Government Orders

Bill C-9, Combatting Hate Act · Senate amendments · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law creates a hate crime offence for breaking federal laws out of hatred based on specified factors. It also makes it an offence to promote hatred by displaying symbols in public, or to intimidate or block people trying to access places used for religious worship or by identifiable groups. In addition, the law removes the requirement for the Attorney General to consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

5 statements

Greg Fergus, Hull—Aylmer

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill, including the change that names the noose as a hate symbol. Black Canadians have dealt with threats like nooses at work for a long time, but the law has not had a clear way to punish them. This bill gives police and courts the power to treat these hate crimes properly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as a member of Parliament, but also as co-chair of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, a position I share with my dear colleague from Terrebonne, who just gave a very good speech. I would like to bring a slightly different perspective to our discussion this evening on Bill C-9. The Senate amendment, which seeks to designate the noose as a symbol of hatred, is very important. The Senate did excellent work that deserves our support. I would like to speak about what this bill means to the Black communities that I speak with every week, about what this bill means to us and about what it means that Parliament is finally doing it. The word that comes back every time I have a discussion about this is “finally”. Finally, we are dealing with an issue that is of great symbolic importance and is a real symbol of hate for our community. I have been in and around public life for a long time, and for as long as I can remember, Black communities have been telling governments the same thing. They have described a noose left on a workplace, a drawing on a wall or an actual noose being held at a construction site, for example, and what that means to them. They are threats that police have had trouble categorizing, or incidents reported and then quietly filed away because the law had no clear box to categorize them in. They told these stories to commissions, to committees, to ministers and to members of Parliament from every party, and they have told them with a patience, frankly, that these communities should have never needed. For most of that time, the answer they got was sympathy. Sympathy is welcome. Sympathy is appreciated. Sympathy also costs nothing, and communities know the difference between a government that feels for them and a government that legislates for them. Bill C-9 legislates. As I mentioned, as co-chair of the parliamentary Black caucus, I hear from Black Canadians from across this country. They are parents, workers, students, children and elders. When the subject of hate incidents comes up, the pain in those conversations rarely centres on the incidents alone. It centres on what happens afterward, because it is not what happens to someone but what happens afterward that is most important, and the legal process takes what is a racist act and changes it into a generic file. People can carry a great deal. What wears them down is carrying it while institutions look away. When this bill names the noose explicitly in the law of Canada, I want this House to understand how that lands in our communities. The noose has a very specific and painful history for Black Canadians. My hon. colleague talked about the symbol of lynchings. I do not want to be too explicit, but I have to say that hanging, lynching, is not something that just happens by accident. It is often an act that follows torture and terror. It gives a very different perspective. When that symbol appears at a Canadian work site, the person who finds it instantly understands what it means. They know that they could never hold into themselves what the law does not do to protect them. This bill would change that. The law of this country would say in plain text that this symbol, used wilfully to promote hatred and terror, has no place in this country. It would be a message for Black Canadians. This sentence in the Criminal Code would be a recognition that decades of telling the truth about their experience has registered somewhere, that it registered here in this Parliament. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it, and this Parliament is about to name it. The noose is a symbol that everyone recognizes, and the daily reality of anti-Black hate is usually quieter. It looks like threats, harassment, vandalism and intimidation, and it builds over months. The stand-alone hate crime offence at the heart of Bill C-9 is what would give the justice system the means to treat those acts as what they are. I will leave the legal mechanics to the colleagues who have covered them and will cover them. I just want to say that communities have learned to measure laws by whether anything changes. If they call the police, will actions be taken? That is how people measure whether there is really justice in this country. This bill is built to change what happens when they call. Parliament, as members know, moves slowly, and in moving slowly, often there is wisdom, but sometimes it is the symbol of avoidance; it is an act of avoidance. Regarding the question of hate-motivated crime, I believe we have been slow in the second way. The evidence has been in front of us for years, if not generations. Statistics Canada has documented the rise of anti-Black hate crimes and of police-reported hate crimes year after year. Community organizations have produced report after report. The gap between what communities experience and what the law can capture was identified long ago, and it was identified by people far less powerful than any one of us in this chamber. However, they kept on raising it anyway. It should not have taken this long. I say that as a member of the governing party, and I say that because communities that are watching at home know this to be true, and we need to be honest about what this legislation would do. What I have also learned is that the second-best time to act is now, so let us all support this bill. Bill C-9, finally, would catch up to where people are. I will end with what I started with. Somewhere in the country tonight, there may be a worker going into his workplace and seeing the symbol of the noose being displayed or seeing a drawing of it. Right now, there is a parent explaining to their child what these various symbols of hate represent, having that difficult conversation that so many Canadians have to have with their children and their family. There are people right now deciding whether or not their place of worship, whether it is a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a gurdwara, their holy place, needs security equipment installed to ensure the safety of the people who come to worship. These Canadians are owed many things by their country and by their Parliament. One of them is a criminal law that sees what is happening to them clearly and responds firmly. Black Canadians deserve to know that their government sees that reality and is taking it seriously. So do all the communities that hate has touched, and this bill is how we show it to them. In conclusion, on behalf of the parliamentary Black caucus and on behalf of Black Canadians around this country, I ask every member of this House to please support this bill.

