No.
House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was hate.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act First reading of Bill C-286. The bill seeks to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act to allow physicians to prescribe psilocybin counselling to patients without requiring override approval from Health Canada bureaucrats. 300 words.
Combatting Hate Act Bill C-9. The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to combat hate, including creating new offenses for intimidation or obstruction at places of worship and adding the noose to the list of prohibited hate symbols. Supporters, primarily from the Liberal Party and Bloc Québécois, argue the bill provides essential protection against rising hate. Conversely, Conservative Party members oppose the legislation, arguing it endangers religious freedom and risks criminalizing good-faith expression while failing to address enforcement of existing laws. 29800 words, 4 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned Members debate a motion to end debate on Bill C-26, authorizing $1.7 billion for provinces to boost housing supply. Liberals argue the urgent funding is essential to stimulate construction, citing Ontario's success. Conservatives condemn the lack of study and oversight, characterizing the bill as a blank cheque that bypasses necessary parliamentary review. 4700 words, 30 minutes.
National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act Second reading of Bill S-201. The bill aims to establish a national framework for addressing sickle cell disease, including improved research, screening, and patient support. While MPs across party lines acknowledge the importance of the issue, concerns persist regarding federal interference in provincial health jurisdictions, the need for cost transparency and accountability, and ensuring genuine collaboration with provinces. The motion passed and was referred to committee. 6700 words, 1 hour.
Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26 Members debate Bill C-26, authorizing $1.7 billion for housing. The Bloc Québécois supports the legislation for respecting provincial jurisdiction despite their concerns about fiscal imbalance, while Liberals argue the funding is vital to boost housing supply. Amidst opposition frustration regarding the government’s frequent use of closure motions to bypass debate, the House votes to pass the bill. 8100 words, 2 hours.
Admissibility of Government Business No. 13 Claude DeBellefeuille and Elizabeth May argue that Government Business No. 13 creates an unprecedented, unfair, and undemocratic precedent by imposing a retroactive deadline for committee amendments, thereby hindering the opposition's ability to participate effectively. 500 words.
An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund Second reading of Bill C-26. The bill would authorize the Minister of Finance to provide over $1.7 billion to provinces and territories to increase housing supply. Liberal members argue these payments allow flexibility to lower development fees and accelerate construction. Conservative members criticize the lack of accountability and measurable outcomes for taxpayers. Bloc Québécois members support the unconditional transfers as respecting jurisdictions, while the NDP argues the bill fails to prioritize affordability and housing need. 15800 words, 2 hours.
Bill C-286 Controlled Drugs and Substances ActRoutine Proceedings
Karina Gould Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the finance committee, it is my honour to inform the House that after 25 hours of clause-by-clause consideration, I have deposited with the clerks the report for the House's consideration.
Bill C-286 Controlled Drugs and Substances ActRoutine Proceedings
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C‑9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), and of the amendment.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the big-hearted constituents in the caring riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C‑9, the Liberal bill to ban symbols of hate.
The bill is back here because the other place has amended the legislation to include a new symbol to the Liberal hit list. The Senate used to be called the chamber of sober second thought. Unfortunately, under the democratic reforms by Justin Trudeau, that chamber has come to resemble a critical studies faculty lounge. It is less sober second thought and more quick hot takes. While the Senate had sufficient sobriety to reject one amendment on so‑called denialism, the decision to include the symbol of a noose highlights a broader problem with the Liberal approach to combatting hate.
As I said during the debate at second reading, the rise in hate is real under the Liberals. The measures in this bill to protect places of worship and cultural centres and add penalties for obstructing or intimidating people from entering those places are a step forward. The removal of the safeguards around religious expression is vile. The criminalization of specific symbols would be less alarming if the Liberals were not the ones pursuing it. They have a long track record of engaging in bad‑faith attacks and outright fabrications when they see a chance to smear their political opponents.
