TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Combatting Hate Act

2026-06-16 Sitting 137 Showing 81–91 of 91

A bill to make it easier to criminally charge people for 'hate propaganda' offenses, creating new offenses for promoting hatred against 'identifiable groups' or intimidating people accessing religious places. During debate, Conservatives raised concerns about free speech and religious liberty, while Liberals insisted the bill would only protect vulnerable communities. As usual, many members spoke at length about their own ridings and personal anecdotes only tangentially related to the bill.

Official Hansard ↗

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.”

Amanpreet Gill

Conservative 1:35 p.m.

“I don't like this bill. This bill threatens freedom of religion and freedom of expression. We can fight hate while still protecting fundamental freedoms. The current law already strikes a careful balance. Bill C-9 would remove important safeguards. It would risk criminalizing legitimate religious expression. This is a dangerous path for any democracy. I want Conservatives to stand up for people of faith, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. I want Conservatives to fight against this attack on our freedoms. I want Conservatives to defend the constitutional right the government is trying to take away.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Gateway, a former wrestler whom I respect a lot. I rise today to speak in strong opposition to Bill C‑9, legislation that threatens some of the most fundamental freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Let me begin by stating something clearly. Conservatives condemn hatred, racism, religious unfairness and violence in all forms. Every Canadian, regardless of faith, ethnicity, background or identity, deserves to live safely, worship freely and participate fully in our society without fear. The question before us is not whether hate should be condemned but whether the government should weaken fundamental freedoms in the process. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Bill C‑9 would do. Under Canada's current hate speech laws, there is an important safeguard in the Criminal Code that provides a defence against prosecution for the promotion of hatred when a person expresses, in good faith, an argument or opinion on a religious subject or belief based on a religious text. Many Canadians may not realize that this defence is very limited. It does not apply to threats, advocacy of genocide or any criminal conduct under the Criminal Code. In other words, the current law already strikes a careful balance; Canadians remain free to discuss, teach and express their religious beliefs in good faith, while those who engage in genuine criminal behaviour remain subject to prosecution. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the importance of this balance. The court understood that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are essential pillars of a free, democratic society. It recognized that without safeguards, hate speech laws could become vulnerable to constitutional challenge because they risk criminalizing legitimate religious expression. That is why the religious freedom defence exists. It was not by accident. It was included because lawmakers understood that protecting freedom of religion is just as important as fighting hate. Bill C‑9 seeks to remove this safeguard. Bill C‑9 proposes new offences related to the promotion of hatred and the public display of certain symbols. The meaning of a symbol can vary depending on the circumstance in which it is displayed. Schools, museums, historians, journalists, artists and researchers often study symbols in ways that are uncomfortable but very important. Canadians should never have to wonder whether legitimate expression could expose them to investigation, prosecution or legal uncertainty. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C‑9 is its proposed expansion of Criminal Code provisions related to hate speech and hate propaganda. The government claims that the bill would target only extreme forms of hatred, yet history teaches us that when governments are given broader power to regulate speech, those powers rarely remain limited to the most obvious offenders. Freedom of expression is not a privilege granted by the government but a fundamental freedom protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The result of the bill would be that people of faith could face criminal prosecutions for the simple act of quoting, discussing or teaching from their own sacred texts. Canadians should be concerned by this possibility. Whether someone is quoting from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad‑Gita or another holy text, they should not have to fear that expressing their religious belief could expose them to criminal liability. As a Sikh, I find this issue especially troubling. Sikhs came here seeking opportunity, freedom and the ability to practise their faith openly. Like many faith communities, we rely on our holy teachings as a guide for moral and spiritual life. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib is central to Sikh faith and identity. The freedom to discuss its teachings is fundamental. The same is true for Christians and the Bible, Hindus and the Bhagavad-Gita, Muslims and the Quran, and members of many other faith communities. This issue is not about one religion. It is about protecting the rights of all religions. Once government begins restricting religious expression, every faith community has reason to be concerned. What makes this legislation even more troubling is the attitude some Liberals have shown toward religious texts. Canadians have every right to ask what happens when legal protections for religious expression are removed while Liberal voices describe portions of sacred texts as hateful. The government argues that this legislation is necessary to address hate. However, removing the safeguard would not make Canadians safer. It would not stop violent criminals or prevent acts of hatred. It would not protect vulnerable communities from genuine threats. Those who advocate violence are already subject to criminal penalties. Nothing in the current law prevents authorities from prosecuting individuals who engage in criminal conduct. Instead, Bill C‑9 would risk threatening lawful expression rather than unlawful actions. That is a dangerous path for any democracy. Freedom of expression is not meant to protect only popular opinions. It is not meant to protect only views that government approves of. It exists to protect the ability of Canadians to express opinions, beliefs and convictions without fear of state punishment. The same principle applies to freedom of religion. Canadians should be free to worship according to their beliefs. They should be free to teach their faith, discuss their beliefs and quote their sacred texts without wondering whether it could result in criminal investigation. These rights belong to all Canadians, regardless of political affiliation or religious background. Conservatives believe that Canada can fight hate while still protecting fundamental freedoms. These goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, our legal system has long recognized the importance of balancing both. Bill C‑9 abandons that balance. It would remove a safeguard that the Supreme Court recognized as important. It would create uncertainty for faith communities across the country, and it would risk people's religious expression without providing any meaningful improvement to public safety. That is why Conservatives will stand up for people of faith, for freedom of expression, for freedom of religion and for the Charter of Rights that Canadians cherish. Conservatives will fight against this attack on our freedoms. We will defend the constitutional right that the government is attempting to take away. We will continue to stand with Canadians who believe that faith, freedom and democracy must always be protected.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

