Bill C-9, Combatting Hate Act · Senate amendments · now law Where it stands
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.
12 statements
“I do not think there are enough members in the room to hold this meeting.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is getting a little late, but I do not believe we have quorum in the chamber right now. And the count having been taken:”
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is getting a little late, but I do not believe we have quorum in the chamber right now. And the count having been taken:
“First, I want to honour Joan Loehr, an important member of my community who recently passed away. On this bill, the courts do not always follow what Parliament intended when they interpret the law. This bill creates uncertainty for religious freedom and free speech, and I want the member to explain how he will fix that.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Joan Loehr. She was a prominent resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family have given a lot to the community. She leaves behind her children Geoffrey, Regan, Kent, Joel, Jarett and Mary. May perpetual light shine upon her. The member for Winnipeg North just talked about religious liberty and not being worried about this impacting religious rights and speeches. My colleague talked about legislative intent. Well, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with this issue of legislative intent, I believe it was this year, in a ruling, where Parliament specifically said it wanted the legislation to say this. It was in debate, and it was in an amendment, and the Supreme Court of Canada still went against that. With that in mind, the uncertainty that this bill would create is part of the issue. What does the member say to that?”
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Joan Loehr. She was a prominent resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family have given a lot to the community. She leaves behind her children Geoffrey, Regan, Kent, Joel, Jarett and Mary. May perpetual light shine upon her. The member for Winnipeg North just talked about religious liberty and not being worried about this impacting religious rights and speeches. My colleague talked about legislative intent. Well, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with this issue of legislative intent, I believe it was this year, in a ruling, where Parliament specifically said it wanted the legislation to say this. It was in debate, and it was in an amendment, and the Supreme Court of Canada still went against that. With that in mind, the uncertainty that this bill would create is part of the issue. What does the member say to that?
“The Bloc wants to remove the religious defence from hate speech laws. They use a man who promoted hatred against Jewish people as an example. But our laws already ban that kind of hate speech. Police just chose not to charge him. I want to know why the Bloc keeps using this bad example.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by the Bloc’s position, and I am hoping my hon. colleague can help me a little. One of the examples that Bloc members have continually used to defend the removal of the good-faith exemption is the example of Mr. Charkaoui, who quite rightly was condemned for inciting hatred against Jews in Quebec. My colleague spoke about reading the law carefully, and if he were to read the Criminal Code carefully, he would see that this type of activity is already prohibited. It was not because the religious exemption is in the law now that police were prevented from charging. It was that the police chose not to. I am confused about why the Bloc has continually used this example, which has been shown to have nothing to do with the good-faith defence.”
Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by the Bloc’s position, and I am hoping my hon. colleague can help me a little. One of the examples that Bloc members have continually used to defend the removal of the good-faith exemption is the example of Mr. Charkaoui, who quite rightly was condemned for inciting hatred against Jews in Quebec. My colleague spoke about reading the law carefully, and if he were to read the Criminal Code carefully, he would see that this type of activity is already prohibited. It was not because the religious exemption is in the law now that police were prevented from charging. It was that the police chose not to. I am confused about why the Bloc has continually used this example, which has been shown to have nothing to do with the good-faith defence.
“We all want to stop hate, including hating Jewish people or Muslims. But this bill seems to be just empty words. I want the minister to explain who can be arrested under this new law who cannot be arrested today, and how it will actually end hate.”
“Mr. Speaker, all members in the House want to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and hate in all of its forms. Our concern is that the bill is performative and that it is more words in a space where there are already too many words. I would like to know if the minister can tell me who can be arrested the day after Bill C-9 passes who cannot be arrested today and that it is going to result in the elimination of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hate, which he says is going to happen when the bill passes.”
Mr. Speaker, all members in the House want to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and hate in all of its forms. Our concern is that the bill is performative and that it is more words in a space where there are already too many words. I would like to know if the minister can tell me who can be arrested the day after Bill C-9 passes who cannot be arrested today and that it is going to result in the elimination of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hate, which he says is going to happen when the bill passes.
