Combatting Hate Act

Bill C-9, Combatting Hate Act · Time allocation motion · now law Where it stands

The House debated a time allocation motion limiting to five further hours debate on the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which amends the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious or cultural places. The Liberal side said the bill fulfills a campaign promise, has already had extensive debate in both Houses, protects all faiths and peaceful protest, targets only wilful promotion of hatred, and responds to rising hate crimes; they said Conservative claims about it are misinformation. Conservatives opposed cutting off debate, said religious and faith groups object to the removal of the good-faith religious expression defence, cited a minister’s comments about religious texts, and asked where the line is between practising a religion and committing an offence. The Bloc Québécois said the bill does not ban holy books and accused Conservatives of spreading disinformation, while the Green member opposed the bill and asked for more debate time. Some time at the start went to a point of order about whether a secretary of state, rather than a full minister, could move the motion.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

37 statements

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“We brought this bill forward because many Canadians feel unsafe practising their religion. It protects people from hate and protects their right to practise their faith.”
  • 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, this bill was brought forward after listening to the concerns of Canadians. The fear, intimidation and hate that they have been facing are why we have brought forward the bill. It is in order to protect Canadians and to protect the rights of freedom of expression. There are many Canadians who do not feel that it is safe to be able to practise their faith in this country, so the bill is about protecting religion in Canada and making sure that everyone understands that people have a right to their beliefs. That is what the bill is about.

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

Liberal
“The Charter protects religious freedom. Conservatives are sending emails that falsely claim our bill will criminalize people of faith just so they can raise money. I want the secretary of state to respond to this false information.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. I will ask the secretary of state to provide her thoughts on a Conservative Party of Canada email that I received. The email says, “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.” At the end of the email, it says, “Donate now”, referring to donating to the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the misinformation that stems from the chamber, all the way out to the public from the Conservative Party of Canada and how it is using this as a tool to raise money. Raising money is more important to Conservatives than having good, sound public policy. Our freedoms are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want Canadians to know that this bill protects people from intimidation while still respecting their rights to free speech and peaceful protest. The government is sure it follows the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations in which people state and read out Conservative talking points, exact emails that were sent out by the Conservative Party of Canada. I want to reassure Canadians today that the proposed intimidation and obstruction offences in the bill have been carefully designed to target criminal conduct while respecting charter rights on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government is confident that the legislation is consistent with the protections of the charter and, if challenged, it can be defended before the courts.

Warren Steinley, Regina—Lewvan

Conservative
“Hate has risen over the last ten years, and the Liberals have been in power. People are angry because this government froze bank accounts and shut down peaceful protests against vaccine rules. The government has divided Canadians and caused this frustration. It should take responsibility for what is happening on our streets.”
  • 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 am not happy to rise to my feet, but I do have an interesting question about Bill C-9. The Liberals talk about all the hate and mistreatment of other people. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Warren Steinley: Mr. Speaker, the member from northern Saskatchewan can beak all he wants, but this is a serious question about a serious bill. There has been such a rise in hate over the last 10 years, and who has been in government? Why are people so much more angry? Is it the fact that the Liberal government trampled rights and freedoms when it froze people’s bank accounts? Was it the fact that it brought police into Ottawa to tamp down a peaceful protest of people wanting their own choice on vaccines? The government has been the most divisive government in the history of Canada. It divided east versus west and rural versus urban, and people have had enough. That is the frustration. Should the government not take a bit of responsibility for what is happening on the streets under its watch? It has brought this to the point where people are so frustrated with how they have been treated, and they want answers.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“People are feeling more divided and isolated, and hate has deep roots in our history. Our government is taking action to protect Canadians. The Conservatives are just blocking our work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons. Sometimes world events are a reason. Sometimes it is people’s hatred because of the polarization that has happened online over the last little while. Canadians are more isolated than they used to be. They are more staunch in their opinions. In the past, thousands of Black North Americans were lynched. There have been many acts of hate in the past as well. This government did not do that. The government is taking action. All the Conservatives have been doing is trying to obstruct. They do not want us to protect Canadians. The Conservatives reached an all-time low last week when they voted against longer sentences for child predators.

