 2024, between August 29 and September 8, Canadian police killed six first nations people. Racialized people in this country have a similar experience with law enforcement. This bill requires that Canadians trust that the police will know when an action is motivated by hate and when it is not.
Could the minister respond by sharing what safeguards protesters will have that ensure that law enforcement does not use these new powers to criminalize protesters?
No satisfactory answer was provided by the minister.
This is not just theoretical. Just yesterday, the CBC exposed the RCMP's “Native extremism program”, whereby dozens of first nations leaders were put under surveillance by the RCMP and labelled as extremists, based not on credible threats but on a sweeping, intrusive campaign that treated legitimate political advocacy for land rights, self-determination and fair treatment as something to be monitored, controlled and even disrupted, with jaw-dropping intelligence dossiers stuffed with documents, wiretaps, paid informants and covert operatives with code numbers. The operation aimed to divide movements, withdraw funding and interfere with organizing in violation of their right to freedom of association and political expression and privacy.
Let us be very clear. In a democracy, disagreement is not a threat; it is a necessity. Protest is not a crime; it is a right. Indigenous leaders fighting for their land rights for self-determination and fair treatment is not extremism. Bill C-9 would open the door wide for Canada's institutions to continue to engage in these nefarious operations. How can we be certain that those who dare to oppose the government's Bill C-5 on major projects, which has already trampled on the rights of indigenous people, would not be criminalized under Bill C-9?
As the member for Nunavut further noted:
New Democrats are concerned with vague language in this bill, because once broad definitions are on the books, they can easily be weaponized against groups.
She also noted:
On freedom of assembly...any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion.
Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democratic engagement. If legislation creates a chilling effect and if people begin to fear that speaking out could lead to criminal consequences, then we have fundamentally altered the nature of a public discourse. Canada already recognizes that free speech has limits. We recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. That threshold exists for a reason. Lowering it, as this bill proposes, risks capturing conduct that should remain protected. We must be cautious not to conflate offensive speech with criminal conduct.
New laws in Canada must protect communities without perpetrating or creating new injustices. Bill C-9 would create new criminal offences based on vague and subjective standards, particularly based on the idea of causing fear. Let us be honest about what that means in practice. It means police officers deciding in the moment what counts as fear. It means broad discretion. It means inconsistent enforcement.
In this country, we know exactly how that story goes. It is indigenous land defenders who are arrested and surveilled. We have seen, historically and recently, how activists have been monitored and movements disrupted by law enforcement. It is racialized communities that are overpoliced. It is activists and protesters who are treated as threats, not because the law says so explicitly but because vague laws are applied unevenly. This is not justice.
The member for Nunavut is correct to say, “This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.”
I should note that Canada is not starting from zero when it comes to addressing hate. As pointed out by the member for Nunavut, “There are existing laws that address hate, [and hate] is already an aggravating factor in sentencing.” In fact, the Criminal Code already contains robust provisions, including offences related to disturbing religious worship, mischief against religious property, criminal harassment, uttering threats and intimidation.
What, then, is this bill actually doing? The member for Nunavut rightly pointed out that the bill would increase maximum sentences to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment. Let me be very clear: There is no credible evidence, none, that longer sentences deter hate crimes. What reduces crime is prevention, stability and investment in community housing, mental health care, education and opportunity. Evidence-based policy requires us to ask whether these measures would actually reduce harm or simply expand the reach of the criminal justice system in ways that may be counterproductive.
I conclude by returning to where I began. New Democrats are committed to fighting hate unequivocally. We believe in protecting communities, confronting extremism and building a more inclusive society, but we also believe in getting this policy right. We believe that legislation must be targeted, evidence-based and consistent with the charter. It must address real threats like organized white nationalist violence and not cast overly broad nets that risk infringing on fundamental freedoms.
That is why, as noted by the member for Nunavut when she wore the NDP banner, “With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form.” That remains our position. The NDP will not support measures that compromise civil liberties, expand punitive approaches without evidence, or fail to address the root causes of hate. Canadians deserve better. The NDP will remain principled and firm on the issue, and we will oppose Bill C-9.