“I share the minister's concerns about Jewish people being treated badly. But police are already not enforcing the laws we have against hate and violence. Why does the minister think new laws will be enforced?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful the minister is here. He and I worked at the same time in Canadian media, and I have a good relationship with him. However, his government’s record on civil liberties and freedom of expression could not be worse. He talks about the horrors that have been inflicted upon the Jewish community, in particular, and I share those concerns. I have been sounding the alarm about those concerns when there has been a failure to act in enforcing existing laws. It is illegal to incite genocide. It is illegal to obstruct someone from entering a house of worship. It is illegal to threaten violence and harm. If existing laws are not being enforced, why does the minister think these ones will be?”
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful the minister is here. He and I worked at the same time in Canadian media, and I have a good relationship with him. However, his government’s record on civil liberties and freedom of expression could not be worse. He talks about the horrors that have been inflicted upon the Jewish community, in particular, and I share those concerns. I have been sounding the alarm about those concerns when there has been a failure to act in enforcing existing laws. It is illegal to incite genocide. It is illegal to obstruct someone from entering a house of worship. It is illegal to threaten violence and harm. If existing laws are not being enforced, why does the minister think these ones will be?
“I want to know why the government is pushing this bill. Our laws already make it illegal to block someone from a place of worship. This bill repeats what is already illegal and threatens free speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Hafiza Zalmay and congratulate her on her Bachelor of Business Administration. She and her husband came from Afghanistan. It is a huge accomplishment, so my best wishes go to Hafiza. My colleague is part of a government that is intent on bringing this bill forward. Everybody wants to protect people with their religious institutions, but as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just pointed out, as I was listening to the minister’s speech, it is the exact same thing. Right now, nobody can obstruct someone from going into a place of worship and not break the law. Dare I say, I do not know that there is much in this bill that, if one were to do it, they would not already be breaking the law? However, there are so many controversial elements. Why are the Liberals insistent on this when free speech and civil liberties advocates have spoken about the potential dangers—”
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Hafiza Zalmay and congratulate her on her Bachelor of Business Administration. She and her husband came from Afghanistan. It is a huge accomplishment, so my best wishes go to Hafiza. My colleague is part of a government that is intent on bringing this bill forward. Everybody wants to protect people with their religious institutions, but as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just pointed out, as I was listening to the minister’s speech, it is the exact same thing. Right now, nobody can obstruct someone from going into a place of worship and not break the law. Dare I say, I do not know that there is much in this bill that, if one were to do it, they would not already be breaking the law? However, there are so many controversial elements. Why are the Liberals insistent on this when free speech and civil liberties advocates have spoken about the potential dangers—
“I do not support this bill. It removes protections for religious speech and gives the government too much power to decide what words and symbols are allowed. Faith groups across Canada oppose it, and I worry it will lead to censorship.”
