Ziad Aboultaif

[Combatting Hate Act, October 1st, 2025]

Madam Speaker, the member and I disagree on this point quite a bit, because I think the government is trying to show that it is serious about the issue, but the Liberals have been dragging their feet for 10 years in dealing seriously with crimes taking place in Canada. That is the addressing that we need to look at. The government has always been virtue signalling and has been very symbolic on everything, but when it comes to action, its rate is zero.

[Combatting Hate Act, October 1st, 2025]

Madam Speaker, let us remind one another that the government weakened the Criminal Code a lot when it introduced Bill C-75 in 2016-17. The government did that so badly that we see crime rates and hate rates on the rise in Canada. We seem to be out of control on how to fight crime and make sure we protect Canadians. That is why the bill before us is empty except for a definition, and a definition does not solve problems.

[Combatting Hate Act, October 1st, 2025]

Madam Speaker, the bill is a matter of changing a definition, and nothing but. There is nothing concrete in the bill that would ensure Canadians the protection that the member is suggesting.

We are standing on where Canadians can be protected, regardless of their race, religion, colour, sexual orientation or anything else, but the bill would not do what the hon. member thinks it would do.

[Combatting Hate Act, October 1st, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

Our society has changed in recent years. Change can be a good thing. None of us wants to return to a past before we had things like refrigeration and modern medicine, although I suppose there are many who wish we could return to a past without social media. I can certainly sympathize with that. It seems that as a nation, as a people, as humans, we have become much more fractured than in the past, and many of our divisions are fuelled by what we read and hear online.

I do not know if Canadians today are more hateful than in the past, but it does seem that more anger and hatred are being expressed against specific groups in our society. This is a serious issue that merits serious consideration.

I think every member of this House will want to speak to this bill, and some to share personal stories of their experiences with hatred in our society. There is probably not a member of an ethnic, religious, racial or sexual minority who has not at some point had to deal with irrational prejudices that threaten to expand into hatred or violence.

The question we need to ask ourselves in this House is how we can 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?

At the same time, 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. We need to ask ourselves if this bill would do that.

For years, the question of what constitutes hatred has been a matter of personal interpretation. The line between what is acceptable and unacceptable has not been codified in law, which perhaps has made any enforcement of hate legislation difficult. Hate has always been a matter of interpretation.

At least we have a definition now:

hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike;

I am not sure how helpful that will be when it comes to practical application.

Members have probably heard people say, “I am not an expert, but I know good art when I see it.” That is not a definition of art; it is a subjective statement. That, it seems to me, is also the problem with defining hate and one of the problems with this bill. Who decides what is “detestation or vilification?”

Bill C-9 does set out who is protected by this legislation. Hatred would be prohibited when based on the following:

race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity

Human nature cannot be changed by legislation. Irrational hatred, because of its irrationality, would not be eliminated by passing legislation against hate crimes. Making something an offence would not change the feelings of those fuelled by hatred. However, what we can do as parliamentarians is show society's displeasure when hateful thoughts are put into action.

Murderous thoughts about the driver who cuts someone off on their morning commute would not land someone in jail. Murder will. It is actions that are the subject of Bill C-9, not a person's private thoughts.

There is a fine line to be drawn between the right to protest and interference with others. I expect we will hear a lot of debate about the idea of intimidation that is brought forth in this legislation. In theory, protecting those lawfully using a school, a place of worship or any other location is a good thing. Sometimes, however, those places could be considered legitimate targets for protest. If this bill passes, it will be challenging for police and the courts to balance the rights of all involved.

Hate remains an ongoing problem in Canadian society. It is not something government can eliminate, though we have certainly tried. We have had government reports on supporting victims of hate crimes. We have had statistics telling us who has been targeted by hate in Canada. We have Canada's action plan on combatting hate. We have Canada's anti-racism strategy. The RCMP has the national hate crimes task force. However, hate is still with us.

In 2024, the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime released a special report entitled “Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime in Canada”. It noted many of the problems we face in combatting hatred in our country. In 2023, there was a 32% increase in the number of hate crimes reported to police over the previous years. Those numbers are on the rise.