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois
“I support this bill to fight hate, and my party will vote for it. Hate harms our society. Even so, I am willing to give the Conservatives more time to debate it if they review it in good faith. Then we could pass it together.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, everything has been said about this bill, including with regard to the religious exemption. Committee proceedings began last October, and in the end, it took time allocation to get it passed. I find that truly deplorable because this is an important bill. Hate is a societal cancer at every level. I support Bill C-9, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9 and we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, regarding the question raised by our Conservative colleagues as to whether we should grant them more time to discuss it, I am not opposed to that. Personally, I believe there was a lot of unnecessary filibustering in committee since last fall. Despite that, if our Liberal colleagues agreed to drop time allocation and give the Conservatives more time, we would be willing to agree to that. By the end of the week, we could all come to fully understand Bill C-9 and pass it unanimously. If our Conservative colleagues intend to conduct a good-faith review of this bill, I support them.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“We have debated this hate crimes bill enough. The Senate added the noose as a banned hate symbol to fight anti-Black racism, but the opposition is not asking about that. They are wasting time on unrelated things instead of working with us in good faith.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, much time has been given to debate on this matter in the House and in the other place as well. The Senate came back with one amendment; it was the addition of a hate symbol, the noose, because of the anti-Black racism that we have seen throughout North America, and I would say throughout western countries around the world. That is the issue right now. That was the amendment that was brought forward by the Senate, but it does not seem like anyone has questions on that. I am sad to say that even when debate on this was occurring at the House of Commons committee, a lot of time was wasted talking about frivolous and irrelevant things. I do not believe the opposition party has been acting in good faith.

Cheryl Gallant, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke

Conservative
“We already have laws against hate. The real problem is that the government and the police do not enforce them, even when protesters outside Parliament call for the destruction of Jewish people. This bill is just the Liberals pretending to do something.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such public upheaval over legislation since the gun registry was introduced in the late 1990s. The fact of the matter is that we have had anti-hate legislation on the books since the 1970s, and under former justice minister Vic Toews it was more clearly defined; that has been in place. The real problem is that the government does not want to enforce this and law enforcement is not enforcing what already exists. When we see protests, right outside this building, with people screaming at the top of their lungs that they want to see our Jewish population annihilated, there is a refusal to act on that, even on the grounds of the House of Commons. Is this bill not really about trying to make it look like the Liberals are doing something about combatting hate instead of really doing it and having it enforced?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want this bill to pass. It creates a new hate crime law and makes it illegal to block or scare people going to day camps, religious schools, and places of worship. The current laws are too weak, and Canadians need to feel safe.”
  • 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, we are acting. We are changing the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of mischief that the member is talking about has very low penalties and is added at the sentencing portion of a crime. This is a stand-alone hate crime. This bill would also create a crime of intimidation and of obstruction. We have seen many Canadians not be able to go to their day camps, their religious schools or their places of worship. It is really important that we make sure that all Canadians feel safe living in Canada. This bill is essential. Canadians have asked us to make amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, and we have done so. We have done so in this bill and in several other bills, because we are a government that believes in protecting Canadians.

Frank Caputo, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola

Conservative
“I want to congratulate Paul and Elly Major on their 50th wedding anniversary. Synagogues have been shot at and churches have been burned, but the government has done almost nothing to stop these attacks on places of worship.”
  • 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, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Paul and Elly Major, the parents of Dr. Blair Major, a faculty member of Thompson Rivers University in my riding, on their 50th wedding anniversary. I congratulate Paul and Elly. We heard a member talk about people who cannot go to synagogues. There was actually a synagogue that was shot up, and that has now been tied to a terrorist who was then alleged to have been connected to a police officer who has been killed. We have had an unprecedented number of churches being burned with nary a word from the government. We have had people who cannot access their places of worship, and the government has not sufficiently denounced it. Forgive me if I say that the government’s words ring hollow after 12 years of inaction.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“Police worked hard to investigate the shooting at the American consulate. They need better tools to stop hate crimes and terrorism, but the Conservatives are blocking the law that gives them those tools.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative argument is so disingenuous. In the hate crime or the shooting that happened at the U.S. consulate, the RCMP and local law enforcement investigated that incident. There were actors who belonged to a terrorist organization. It has been reported and alleged that they were working out of the United States of America and were plotting events here in Canada and in Europe. Our law agencies were investigating and were on top of it, and so I give them a lot of credit for the investigation that they have done. However, they could also use more investigative tools, like those in Bill C-22 respecting lawful access, but the Conservatives have been standing in their way. How many more victims are the Conservatives going to create by their obstruction?