Greg Fergus, Hull—Aylmer

Liberal
“I support this bill because it clearly explains what hate is and helps Canadians live together peacefully. Removing the Bloc Québécois amendment did not change the reach of the bill. It is still a crime to promote hatred, even for religious people.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, education is officially a provincial responsibility. However, in a sociological sense, education belongs to all of us. Today’s bill gives us the opportunity to clearly explain to Canadians what hate is and how we can ensure that we live together harmoniously, which is in our country’s nature. My hon. colleague from Repentigny referred to an amendment that he had supported that was withdrawn from the bill. I recognize that it was very important to have the Bloc Québécois’s support, but I would also like to say that, honestly, it did not change anything in terms of the scope of the bill. Even if we are talking about a religious person, the line that is crossed when inciting hatred remains the same. Nothing has changed in that regard, regardless of whether this exemption exists or not. Hatred—

Lisa Hepfner, Hamilton Mountain

Liberal
“I want the member to talk about all the false information that is spreading across the country about this bill.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 43 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was very moved by my friend’s speech. He was my first mentor in this place, and I have learned so much from him over the last five years. I would like him to reflect on the amount of misinformation and disinformation that has spread across this country in relation to the bill.

Greg Fergus, Hull—Aylmer

Liberal
“This bill does not take away religious freedom. People can still quote the Bible or other holy texts and talk about their faith. The bill only stops people from preaching hate and calling for the destruction of a group.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of information and disinformation with regard to this bill. One of the pieces clearly is that we would be taking away the rights of people of faith, people such as me, who attend church weekly and would feel that this would somehow impede them from speaking openly about their faith. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I can speak the words of sacred text, which for me is the Holy Bible and for others could be the Torah, the Koran or whatever text they have, but the fact is that I still have no right to preach for hate. That is a very high level. Just quoting the Bible, or any sacred text, at all is not what would put it in danger. The problem is when people call for the eradication of an identified group. That remains there regardless of—

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

Liberal
“I am asking everyone here to agree to end our work for the day.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 12:14 a.m.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 134

  1. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Telecommunications 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Access to Information 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions The Economy 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions National Defence 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  24. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 5 statements
  27. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 34 statements
  28. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  29. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  30. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 2 statements
  31. Oral Questions Firearms 2 statements
  32. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  33. Oral Questions Government Appointments 2 statements
  34. Private Members' Business National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act 8 statements
  35. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 29 statements
  36. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 7 statements
  37. Government Orders Government Orders 11 statements
  38. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  39. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  40. Government Orders Government Orders 19 statements