Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Combatting Hate Act

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

What the law does

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.

Official text

8 statements

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois
“People are upset about this hate crime bill. Does the member agree the government did a bad job explaining it, which let false information spread? What will the government do to explain its bills better next time?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people. Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information? What will the government do differently next time to explain its legislative initiatives more effectively?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois
“This bill says people can still practice their religion and share their beliefs, as long as they are not spreading hate. I want my colleague to explain why that does not reassure him.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate. Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a biblical text. The following involves subsections 319(2) and 319(2.2): For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.‍2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement. Why is my colleague not reassured by Bill C-9’s interpretive clauses?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois
“The member said we should not repeat hurtful comments. But he just repeated them in his speech. Is he contradicting himself?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay. I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m. He spoke on the importance of not repeating remarks that might be hurtful to others, yet by taking a few minutes of his speech to go over these remarks again, is he not contradicting himself?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois
“We need to change the law so people cannot use religious texts to spread hate without being punished. I want to know if my colleague agrees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the laws already exist and that they need to be enforced. At least one area does require a legislative amendment, specifically the religious exemption for incitement to hatred. Under that exemption, anyone who quotes a passage from the Bible or the Quran to incite hatred will be protected and cannot be prosecuted. Does my colleague agree that a legislative amendment is needed in that regard?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois
“The Conservatives do not want to debate this bill. My colleague wants more debate, so I am asking her how we can reach an agreement.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives are reluctant to engage in any real debate on a number of points. My colleague said she would like to see this debated further. What solutions would she propose to ensure that we finally reach an agreement?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois
“My party got an amendment passed to remove the religious excuse for spreading hate. I want to know if my colleague thinks this will help create more respect between different religions and groups of people.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment that has been adopted. It seeks to abolish the religious exemption in the Criminal Code regarding incitement to hatred. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this. How will this help to foster a more civilized debate and promote respect between different religions and people of all backgrounds?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know what my colleague thinks about removing the religious exception for hate speech. It would not ban reading holy books. It would stop people from using those books on purpose to spread hate against others.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the repeal of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for cases of incitement of hatred. It definitely does not mean that reading religious texts of any religion whatsoever is forbidden, but it does prohibit deliberately using religious texts to incite hatred against a group or another religion.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois
“No one should use religious texts to spread hate against any group. I want to remove the law that currently allows people to use religion as a defense for hate speech.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that religious texts should never be deliberately used to incite hatred against a particular group? If so, why not abolish the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this type of offence?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 137

All 60 items ·
  1. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 9 statements
  2. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 91 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  4. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Privacy 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions Access to Information 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 5 statements
  13. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Post-Secondary Education 3 statements
  19. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Privacy 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  23. Oral Questions Public Service of Canada 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  25. Oral Questions Government Accountability 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Grocery Industry 2 statements
  27. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  28. Oral Questions Canada Revenue Agency 2 statements
  29. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  30. Oral Questions Firearms 3 statements
  31. Oral Questions Presence in Gallery 2 statements
  32. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  33. Oral Questions Points of Order 4 statements
  34. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 14 statements
  35. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  36. Oral Questions Persons with Disabilities 2 statements
  37. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26 29 statements
  38. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  39. Private Members' Business National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act 7 statements
  40. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26 22 statements
  41. Government Orders An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund 56 statements
  42. Government Orders Points of Order 2 statements