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.