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 ↗

Amanpreet Gill

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“I want people to think the other party caused these problems. I want people to think the bill is bad because it comes from the other party.”

Grant Jackson

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“I don't want to look at the facts. I want to only listen to the opinions of certain people. I want you to think they speak for everyone. I want my opinion to win.”

Amanpreet Gill

Conservative 1:45 p.m.

“I really like the Charter. I think my party has the only fix for this problem. I want the other side to pass my fix. That way the country won't be split.”

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?”

Amanpreet Gill

Conservative 1:50 p.m.

“That bad thing? I don't like that. We should all say we don't like that. But this bill goes too far. It attacks everyone's freedom and religious rights. I want all of you to vote no on this bill. Let's all be on the same side about that.”

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois 1:50 p.m.

“That bad thing? I bet you don't like that. So let's get rid of that old rule that lets them do it.”

Amanpreet Gill

Conservative 1:50 p.m.

“I don't want to change that rule. Safeguards are good. We should keep that exemption. Don't add more fixes. Support us.”

Hon. Tim Uppal

Conservative 1:50 p.m.

“I don't like this bill. It removes a rule that protected religious expression. People of faith are worried. I want to keep that rule. A Senate amendment didn't fix it. I'm talking a lot about religious freedom.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Skyview for splitting his time with me. I know how difficult it is to take any speaking time away from a former gurdwara president. Along with a rise in violent crime in this country, we also see a rise in hate crimes right across Canada. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership and action. Laws that already exist need to be enforced, and new legislation needs to be brought in to help keep communities safe. Unfortunately, Liberal Bill C‑9 would take away protections and create uncertainty and fear among many communities and people of faith. At the heart of the debate today on Bill C‑9 is the proposed removal of a long-standing religious freedom protection that has been part of Canada's Criminal Code for more than 50 years. When Parliament first enacted hate propaganda laws in the 1970s, it deliberately included safeguards for truth, public interest, lack of intent and good-faith religious expression based on sincerely held religious beliefs and religious texts. These protections were designed to ensure that Canada could combat genuine hate crimes while preserving the fundamental freedoms that are essential in a free, democratic country. Let me be clear: This defence has never protected calls for violence, threats, genocide or any other criminal act. Those actions were already illegal and remain illegal. The issue before us today is not whether anyone should be free to spread hatred. The issue is whether Canadians acting in good faith should lose a long-standing protection for lawful religious expression. Bill C‑9 would remove that protection, and the Senate amendment would do nothing to restore it. The Liberal government has proposed changes to the Criminal Code through Bill C‑9 that could have serious consequences for freedom of expression and for religious liberty in our country. The bill would repeal long‑standing provisions that protect individuals speaking on a religious subject or quoting their sacred texts. These protections have existed for over five decades to ensure that good‑faith expression or belief is not misinterpreted as criminal conduct. With these changes, individuals acting in good faith, meaning reasonably and without malicious intent, could face the risk that preaching, sharing beliefs or expressing political views may be treated as hate speech under an expanded interpretation of the bill. It is no surprise that many people of faith, and different religious organizations, have been sounding the alarms, warning that the legislation would create uncertainty for faith communities, where sincere religious expression could potentially be subject