TranslatePolitics.ca

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal 12:20 p.m.

“I don't want to answer your question about my bill. Instead you should defend something a Conservative MP said yesterday. That will make me look better and avoid your question.”

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 12:30 p.m.

“The other person talked about two police who died. I will talk about my father who was police. Police want more laws and penalties. The other party says they are tough on crime but do not really support laws and penalties. The other person used to be police. Now he says the problem is the police. He doesn't really want change.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member opposite for his years of dedication and service. My father was a police officer for Peel Regional Police for 30 years, and I deeply respect our members of all police forces. The law enforcement leaders in our communities on the front lines have been asking us for additional tools. The tough-on-crime agenda the Conservatives purport to support every single day in this House is all predicated on this idea that if only we had tougher laws and tougher penalties for serious crimes, everything would get better. The member opposite seems to lay blame at the feet of the forces that he was once a part of. It sounds to me like he does not care about changing the law and thinks that having tougher penalties does not matter. Can he speak to whether he thinks—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ben Carr

Liberal 12:35 p.m.

“You say laws already exist. So why are you blaming us? Shouldn't you be blaming the police instead?”

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 12:45 p.m.

“I want my bill to pass. It will increase restrictions on speech. I claim this will make people safer. I am ignoring your point about protecting individual freedoms. Instead I am focusing on what legal experts say. I want an example that proves this bill will harm religious expression.”

Ryan Turnbull

Liberal 1:00 p.m.

“I want my party's bill to pass. More laws would protect people and give police new powers! The other party won't vote for it. That's bad. If they really cared about rights, they'd vote yes! I want them to say yes.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's speech, although I fundamentally disagree with some of his arguments. The previous Conservative member who spoke in the House could not cite an example of the religious defence's being used. I wonder if this member could. What I do not understand is that the Conservatives talk a lot about wanting to protect communities and protect people's rights, but here they are with an opportunity to step up and support a bill that would amend the Criminal Code and would allow new tools to be given to law enforcement and to our criminal justice system to really protect people's rights to be able to worship and to express themselves in the way they see fit. Is that not fundamental enough? Does the member not believe that harsher penalties should come with hate-motivated crimes?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:05 p.m.

“I want to make you look bad. I don't want to answer your concerns. I'll just mock your ideas instead.”

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Liberal 1:05 p.m.

“I want people to feel unsafe and vote for my bill. I want more control over what people can say. I want you to think anyone against this bill is a monster.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I rise to speak to Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, at a time when Canadians are looking to us for clear, serious and determined action to better protect them from hate and intimidation. I will begin by clearly describing the context we are currently in. Across Canada, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ, indigenous and other communities are feeling extremely vulnerable. The rise of hate is far from theoretical. It is a palpable, painful and disturbing reality that we are seeing in schools, on the street and even in places of worship. I cannot give this speech without mentioning the events that recently took place in Montreal. We live in a country of rights and freedoms. What we are experiencing right now illustrates the whole reason for this bill. It may be a combination of circumstances or an unfortunate coincidence, but this happened here, in Canada. We have to discuss it and address the problem immediately. It is not okay for people in positions of authority—regardless of their discretionary power—to incite any kind of targeted intent toward a particular community. In Canada, diversity is our strength. In Canada, our differences unite us. As an elected official, I cannot believe that a member of Parliament would say something with such serious implications. I am referring to the member for York—Durham. He said things that are hard to imagine, things that are beyond the pale. People may assert their parliamentary privilege, but they cannot say whatever they want just because they have that privilege. Growing up, I was always taught that not every truth should be uttered. Yesterday, an elected official said something unacceptable. He outright dismissed the pain and stress that the mere thought of a noose can cause my community. He argued that we are importing an American problem into Canada. That is shocking. In Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia, where the first Black communities were established, this symbol evokes a past marred by racism and intimidation toward Black people. In the North American context, the noose remains one of the most powerful and universally recognized symbols of racial hatred directed at Black communities. Today, that member will have an opportunity to retract his remarks, now that he has had a chance to sleep on it. Hopefully he woke up this morning, drank his water and his coffee, and came to realize the implications of what he said. Hopefully he recognizes the importance of exercising his parliamentary privilege responsibly and of not simply saying whatever comes to mind while fulfilling the duties of this fine office. We must respect the House of Commons. It is the House of Canadians from all backgrounds, from east to west. The noose has long been recognized as a symbol of virulent hatred directed at Black communities. It is deeply rooted in the history of anti‑Black racism. The violence associated with the noose is not merely a historical phenomenon; it is a symbol that forms part of the hatred and violence to which Black Canadians are regularly subjected and which are rooted in a white supremacist ideology. This ideology is associated with the noose. Now is the moment we have been waiting for. Canadians across the country have made it clear that they want to be able to live openly, safely and freely as themselves, regardless of their background, faith, ethnicity, gender, identity or community. We all share the same goal: to protect Canadians from all forms of violence, particularly those that target the most fundamental aspects of being human. Canadians asked us to take action and keep them safe, and that is exactly what this bill does. Bill C-9 has been carefully examined by both chambers. It is now time for Canadians to get the protection they deserve from the government and the elected officials they have chosen. For the first time, the Criminal Code will include a definition of hatred, which will describe the conduct that falls under the new stand-alone hate crime offence. This is an extremely important change that must not be overlooked. This new offence and the new definition of hatred will address the particularly reprehensible nature of this crime, which undermines the very foundations of the Canadian values of equality and respect for our citizens. By passing this bill swiftly, we will not just be strengthening the Criminal Code; we will also be sending a clear message to Canadians that their safety matters, their dignity matters, and their right to fully and freely belong in this country will be defended. I urge all members of the House to support this bill and ensure that Canada continues to be a country where no one, and I mean no one, is made to feel unsafe simply because they are Canadian and have chosen to live in accordance with their identity while respecting their culture and heritage.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Louis Villeneuve