“Mr. Speaker, while the hour is late, it is always a privilege to get up and speak in the House, especially on an issue that is so important. I rise with a bit of a heavy heart, though, because I realize this will likely be the last time I can speak at substantive length to this bill and express my concern with, first, the government’s heavy-handedness in dealing with this debate. It is unfortunate that the government moved to end this debate only a few minutes after it began. The irony of cutting off and censoring debate on a bill that deals with expression is not lost on me, nor is it lost on Canadians. I want to say at the outset that I understand the laudable goal that exists with Bill C-9. I think it is one that is shared by all members of the House. It is certainly shared by me. However, we know what is said about good intentions and the path that they lead to. The laudable goal, of course, is the elimination of hateful speech and conduct in our society. We all share that goal. After 11 years, Canadians just do not trust the Liberal government to preserve and protect their liberty. Quite the opposite is true. There is a history and a pattern that proves this suspicion that people of faith across Canada have. There was an ideological test to receive summer jobs funding, which I did not forget, and I do not think Christian communities, Jewish communities or Muslim communities across Canada forgot that either. There was the removal, or proposed removal, of charitable status for organizations that defend and promote life. These are still the avowed positions of the government opposite. I will note that I am splitting my time. In the Senate debates, Professor Haskell said, “Past experience shows that when Liberal governments promised that devout Christians would not be harmed by their new laws, those promises were broken.” History has a way of teaching us not to believe the Liberal government when it says, “Just trust us.” That is why Bill C-9 united Christians across all denominations, from the United Church to the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church to the evangelical churches across Canada, but it was not just Christians who were united against this bill. One of the most fascinating things about this is that the Liberal government succeeded in uniting all faiths against their proposition. We have heard tonight, numerous times, that “Canadians were asking for this” and “Communities were asking for this,” but actually the opposite is true, and we have the letters from those communities to prove it. We have letters from the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to prove it. The reality, as I understand the evidence, is that every faith community opposed this legislation. Rather than asking for it, they opposed it. I want to focus a bit on the most troubling part of Bill C-9, which is the removal of long-standing protections for religious freedom and the ability to have civil and substantive discussions about matters that go to the core of belief without the government’s interference in that. Unfortunately, a Faustian bargain was struck between the Liberals and the Bloc to remove that protection from the Criminal Code. Now, it is not my opinion that this is what was taking place. This is the opinion that was held by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who said that certain passages of the Torah and the Bible are categorically “hateful” and that prosecutors should have “discretion...to press charges.” What is deeply troubling about this is that in this whole debate, over the entire months that we have been discussing this, the minister has never resiled from his comments. He has never sought to clarify his comments, and he never sought to add nuance to those comments or explain to religious communities what he meant by them. To add insult to injury, not one member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet has said anything about them. In fact, no member, to my knowledge, of the Liberal Party, despite being asked in debate after debate, has resiled from those comments. What should we take from them? The only logical conclusion to take is that they believe them. If that is the case, then our fears are well founded. The reality is that Canadians should be allowed to discuss and debate controversial issues, even if we do not like them, even if we think they are repugnant. It does not matter. That is what living in a free society allows us. Government should not decide what religious truth is. I do not want the minister of culture being the arbitrary arbiter of whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and I do not want them to be the arbiter of whether in fact there is no God other than God, “and Muhammad is his messenger”. That is not the government’s role. However, perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of this amendment that removed that protection was that it was predicated on a completely false fact. It was predicated on the idea that there was an instance in Quebec that could not be prosecuted because of this religious protection. That is categorically false and, no matter how many times the Bloc want to bring up that example of Mr. Charkaoui , it does not make it true. I want to note this as well about the Senate amendment, because that of course is part of what we are discussing tonight. The Senate amendment seeks to add an additional symbol to criminalize in the code. Let me start with the obvious. The use of a symbol can, of course, be hateful, but I would respond that if it is, it is already a crime. There have been several examples where police across Canada have prosecuted individuals for expressing their hateful conduct through the use of a symbol. Of course, a noose could be used as a hate symbol, undoubtedly. However, to me this is a bit of an odd inclusion. To me this sounds like the importation of an American problem into Canada, and the use of that problem to divide and fearmonger. Canada does not have the same history as the United States does with this symbol. Moreover, discussing symbols opens a Pandora’s box. Who would decide what symbols are hateful? Well, according to the bill, the government could decide to add any new entity to a terrorist list, and therefore its symbols would become hate symbols. Is display enough to warrant prosecution, or does intent matter? These questions remain unanswered. If we were to go down the path of selecting symbols, I would have several to offer. How about the hammer and sickle? If we want to talk about a hateful symbol that Canadians fought and died against, for example in the Korean War, the hammer and sickle would be one of them, but this just proves the point about the selective nature of what the Liberals think hate is. Burning churches is understandable. Conservatives had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to list Samidoun as a terrorist organization. This tells us that it is not about hate. It is about things the Liberals disagree with, and that is the problem with this type of censorship. There is a creeping culture of censorship that pervades the Liberal government: Bill C‑9, the Liberal censorship law; Bill C‑22, the Liberal surveillance law; Bill C‑35, the Liberal law on digital ID for all; Bill C‑36, the Liberal digital Stasi commission. We are sliding backwards into self-imposed immaturity, lacking the ability to use our own understanding without the guidance from another, in this case the state. Why is the Liberal government afraid of freedom? When a government lives in fear of its citizens, it seeks to censor them. Let me close with a quote from the great Frederick Douglass, a great abolitionist, who said: Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. We have the beginnings of tyrannical government in Canada, and that is the problem. Bill C‑9 is only the beginning. It is not the end.”