This is not a uniquely Canadian problem. Societies the world over are seeing increased polarization. Minority groups are being demonized for political gain. Violence is increasing. Social media is being used to fuel the fires of hatred. The ombudsman called for the federal government to step forward to provide a legal definition of a hate crime and to enact legislation.

This bill is in response to that. Definitions and laws are, in many ways, just words on paper. They do not convey the human element, the understanding of what hatred does to those who are targets of hate crimes. It is those people and their experiences that bring us to our discussion today.

The combatting hate act is not going to change anyone's mind. It is not going to miraculously convince all Canadians that they should love their neighbours. We, therefore, need to ensure that all Canadians are not being subjected to hate merely because of who they are or what they believe. No Canadians should be expected to live in fear for their lives or livelihood because of race or gender.

No Canadian should be prevented from accessing medical treatment or attending a religious service because the building is being blocked by those spewing hateful words and symbols. Yes, we need to preserve free speech, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows those freedoms “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

There is no constitutional right to promote hatred. Hate crimes are not victimless. They can cause deep psychological harm. Sometimes they can cause physical harm. They are intended to cause fear and intimidation. When we allow one group to be targeted, when we fail to act, we become complicit in the crime. I am sure none of us in the House wants that to happen.

Does the combatting hate act solve the problem of hatred in Canadian society? It does not. It cannot, because legislation does not change hearts and attitudes. That is something best done one on one, and a task that falls on each one of us as we are confronted with hatred.

In the House, we can show our desire for a better Canada, one where people are completely accepted for who they are, regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

Bill C-9 is intended to show society's displeasure with the actions of those who wilfully promote hatred in Canada. I am not convinced this legislation is going to be as effective as the government hopes.

[Combatting Hate Act, October 1st, 2025]

Madam Speaker, is the hon. member certain that this bill would really help as intended?

[An Act Respecting Cyber Security, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, the private sector in general is ready to protect itself, especially on the cybersecurity front, otherwise it cannot really do business in this world. The government, on the other side, is not ready. It has been dragging its feet since the last Parliament by killing Bill C-26.

Will the hon. member be honest and tell Canadians why the government killed Bill C-26?

[The Economy, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, the government is very creative in bringing more taxes on Canadians. Here is why: Beef is up 33%, canned tuna is up 19%, potatoes are up 16%, pork is up 14%, vegetables are up 13%, oranges are up 12%, and chicken is up 11%.

How many food banks need to come to Edmonton Manning before the Prime Minister cuts taxes on food for Canadians?

[The Economy, September 26th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I have four food banks in my riding, and that tells the Liberals something: There is a food crisis. Canadians cannot afford to buy groceries or enough of them anymore. They are choosing less nutritious food and eating less quantity and quality. Since the Liberals took power, groceries have soared by 40%.

The Prime Minister can do something. He can stop taxing food so Canadians can eat. Will he do it?

[Living Donor Recognition Medal Act, September 22nd, 2025]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be done in a minute.

We recognize citizens for bravery, selfless acts and compassion toward their fellow citizens. This should be no different for living donors. The medal would be a way to raise awareness and discussion surrounding living donation. It would save more lives. If we do this, Canada would be only the second country in the world to add living donors to its national honours system—

[Living Donor Recognition Medal Act, September 22nd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the bad news is that today there are 4,700 Canadians awaiting a life-saving organ transplant. The good news is that most of those on the waiting list could be saved by a living donor. A living donor is someone who donates all or part of an organ to save the life of a fellow Canadian.

I am a living donor. On December 8, 2003, I donated part of my liver to save the life of my son Tyler, but I am not alone. Across Canada, there are hundreds of people alive today because someone bravely, generously and selflessly gave a part of their body to another person to save their life. These donors stepped forward, took on risks and gave the gift of life. To me and to the people they saved, they are true heroes.

Living donors are not paid and are not allowed to be compensated for their donations, and this is a good thing. They have freely given what they can to save the life of another. It is a priceless gift. However, as a transplant recipient once said to me, “I just don't feel a thank you card is enough. I wish we could do a proper job of recognizing them.” That is why I am proposing through my private member's bill the creation of a living donor recognition medal.

Living donors volunteer to give a part of their body to another person to save their life, and this selfless and altruistic gesture is worthy of significant recognition. We recognize citizens for bravery—