Liberal 1:15 p.m.

“I want you to know I really feel for you. The other guys are shameful. I want you to be scared and vote for my bill. I want this bill to pass so the government can say it is helping people.”

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Liberal 1:15 p.m.

“I want this bill to pass. I want Canadians to feel like the government is giving them safety. I want to pressure the other guy to take back what he said.”

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Liberal 1:15 p.m.

“I want to push back against what that last speaker said. Even if many witnesses disagreed, I still want this bill to pass. I want people to have their freedom as long as it doesn't reduce someone else's freedom.”

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Liberal 1:20 p.m.

“I want to go back to talking about rights and freedoms. Canadians can express themselves and do what they want as long as they follow the law. This bill protects Canadians. It tells us what hatred means. People who are guilty will be punished.”

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Liberal 1:20 p.m.

“You're playing a dangerous game. You're confusing people. What you said isn't true. This bill protects people all over. It defines hate. It's important. Stick to that.”

Ben Carr

Liberal 1:20 p.m.

“As a Jewish Canadian, I want this bill to pass. It protects my community. I don't understand why you oppose it. You say it's not needed, but also that we need to enforce the laws we have. This bill makes it easier to enforce the law. You're confusing people. You're fundraising off this bill. You say the noose isn't a hate symbol, but it is. It's a problem in Canada. Listen to the evidence. Support this bill.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I might take an opportunity to just pick up on something that happened a moment ago with a question from my colleague opposite. I think it is very important that she understands the following: It is a defence. That means that a person has to be in court before they can use it. That means that a person has to have been investigated by police for having spewed hate in this country before they can have the ability to use the defence. To suggest that there would a change in anything regarding that law, that it would be amended by Bill C-9 in a way that would remove something that already exists prior to the legal proceedings in court, is simply false. I would gladly welcome a question from my colleague on this at the end of my remarks. As a Jewish Canadian, I often have the opportunity to attend events in my riding that the community is a part of, not only as their representative but also as an individual who was raised as a member of the Jewish faith. It has been made very clear to me, from members of the Jewish community, both in Winnipeg and across the country, over the course of the past number of years, that they want what Bill C-9 would accomplish to take place as a meaningful step forward for their protection in this country. All of the major Jewish advocacy groups in the country have spoken in support of the bill, whether that be B'nai Brith, CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center or a variety of grassroots members. I know because they have put pressure on me and my colleagues in the Jewish caucus on this side of the aisle, and on Jewish leadership across the country, to take action. The question is, of course, why? Well, the reason for this is that we have seen a significant increase in hate in this country. It is not just targeted at the Jewish community, but we know that those in the Jewish community, representing less than 1% of the Canadian population, are the victims of more than three-quarters of reported religiously motivated hate crimes in this country. I am going to, in a moment, speak to the amendment that the Senate put forward vis-à-vis a particular hate symbol, but there are a couple of arguments I have heard, put forward by my colleagues in the opposition, that I just do not quite understand. I welcome the opportunity for them to perhaps add some clarity in the questions that they will be permitted to ask when I am done my remarks. One argument came from one of our colleagues during debate about an hour ago. My question was, if what the Conservatives are saying is true, that this is not needed because it is simply a matter of a lack of enforcement on the part of police across the country, then why do they hold the government accountable for police not enforcing the law? If they argue that the laws are already there, that the laws are already strong enough, and therefore there is no reason for Bill C-9, an argument I have heard many make throughout this debate, then what is it that they want the government to do? The member's answer was similar to what I have heard from others. They said it is very important for the government to show leadership. It is very important, they say, for the government to have legislation that makes it easier for the police to be able to enforce the law. Is that not exactly what Bill C-9 does? If we look at some of the other arguments that have been made, again from colleagues across the way, they will say things like Bill C-9 is not going to stop a shooting at a synagogue. It might be true that, unfortunately, the targeting of a synagogue will take place regardless of how good our laws are, but that argument is like saying that we have a law preventing murder, but people still get killed, so what is the point of having a law that prohibits murder? It does not make any sense to me. What I continue to hear from my colleagues across the way is rooted not in fact, but in fear. I cannot help but note how much fundraising my colleagues have done off of this piece of legislation in the last year. They are telling Jews, for example, that they will not be able to say they are Zionists. That is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. It is important for us to have healthy debates in this chamber about how our public policy and laws will impact Canadians. What is not acceptable is to use those conversations to create divides and wedges in our country for political purposes. If we look at the Senate amendment that was put forward, the subject of our debate today, it is very important to note a couple of things. The first is that members opposite, including the member for York—Durham, yesterday suggested something that I am still struggling to understand, which is that the noose