I would encourage the Canadians watching this debate at home to listen to the powerful speeches given by the member for Terrebonne and the member for Hull—Aylmer. Both spoke of the legacy of lynching in the United States and how the noose became a symbol of terror and violence. They both cited specific, well‑documented historical facts about the history of the noose in the American context, yet when it came time to speak about Canada, the specificity stopped and they moved to speak in generalities.
I am in no way suggesting the members were engaged in a repeat of the outlandish claims made by the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre when she claimed crosses were burning on the lawns of Prince George residents. There have been at least three documented cases of nooses being left at workplaces since the summer of 2020 and the death of George Floyd. Prior to the summer of 2020, there had been only one documented case. All four incidents generated considerable media attention and widespread condemnation. In one of the three cases, a person was arrested and charged.
Hanging a noose on someone's workplace locker is unambiguously a death threat, regardless of ethnicity. If the intent was to foment hate, then the act is already a criminal offence. If this bill becomes law, the police and the Crown prosecutors will still need to prove that the display was intended to promote hate to lay a charge under this act, yet to hear the Liberals speak, one could easily be misinformed into believing that the simple act of displaying a noose is now a hate crime. Given the Liberals' own recent history of bad‑faith claims of noose sightings, this should concern Canadians.
During Justin Trudeau's 2021 superspreader election campaign, the Liberal war room found a pliable journalist to publish the Liberals' pathetic lie that I had depicted the prime minister being lynched. University professors wrote op-eds condemning the so‑called depiction of political violence, except it was a fake noose news story. There was no noose. It was a picture of Trudeau pulling on a thin red lanyard while mugging for the camera. Having had the recent experience of the Liberal Party of Canada lying about a noose and then having it reported by the Liberal‑funded media, I can speak from my own experience about how troubling it is for the Trudeau Senate to add something as vague as the word “noose” to the list of prohibited terror symbols.
This example of the Liberals seeking to ban the symbol of the noose so soon after engaging in a bad-faith attack on a political opponent by claiming a lanyard was actually a noose does not stand in isolation. During the “freedom convoy” and the protests, we saw the Liberals deploy this exact same technique. Some protesters had likened the public health restrictions to Nazi‑era policies. Some had even desecrated the Canadian flag with the Nazi hooked cross as a way of illustrating their point that the Liberals were acting like Nazis. When one of those protesters walked behind a Conservative MP doing an interview with the CBC, the Liberals pounced. They accused us of supporting Nazis. Trudeau literally accused a Jewish MP of standing with people who wave swastikas. The Liberals were more than happy to deploy misinformation and disinformation around the use of a hate symbol to score cheap political points. The CBC worked hand in glove with the government to push this fake narrative.
No one needs to agree with protesters' views comparing the Liberals to the Nazis, but if we want to keep our democracy, we have to protect the right to express those views. Instead, the Liberal‑funded media, in close coordination with the Liberal government, sought to discredit the protesters as hate‑mongers before a single truck had arrived in the city. Before my Liberal colleagues reach for their favourite talking point, I just want to remind them that the Liberal staffer emails to the media are all available online on the evidence page of the Public Order Emergency Commission website.
These two recent examples, the fake noose and the protesters who were labelled as Nazis for calling the Liberals authoritarian, are precisely why we cannot trust the government with this much power over expression. Even last night during debate, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas engaged in a bad-faith attack on my colleague for highlighting the different history between Canada and the U.S. That member provides an example of a type of affliction common to Liberals, what we might call the progressive man's burden. They see it as their moral duty to defend those they view as weak while educating the uncivilized among us.
If this bill was a one‑off viewed in isolation, a reasonable case could be made to support it. However, when placed in the broader context of decades of Liberal political strategy that sought to paint all Conservative opposition as motivated by hate and the Liberals' continued desire to construct an entirely new bureaucracy to monitor Canadians' digital expression, this bill looks like a dangerous expansion of authority. Layer that atop the Liberals' decision to support the separatist motion to eliminate the religious defence, and the expansion of state powers starts to look threatening to many Canadians.