Lori Idlout, Nunavut

Liberal
“Conservatives are falsely telling Canadians that this bill would charge people for reading scripture or sharing their faith. Can the secretary explain why we must pass this bill quickly to fight this false information?”
Official Hansard

Uqaqtittiji, I think that one thing we all agree on is that the Conservatives are really good at spreading misinformation and disinformation. They have Canadians believing that the bill, if introduced the way it is, would make it possible for someone to be charged just for reading scripture or sharing their faith. This is what the Conservatives have done. I wonder if the secretary can tell us why it is urgent to pass this bill so that we could help address some of the disinformation that has been shared by the Conservatives.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It will protect religious groups, students, and LGBTQ+ people from hate, violence, and intimidation.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have seen many incidents. We have seen 2SLGBTQI+ groups be discriminated against and an extreme rise in violence against them and the transgender community here in Canada. It is important to protect all communities. Whether it is a member of a faith group, a student on campus who wishes to go to a prayer room, or a young kid trying to attend a religious camp or a Jewish school, it is important for them to be able to live their lives. Canada is a place where all people should be free to practise their faith and to go to school without fear and intimidation. That is what the law is all about. Bill C-9 is about giving Canadians the safety they deserve while being who they are.

Rhonda Kirkland, Oshawa

Conservative
“I am worried this bill will let the government label religious texts as hate speech. Why should Canadians trust the government not to put people in prison for sharing their religious beliefs?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    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 analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 43 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Oshawa. I would like to start my question by mentioning my father. Today would have been his 85th birthday. He passed away four years ago, just 10 and a half months after my mom passed away. When I was a teenager, there was a lot of talk about hate speech and hate crimes and defining them. I remember him saying to me, at that time, to watch carefully because this will turn into something else as time progresses. What it will turn into is that, one day, our government will say that a certain piece of scripture or religious text will be deemed hate speech or a hate crime. That is a real concern for me. Why should Canadians trust these guys not to do exactly that and imprison people for speaking their religious truth?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“The Conservatives are spreading false information about this bill. They claim they are tough on crime, but they voted against harsher punishments for people who kill women and harm children. Their actions do not protect Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 41 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, this is exactly the misinformation that I have been speaking about tonight. That is not what the bill does. I would say that I think Canadians would mistrust the current Conservative Party of Canada right now because Conservatives talk about being tough on crime and they talk about making Canada safe, but their actions have not been showing it. Just last week, they voted against making femicide a first-degree murder charge. They voted against longer sentences for child predators. They voted against minimum penalties. Who are these Conservatives and why are they against safety and protecting Canadians?

Andrew Lawton, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South

Conservative
“A minister said prosecutors should be able to charge people for quoting certain Bible passages as hate speech. I want to know if the government agrees with him.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote: “[Bill C-9] has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” That was from the Liberal member for Nunavut a couple of months ago. I have a question for the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. Her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, is a lawyer. He said the following: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred.... There should...be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” Is he right or wrong in his interpretation of hate speech laws applying to scripture?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“This bill went through the normal process and was changed. Police will not be able to lay charges without approval from the Attorney General. The Conservatives are spreading false information about this. Our party is acting to keep Canadians safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the bill has gone through all the steps of the legislative process. Through those steps, amendments have been made. Witnesses were able to come forward at committee. Members were able to give their opinions. There was an amendment made by the House. Therefore, after that amendment, the bill maintains the requirement of Attorney General consent for all offences in the bill. What is the member talking about? Police will not even be able to lay charges on their own. This is exactly the misinformation that I keep saying the Conservatives have been spreading. My message to Canadians is this. We are the government and we are the party that is here to act and to keep Canadians safe.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 136

  1. Private Members' Business Income Tax Act 14 statements
  2. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 32 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 20 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Access to Information 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  12. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  18. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 31 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 50 statements
  20. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 41 statements
  21. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 37 statements
  22. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 38 statements