in Canada is not a hate symbol. Here is something I find interesting. Two weeks ago, when a noose was put around the neck of an effigy of a Jewish leader being burned on a street in Montreal, members across the way were, rightly so, up in arms, and they should have been, but now the member for York—Durham is saying that the very symbol placed around the neck of that Jewish leader, which he and his colleagues condemned, is not, in fact, a symbol of hate worthy of being included in this legislation. Again, I do not understand. We have heard the noose described by colleagues across the way as an American problem, as though it is a relic from somebody else's history. They have said that it is wrong for the Senate to have asked for that amendment. The request to have the noose included in Bill C‑9 was brought forward by many community organizations. The Black Opportunity Fund and, from my home province, the Black-Manitobans Chamber of Commerce testified at the human rights committee at the Senate. They were supported by Black Health Alliance, a co-author of Canada's Black justice strategy, researchers at McGill University, the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations and Black-led justice organizations in Nova Scotia and from across the country. When that many credible Canadian voices are saying the same thing, it is our responsibility to listen. When we listen, we have to hear the evidence, so here it is. Between 2020 and 2021, nooses were left at construction sites across Toronto, at a hospital, at transit stations on the Crosstown line, at a tower on Bay Street and at a housing development in Regent Park. They were so frequent and so frightening that Black workers in the construction trades formed their own association in response. What does the member for York—Durham say, which was not challenged by a single member in his own party, at least that I have heard? He says this is not a Canadian problem. In Nova Scotia, two teenagers were charged after waving a noose at a Black family. In Alberta, a surgeon taped a noose to an operating room door to terrorize a Black colleague, and the conduct was found to be a serious threat. In Ontario, a 13-year-old girl found a drawing of a noose in her backpack on the first day of school. This is not some other country's history. This is today in Canada, in our own time. Those are Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian children, and it reaches this very institution, where these stories have been shared. In testimony before the Senate human rights committee, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard described being harassed in her own neighbourhood, being shouted at to go back to Africa by someone with a noose hanging from the back of their truck, yet the member for York—Durham says this is not a Canadian problem. I raise this because, when a member of Canada's Parliament has had a noose brandished at her on a Canadian street, we can no longer pretend this is a foreign problem. It happens here. It is happening here, and we need to take action. I would say, with respect, to any member who calls the noose an odd inclusion, that it is critical they listen to the testimony and experiences of our colleagues in Parliament, as well as those of Canadians from across the country, who are experiencing this form of hate. I do not understand why my colleagues opposite would not support the inclusion of this clearly problematic symbol of hate as an important amendment to the bill. It is a bill that I am proud to stand here, as a member of Parliament, as a Jewish member of Parliament and as a Canadian, in support of.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Ben Carr

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“I don't think those other faith views should be ignored. But their views shouldn't decide everything. People are scared because some are exaggerating what this bill does. We need an honest debate about what this bill really does.”

Ben Carr

Liberal 1:30 p.m.

“I want this bill to pass. We need it to protect people I represent. It will make them safer.”

Ben Carr

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“I think it's really important to talk about hate. That's why the government should pass our Bill C-9.”

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“I'm filling time by saying nice things about being thorough and factual. I'm not actually making a point about the bill.”

Ben Carr

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“I want the government to pass this bill to show it is doing something. It doesn't matter what's in the bill. I just want to look like I'm protecting people.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 1:45 p.m.

“I want people to think my party is serious about fighting crime. I want people to think the other party just talks. I don't want people to look at what the bill actually does.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate. We see the winding down of debate on Bill C‑9, an important piece of legislation that deals with hate. It is one of many pieces of legislation that this Prime Minister and this government have introduced since the last federal election, just over a year ago. Canadians will know, and realize, that the Government of Canada is serious about dealing with crime. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives, who like to talk about it, raise money on it and spread misinformation on it, but when it comes right down to supporting good policy, they are found wanting. They consistently vote against good crime-fighting legislation. Today we are talking hate. The question is why?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Natilien Joseph

Liberal 1:45 p.m.

“I want to make the other side look bad. Look at that bad thing one of their members said! I want everyone to say that was very bad. I don't want to talk about the bill, I just want to talk about this mean thing someone said yesterday. Hey, do you think that was very bad too?”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Combatting Hate Act

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Ryan Turnbull

Ben Carr

Ryan Turnbull

Ryan Turnbull

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Louis Villeneuve

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba

Ben Carr

Ben Carr

Ben Carr

Ben Carr

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Ben Carr

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Natilien Joseph