I agree with my Liberal colleagues when they say hate has grown under the Liberal government. Before the Liberals were elected, there had not been a documented case of a noose in a workplace in decades. Now the Liberals claim it is so common the symbol must be banned. Between 2021 and 2023, there were 238 recorded arson attacks on churches. There are regular hate marches through Jewish neighbourhoods. Liberals even claim their own communities are hotbeds of hatred, where white supremacist rallies are held on a regular basis.
Ever since the Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights and restored voting rights to indigenous Canadians, which the Liberals had removed, this country had been on a steady march toward greater inclusion. That all changed in 2015. The decision by the Liberal government to abandon Canada's multicultural approach in favour of an imported American ideology of racial essentialism is at the root of the problem. When combined with out-of-control immigration and soft-on-bail policies, we see the inevitable result. We see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents hiring contract killers to shoot up synagogues. We see hate marches in our streets. We see places of worship burned to the ground.
Stubbornly, the Liberals still refuse to admit their mistakes on this file. They have admitted they were wrong about carbon taxes. They have admitted they were wrong about the need for tougher bail. They have admitted they were wrong about the need for adult supervision of our immigration system. What will it take for them to realize their approach to combatting hate has only created more hate?
The positive elements in this bill that would protect people attending religious places are completely undone by the decision to remove the religious speech defence. We have recent examples of Liberals spreading disinformation about fake nooses and Nazi supporters. They have cut off debate on this censorship bill. Now they want to create a new bureaucracy to monitor harmful content, yet they tell Canadians to trust the cabinet to determine what is and is not harmful. If Canadians did not even trust the Liberals with a majority, we definitely do not trust them with the power to decide what is and is not hate.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the way the Conservative Party of Canada is marginalizing something that has touched the lives of thousands over the years, in regard to the whole noose debate, is somewhat sad.
Let me give a specific example that the member might not be aware of but is the reality of the situation. Senator Bernard, out for a walk, was confronted in her home community by a group, particularly an individual, that was using the physical noose. Now, she is of Black heritage and someone who is very proud to be a Canadian.
I wonder what the member thinks about that sort of an incident. Does she believe that the noose is in fact used as a tool, at times, of extreme racist actions like what Senator Bernard had to physically go through? I would suggest the senator is not alone.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Yes, Madam Speaker, under the Liberals, and this hatred that they are promoting, I can believe that this incident happened, and it is unacceptable. However, given how the Liberals expand laws and try to encompass innocent people into law–breaking, they cannot be trusted with adding these symbols to the bill.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Madam Speaker, the bill would basically strip away the right of a person to quote from their holy text. It would open the door to criminalizing people for uttering words that they are reading from their holy text. I wonder if the member can share with us why the Liberal government did not consult with faith communities across the country to see what the impact would be of taking away these statutory rules that have been in place for so long now, that protect people and allow people to have freedom of speech and freedom of faith. There is a difference between state and faith. I wonder if the member could comment on that.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I can say that since the bill has been introduced, I have received more mail with reference to the bill and that particular amendment and the removal of religious freedom than for any other bill.
In fact, it almost comes to the level of the firearms registry back in the late 1990s, Bill C-68. There was such upheaval that it changed the course of the election in my riding, where lawful firearms owners felt that the legislation the Liberals were bringing in was unjust. They feel the same way about this.
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9, some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them. The goal is not to prevent individuals from worshipping in accordance with the religions they wish to follow.
There are two interpretive clauses that say pretty much the same thing. Here is the first one:
11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.
That includes people who make religious statements.
The second clarification uses more or less the same wording, but states the following at the end:
...if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.
Why are my Conservative colleagues not reassured by these interpretive clauses?
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, what is missing in the government is integrity. The Liberals have no integrity. We have seen in the past how they have misaligned—
Bill C-9 Combatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence is rising on the point of order.
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 18, all members of this House are honourable. I would ask the member opposite to retract that statement, saying that the members on this side of the House have no integrity.
Bill C-9 Combatting Hate ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
It is a standing order.