to criminal investigation or prosecution. In fact, the same religious minority groups that are often victims of hate crimes have raised concern about parts of Bill C‑9 that could backfire and be used against them, potentially undermining the civil liberties that have historically protected them from persecution. The legal counsel for the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association acknowledged that Islamophobia is a serious issue affecting her community. She explained that Muslims, along with other racialized and marginalized groups, often face hatred, not only because of their religion but also because of race, ethnicity, language and even clothing. Despite these concerns, she urged the committee and the Senate to reject Bill C‑9 in its current form because of its impact on civil liberties. She warned that the bill would not improve public safety. Instead, she said, it could lead to overcriminalization of marginalized communities, limit political expression and reduce constitutional freedoms. She also cautioned that it could discourage people from participating in democratic debate and civic engagement, which would ultimately not make anyone safer. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has also raised significant concerns regarding the proposed removal of religious exemption in Bill C‑9. In an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, the bishops stated that the proposed amendment could have unintended consequences for religious freedom in Canada and that the current defence provides a crucial and vital safeguard for Canadians who express sincerely held religious beliefs in good faith. They noted that the provision has long protected individuals from criminal prosecution for discussing or teaching beliefs grounded in religious traditions and sacred texts. They also warned that removing the exemption could create uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators and religious organizations. According to the bishops, some may fear that traditional religious teachings on moral or doctrinal matters could be misinterpreted as hate speech, potentially exposing individuals to criminal proceedings. They express their serious concern that people would be put in a position where they must refrain from teaching their sincerely held religious beliefs. In other words, the fear of the state's cracking down on ideas with which it disagrees would lead to priests and faith leaders being silenced. Balpreet Singh, legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada, testified that his organization's recent study found that 65% of respondents across Canada have expressed anti-Sikh hate. At the same time, he raised concerns that parts of Bill C-9 could undermine lawful political expression, peaceful protests and religious freedom. He also warned that Bill C-9 has already become the target of a disinformation campaign, particularly in foreign media and online, which has falsely claimed that the bill is aimed at the Sikh communities in Canada. According to Mr. Singh, these claims are misleading and are intended to create fear and suspicion within the Sikh community. Mr. Singh emphasized that this combination of unclear legislation and misinformation has created unnecessary fear within the community even before the bill has been fully enacted. Just recently, the Senate proposed an amendment to Bill C-9 that would do nothing to address the real issues with the piece of legislation. While the amendment would add the noose to the list of prohibited hate symbols, it would do nothing to restore the protections for freedom of religion and freedom of expression that Bill C-9 would remove. The Senate amendment would not restore the religious defence. It would not address concerns about freedom of expression. It would not address concerns about freedom of religion, nor would it respond to the warnings raised by many of the communities the legislation is supposed to protect. At its core, the debate remains about fundamental freedoms. On this side of the House, we support stronger protections for churches, synagogues, gurdwaras, mosques, temples and cultural centres, and for the Canadians who gather inside them. No one should face—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates