Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
To put it bluntly, I am not convinced that this legislation, Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places, is necessary. I find it strange therefore that after months of making other legislation a priority, the government now wants to make this a priority.
Given the track record of the Liberal administration, I am also not convinced that this bill will change anything. The reason I say this is that we already have laws on hate crimes in Canada designed to protect vulnerable communities and people. The laws are clear. The crime is well defined. What is lacking is the political will to ensure that the laws are properly enforced. New legislation is just meaningless words without enforcement.
According to the Criminal Code, “Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
The code defines “genocide” as:
acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
An identifiable group means “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.” That seems pretty clear to me.
It also says:
Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
That is also clear. Additionally, it says:
Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The laws are already there. What we have not seen recently is a willingness by police to lay charges, perhaps because there is no political will to enforce Canadian law against certain vocal groups. This selective enforcement has made things worse, not better, as some groups feel the law does not apply to their statements or their actions.
The Criminal Code also goes beyond the condemnation of general expressions of hateful speech to take aim at one of the biggest problems facing Canadian society, which is anti-Semitism. The Criminal Code reads:
Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
It is already there, but the government has chosen not to enforce the law of the land. Why does the Liberal Party believe things will change by adding another law that it probably has no intention of enforcing? Do we not have more important things to do than waste our time with virtue signalling?
Our current laws include a number of exemptions to the hate crime provisions. According to the Criminal Code, “No person shall be convicted of an offence”:
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
These have long been seen as reasonable exemptions. The Supreme Court recognized this defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional, understanding how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are.
When it was introduced, Bill C-9 had a similar provision for the display of hate symbols. It allowed that “No person shall be convicted of an offence":
(a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, religion, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or
(b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
In an unnecessary piece of legislation that duplicated what can already be found in the Criminal Code, at least there was the understanding that sometimes there can be legitimate disagreement as to just what is hateful, but now the government, in a shameful attempt at gaining the votes it needs to pass this deeply flawed bill, is willing to throw out the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom in public discussion in order to pass bad legislation. If the government has no intention of actually enforcing this anti-hate bill any more than it does the existing Criminal Code provisions, it may not matter, except that any assault on freedom of religion matters. We should not be casually doing away with constitutionally protected freedoms, especially not for political expediency.
The constituents of Edmonton Manning are opposed to this legislation and opposed to removing the religious defence from the hate crime section of the Criminal Code. When I spoke on this bill previously, I noted that the question we need to ask ourselves in the House is, how can we best respond to hatred? Legislation such as Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, may provide a Criminal Code framework for punishment, but is punishing people for their ideas and beliefs going to change those beliefs?
We have a responsibility to protect Canadians, especially vulnerable Canadians, from being harassed by those whose motivation is hate. It is our responsibility to find a balance between free speech and individual rights. Members should ask themselves if this bill does that.
This legislation will not make Canadians safer. It will certainly not protect anyone from hate, least among them people of faith. Rather than wasting time on this flawed bill, the government should enforce the anti-hate legislation already on the books. That is something the people of Canada would support.