The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, on the point of order.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I apologize. It is the public who feel that the Liberals do not have enough integrity to be trusted with this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and to speak to the bill. I would like to start by providing a comment on both the question I posed to the member who just spoke and some of the discussion that was taking place late last night around midnight on the floor of the House. I will quote specifically Senator Bernard from comments she has made, because there has been a lot of talk on the floor about the issue of the noose. This is what she stated:
Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act. I will start by asking you to join me for a walk. You have just had dinner with your family. After dinner, you go for a walk alone in your neighbourhood. You are walking down the street at dusk, and a group of young men pass you in a pickup truck. They yell profanities at you and tell you to go back to Africa where you belong. You look at the vehicle as it drives away, and there is a noose hanging from the back of their pickup truck.
This, in part, is why we need to bring in the legislation that is before us today. I find it disrespectful when individuals in essence mock or try to belittle something as serious as the noose, because we do know that racism hurts. It hurts a great deal at times, physically and mentally.
For many years, from the beginning of my political career in 1988, I have had the opportunity to talk about a wide variety of issues. On one occasion when I was at a hotel, I was talking to a wonderful young lady from our Black heritage community, and an individual walked up to us and asked her how long she had been in Canada. The individual in question was somewhat offended, and understandably so, because if the person had understood Canadian heritage and our history, I am sure that person would have realized it was a silly question to ask. I suspect that if I had been standing beside someone from the European community, from a Caucasian community, who had just landed at the city of Winnipeg airport and walked into the hotel, it would not have been an issue. The question would not have been asked. I draw the contrast between Senator Bernard's account and an incident of this nature.
I believe at my core that Canada's greatest asset is our diversity. We should be looking at a way in which we can champion that. Canada should be showing the world just how important diversity is and how valuable it is to our society.
I believe that provincial Hansard from decades ago would show that I talked about how the best way to combat racism is to deal with it through education and that it needs to be incorporated into the curriculum of our schools. I have taken the issue very seriously virtually from day one, as Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the party, appointed me on the issues of tourism and ethnic diversity. I attended things such as Folklorama, where in my first year, I believe I went to 26 different pavilions, where I was able to be baptized in the many different cultures and heritages that make us who we are as a nation, at least in part. Our diversity is something we should all be very proud of.
However, there is an ugly side that is real, that is tangible and that hurts Canadians every day of the year. Whether the Conservatives may want to turn a blind eye to it or not in certain areas, the government will not do that. That is the reason we have Bill C‑9 before us. The Prime Minister has recognized it and made it a priority issue. It is a part of the series of crime bills we have brought forward, and we are looking for the Conservative Party to recognize the harm that is caused by hatred here in Canada.
The Conservative Party has an opportunity to get onside and support Canada's diversity, whether it is ethnic background, religious background or social behaviours. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in the environment in which they live. We should all take pride in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when we see racist action being taken, whether it is innocent or is intentionally done, we all have a responsibility to call it out. We are leaders of our community, and as such we need to take a stand on the issue, which is why I wanted to start my comments with that very important issue.
I appeal to my Conservative friends to take a look at the consequences of voting no on Bill C‑9, and this is where I will get into the religious component. There is so much misinformation spread through social media and through false information that is being talked about here on the floor of the House of Commons, and it needs to be dealt with. Opposition members need to be held accountable for the things they are actually doing and saying.
It is not very often that I take a quote from the Toronto Sun, but this is from Joseph Neuberger, who provided a story to the Toronto Sun that was published in January. He said, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” The article continues, and it is perfectly clear: “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust.” He goes on to say, and I appeal to people to listen to this aspect very carefully, that “Bill C‑9 does not weaken it.” That is the truth. That is the reality.
Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right element within the Conservative Party, has used this issue to whip up all sorts of anxiety and concerns that cannot be justified. Whether it is mosques, gurdwaras, temples or Christian churches of all forms, our faith community is intentionally being misled by Conservative propaganda, and I would like to give members some specific examples of that.