Mr. Speaker, while the hour is late, it is always a privilege to get up and speak in the House, especially on an issue that is so important. I rise with a bit of a heavy heart, though, because I realize this will likely be the last time I can speak at substantive length to this bill and express my concern with, first, the government’s heavy-handedness in dealing with this debate. It is unfortunate that the government moved to end this debate only a few minutes after it began. The irony of cutting off and censoring debate on a bill that deals with expression is not lost on me, nor is it lost on Canadians. I want to say at the outset that I understand the laudable goal that exists with Bill C-9. I think it is one that is shared by all members of the House. It is certainly shared by me. However, we know what is said about good intentions and the path that they lead to. The laudable goal, of course, is the elimination of hateful speech and conduct in our society. We all share that goal. After 11 years, Canadians just do not trust the Liberal government to preserve and protect their liberty. Quite the opposite is true. There is a history and a pattern that proves this suspicion that people of faith across Canada have. There was an ideological test to receive summer jobs funding, which I did not forget, and I do not think Christian communities, Jewish communities or Muslim communities across Canada forgot that either. There was the removal, or proposed removal, of charitable status for organizations that defend and promote life. These are still the avowed positions of the government opposite. I will note that I am splitting my time. In the Senate debates, Professor Haskell said, “Past experience shows that when Liberal governments promised that devout Christians would not be harmed by their new laws, those promises were broken.” History has a way of teaching us not to believe the Liberal government when it says, “Just trust us.” That is why Bill C-9 united Christians across all denominations, from the United Church to the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church to the evangelical churches across Canada, but it was not just Christians who were united against this bill. One of the most fascinating things about this is that the Liberal government succeeded in uniting all faiths against their proposition. We have heard tonight, numerous times, that “Canadians were asking for this” and “Communities were asking for this,” but actually the opposite is true, and we have the letters from those communities to prove it. We have letters from the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to prove it. The reality, as I understand the evidence, is that every faith community opposed this legislation. Rather than asking for it, they opposed it. I want to focus a bit on the most troubling part of Bill C-9, which is the removal of long-standing protections for religious freedom and the ability to have civil and substantive discussions about matters that go to the core of belief without the government’s interference in that. Unfortunately, a Faustian bargain was struck between the Liberals and the Bloc to remove that protection from the Criminal Code. Now, it is not my opinion that this is what was taking place. This is the opinion that was held by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who said that certain passages of the Torah and the Bible are categorically “hateful” and that prosecutors should have “discretion...to press charges.” What is deeply troubling about this is that in this whole debate, over the entire months that we have been discussing this, the minister has never resiled from his comments. He has never sought to clarify his comments, and he never sought to add nuance to those comments or explain to religious communities what he meant by them. To add insult to injury, not one member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet has said anything about them. In fact, no member, to my knowledge, of the Liberal Party, despite being asked in debate after debate, has resiled from those comments. What should we take from them? The only logical conclusion to take is that they believe them. If that is the case, then our fears are well founded. The reality is that Canadians should be allowed to discuss and debate controversial issues, even if we do not like them, even if we think they are repugnant. It does not matter. That is what living in a free society allows us. Government should not decide what religious truth is. I do not want the minister of culture being the arbitrary arbiter of whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and I do not want them to be the arbiter of whether in fact there is no God other than God, “and Muhammad is his messenger”. That is not the government’s role. However, perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of this amendment that removed that protection was that it was predicated on a completely false fact. It was predicated on the idea that there was an instance in Quebec that could not be prosecuted because of this religious protection. That is categorically false and, no matter how many times the Bloc