I have received a number of emails from the Conservative Party of Canada related to Bill C-9. This is from one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” That is shameful. It goes on: “These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be STOPPED at once.” If we go to the bottom of the email, it says, “Donate now.”
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the member from across the way asked, “What's wrong with that?” If he does not understand the challenge in terms of ethical behaviour that the current far right within the Conservative Party has today, it is a very serious issue to use to ask for, to raise, money.
There are other emails I have received, such as this one: “Kevin, for 10 years the Liberals have been trying to control what you can see and say.... C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures the government considers politically incorrect.” What a bunch of crap that is. I withdraw the word “crap”, but it is true.
Again, that came from the Conservatives. They pump out hundreds, if not thousands, of emails. Here is another one: “The Liberals and Bloc”, so the Bloc has been included on this one, “want to prosecute people for quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” If we go a little further down, the email asks people to add their name, so the Conservatives are actually mining. They go out and promote hatred. At the end of the day, they are trying to cash in on their promotion and are mining to get additional support.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I am honest. I am actually quoting Conservative emails, and I can say that there are a lot more emails with regard to Bill C-9.
With respect to what Bill C-9 actually would do, I provided a quote providing those assurances. It would deal with hatred in Canada in different ways. It would protect our institutions, whether they are community centres, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, temples, mosques and synagogues, from protests that are intimidating to people who want to be able to attend. It would protect us from hatred-driven or hatred-motivated offences, whether they are assaults or mentally related issues, if I can put it that way. Those are the types of things that are tangible and that the legislation would actually deal with.
The Prime Minister has said that we want to include Bill C-9 in a series of bills dealing with crime. We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do. It would be a fulfillment of an election platform that we made just last year when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. In fact, today, among the Liberal benches, there are 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, not to mention a new Prime Minister.
A series of actions has been taken to deal with crime. I will make quick reference to some of them, and I want to provide some additional thoughts on the hate file. I can say that every Liberal caucus member recognizes that, as a government, we want to do something to deal with hate, something of substance and a reflection of what members have been hearing from the constituents they represent. That is what is reflected in this bill. We also believe that it would meet any constitutional challenge and that it complements the Charter of Rights. These are the changes that we believe are in the best interests of the public.
If we contrast that to those in opposition to the bill, I would suggest we need to look at the motivation behind it, as I have already articulated, issues such as data mining, fundraising and catering to a far-right element of society. That seems to be their motivation, not what is in the public good or the best interests of Canadians. There is a responsibility of all members to be straightforward on some of the things being said in this House because of the anxiety and concerns being raised in our faith communities. Whether they are leaders in faith facilities or members of a congregation, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the types of things we are hearing talked about and preached about in synagogues, PAOC churches or other faith facilities.
There is very little tolerance in Canada for hatred and terrorism by the constituents we represent. I would ask members to reflect on that and for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning. They do not have to vote against this legislation. I have heard a lot of arguments from the Conservatives, many hours of argument, and I have done a lot of reading. Not one argument that has been presented, I believe, has any legitimacy or justification for voting against this legislation. It seems to be more of a self-serving argument as opposed to what is in the public best interest.
I referred to a series of legislation and I want to highlight them. We have Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, that we are debating today, Bill C-12, the new borders act and asylum issue, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform legislation, Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and highlights new legislation dealing with feminism and coercive action, and Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. There is a suite of crime and hate legislation that is real, tangible and would make our communities safer. That is what our constituents want.
My last appeal would be for members to look at those bills as a holistic package and get behind what the Government of Canada is doing to make our communities safer.
Correction to Official RecordPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
Ottawa South Ontario
Liberal
David McGuinty LiberalMinister of National Defence
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I mistakenly voted while paired this morning, so I would like to request unanimous consent to withdraw my vote on division 162, the motion to proceed to orders of the day, taken earlier this day.
Correction to Official RecordPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to correct the record?
Standing Committee on FinanceGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I wish to inform the House that pursuant to order made on Monday, June 15, the Standing Committee on Finance deposited with the Clerk of the House the third report of the committee.
The committee considered Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, and reported it with amendments.