want to bring up that example of Mr. Charkaoui , it does not make it true. I want to note this as well about the Senate amendment, because that of course is part of what we are discussing tonight. The Senate amendment seeks to add an additional symbol to criminalize in the code. Let me start with the obvious. The use of a symbol can, of course, be hateful, but I would respond that if it is, it is already a crime. There have been several examples where police across Canada have prosecuted individuals for expressing their hateful conduct through the use of a symbol. Of course, a noose could be used as a hate symbol, undoubtedly. However, to me this is a bit of an odd inclusion. To me this sounds like the importation of an American problem into Canada, and the use of that problem to divide and fearmonger. Canada does not have the same history as the United States does with this symbol. Moreover, discussing symbols opens a Pandora’s box. Who would decide what symbols are hateful? Well, according to the bill, the government could decide to add any new entity to a terrorist list, and therefore its symbols would become hate symbols. Is display enough to warrant prosecution, or does intent matter? These questions remain unanswered. If we were to go down the path of selecting symbols, I would have several to offer. How about the hammer and sickle? If we want to talk about a hateful symbol that Canadians fought and died against, for example in the Korean War, the hammer and sickle would be one of them, but this just proves the point about the selective nature of what the Liberals think hate is. Burning churches is understandable. Conservatives had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to list Samidoun as a terrorist organization. This tells us that it is not about hate. It is about things the Liberals disagree with, and that is the problem with this type of censorship. There is a creeping culture of censorship that pervades the Liberal government: Bill C‑9, the Liberal censorship law; Bill C‑22, the Liberal surveillance law; Bill C‑35, the Liberal law on digital ID for all; Bill C‑36, the Liberal digital Stasi commission. We are sliding backwards into self-imposed immaturity, lacking the ability to use our own understanding without the guidance from another, in this case the state. Why is the Liberal government afraid of freedom? When a government lives in fear of its citizens, it seeks to censor them. Let me close with a quote from the great Frederick Douglass, a great abolitionist, who said: Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. We have the beginnings of tyrannical government in Canada, and that is the problem. Bill C‑9 is only the beginning. It is not the end.
“The member misunderstood me. I agree that a noose can be a hate symbol. I only said Canada and the United States have different histories with it, and we should recognize that.”
“Mr. Speaker, what a ridiculous comment. I would invite the member to actually listen and go back to the transcript, which we can review together. I would be happy to educate him. I said of course the noose could be used as a hate symbol. I simply pointed out that Canada and America have a very different history when it comes to this symbol and that fact should be recognized.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 93 of 100
Of this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, what a ridiculous comment. I would invite the member to actually listen and go back to the transcript, which we can review together. I would be happy to educate him. I said of course the noose could be used as a hate symbol. I simply pointed out that Canada and America have a very different history when it comes to this symbol and that fact should be recognized.
“Religious groups are worried this bill will not actually protect them. The government picks and chooses who it protects from hate. A Liberal member left out Christians when listing groups facing hate, even though 123 churches have been burned or vandalized in the last five years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my colleague from York—Durham enough, not just for his speech tonight but for his tremendous leadership on Bill C‑9, meeting with faith communities, members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Christian community, all across the country, people who have raised concerns, people whom the government says it is protecting but who feel the opposite is true. One of the comments that stuck out from what my colleague said was with regard to the selective nature of how we define hate and how hate laws are applied. I will note that, earlier in the House, a member of the Liberals gave an enumerated list of people who have experienced hate in this country, and both times he did that, he left out Christians, despite the fact that 123 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized over the last five years. As I say that now, Liberals are groaning and laughing, which speaks exactly to what I am saying. What does my colleague think about the fact that, even right now, the Liberals are laughing at the idea that Christians could be the target of hate?”
Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my colleague from York—Durham enough, not just for his speech tonight but for his tremendous leadership on Bill C‑9, meeting with faith communities, members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Christian community, all across the country, people who have raised concerns, people whom the government says it is protecting but who feel the opposite is true. One of the comments that stuck out from what my colleague said was with regard to the selective nature of how we define hate and how hate laws are applied. I will note that, earlier in the House, a member of the Liberals gave an enumerated list of people who have experienced hate in this country, and both times he did that, he left out Christians, despite the fact that 123 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized over the last five years. As I say that now, Liberals are groaning and laughing, which speaks exactly to what I am saying. What does my colleague think about the fact that, even right now, the Liberals are laughing at the idea that Christians could be the target of hate?
“I talked to Muslim and Jewish groups, and we agree on this bill. The government only protects certain groups from hate and leaves others out. I do not trust them to decide what counts as hate.”
“Mr. Speaker, being involved in this debate has actually been an amazing experience for me personally because it has allowed me to reach and speak with other faith communities, which I would not otherwise have had the chance to do. I met with Muslim groups in Toronto and Jewish groups in my own riding. I had a different faith and a different view of the world, but we were in complete alignment on Bill C‑9. It was actually quite amazing. My hon. colleague raises a great point, which is the selective nature of what the government considers hate. He points out a very good example, that regardless of which lists the Liberals use or which groups they identify, they seem to leave out some and include others. Unfortunately, that leaves us to conclude that some people, in their view, are more equal than others. This is why we are so concerned when they get involved in censorship, because we know which groups they think deserve protection and we know which groups they think do not deserve that protection.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 34 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 analysisReply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, being involved in this debate has actually been an amazing experience for me personally because it has allowed me to reach and speak with other faith communities, which I would not otherwise have had the chance to do. I met with Muslim groups in Toronto and Jewish groups in my own riding. I had a different faith and a different view of the world, but we were in complete alignment on Bill C‑9. It was actually quite amazing. My hon. colleague raises a great point, which is the selective nature of what the government considers hate. He points out a very good example, that regardless of which lists the Liberals use or which groups they identify, they seem to leave out some and include others. Unfortunately, that leaves us to conclude that some people, in their view, are more equal than others. This is why we are so concerned when they get involved in censorship, because we know which groups they think deserve protection and we know which groups they think do not deserve that protection.
“The government should use our current laws to prosecute people instead of making new laws that censor Canadians. A noose can be a hate symbol, but its meaning depends on the context.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would invite the secretary of state to do her job and ensure that those people are prosecuted under existing laws rather than bringing in new laws to censor Canadians. As I clearly said in my speech, a noose can be used as a hate symbol. I stand by those comments. It can be. I simply pointed out that there is a different cultural and factual context here.”
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the secretary of state to do her job and ensure that those people are prosecuted under existing laws rather than bringing in new laws to censor Canadians. As I clearly said in my speech, a noose can be used as a hate symbol. I stand by those comments. It can be. I simply pointed out that there is a different cultural and factual context here.
“We can disagree on this bill, but my side has stuck to the facts. The other side's criticisms are false.”
“Mr. Speaker, I accept that there are strong differences of opinion on the bill. I have tried and other members have tried to always present our opinion factually. We can have a disagreement about what the interpretation is, but we are not engaging in anything that they suggest. Their only criticism is misinformation.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I accept that there are strong differences of opinion on the bill. I have tried and other members have tried to always present our opinion factually. We can have a disagreement about what the interpretation is, but we are not engaging in anything that they suggest. Their only criticism is misinformation.
