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 (opens in a new tab)

40 statements

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

Liberal
“People voted for our leader and helped Liberal candidates win the last election. Also, the Conservatives used time limits on debate over 100 times when they were in power.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, absolutely. I wish I would be given the time to give a full answer on it. When people go to the voting booth, they exercise their vote, and the names of the local candidates are on the ballot. However, to deny the fact that people vote for the leader of political parties, the party itself and the local candidate is to deny reality. At the end of the day, people contrasted our Prime Minister to the leader of the official opposition and others. Ultimately, the support garnered for the leader helped a lot of Liberal candidates get elected in the last federal election. With respect to time allocation, I can say to my friend opposite that Peter Van Loan, who sat two desks ahead of me, would do the same sort of thing. He brought time allocation over 100 times in the last few years of the Harper government.

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

Liberal
“I expect this bill to pass. The Conservatives are spreading misinformation about it, but I believe most Canadians will see its benefits.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity, as has every member of Parliament I am sure, to address this issue, which has become fairly contentious because of the misinformation funnelled through the House of Commons by one political entity, the Conservative Party. However, I believe the majority of Canadians will become much more familiar with and see the benefits of the legislation as a whole. Therefore, I am expecting the legislation to, in fact, pass. We all have a job to do to alleviate the concerns that have been raised by the—

Greg Fergus, Hull—Aylmer

Liberal
“Why is it important to ban hate symbols like the noose, especially for Black Canadians?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made reference to one of the symbols noted in the amendment, which is the noose. As he knows, it is an issue of particular importance to Black Canadians. I wonder if he could discuss why it is important to list symbols such as the noose as hate symbols.

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

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. People are using hateful symbols to scare and hurt Canadians, and we need to stop it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 33 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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it allows me to highlight what Senator Bernard indicated. I made reference to it at the very beginning of my speech. It is a fairly long quote, but the essence of it is an individual who was sitting around a dinner table, then went out for an evening walk, where there was all sorts of language used by someone driving a truck toward her, telling her to go back to Africa, and on the truck was a noose. It would be exceptionally intimidating and life-threatening. Racism to that degree hurts in many different ways. To deny that reality, I think, does a great disservice. As parliamentarians, I think we need to recognize where Canadians are hurt by symbols, and take action. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“The Conservatives say they are tough on crime, but they oppose this bill. This bill increases prison time for hate crimes. For example, prison time for hate-based assault would double from five to 10 years. I want to know if the Conservatives still care about being tough on crime.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, I have heard the Conservatives make reference to, “Why do we need this bill at all? We already have existing laws.” It is really surprising to me, hearing that come from the Conservatives, considering they claim to be tough on crime and want longer sentences. In this bill, a simple assault committed due to hate would go from five years to 10 years in prison. Sexual assault with a weapon causing bodily harm would go from 14 years to life in prison. This bill would provide for longer, appropriate sentences and appropriate punishment for those who commit crimes involving hate. I want to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks about that. Are the Conservatives even tough on crime anymore?

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

Liberal
“The Conservatives say they are tough on crime, but they block our bills to make communities safer. They are even opposing our bill to punish partner abuse and violence against women.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 44 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

Madam Speaker, our secretary of state has highlighted Bill C-9, but it is not that alone. We also have Bill C-16, as the secretary of state knows full well, wherein we would be reinstating mandatory minimums and leading changes to criminal laws, dealing with femicide, as an example, by dealing with the issue of coercive behaviour from a partner. The Conservatives are opposing that legislation too. It really does make one wonder why it is that they like to talk tough and raise money on the issue of crime, but when it comes time to vote and get the legislation through, they are nothing more than a barrier. They go out of their way to prevent legislation from passing. I appreciate the question because it highlights the roadblock the Conservatives continue to put up on us making our communities safer.

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill to fight hate. Hate stops people from speaking and practicing their religion freely. I do not understand why the Conservatives oppose this bill.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, who here does not believe that all Canadians should live free of hate? I cannot fathom how the Conservatives cannot support this legislation, how they can position freedom of expression and freedom of religion against combatting hate, as if this bill would not defend and protect people’s charter-protected rights to freely express themselves. Hate is the very thing that has people afraid to express themselves, to worship the way they choose to worship. It is unfathomable to me that the Conservatives have taken the position that they have, that they are somehow opposed to combatting hate. It is just deplorable I wonder if my colleague, who made a great intervention in the House, would speak to just how shocking and appalling it is.

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

Liberal
“The Conservative Party has become too extreme. They are making a mistake by not supporting this hate crimes bill, and they are spreading false information about it instead.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 32 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

Madam Speaker, we have seen today’s Conservative Party continue to move further and further to the right. It has become an extreme right that is dominating the House leadership within the Conservative Party. We see that more and more, and I do not say that lightly. If we take a look at it, not one Conservative has stood up and asked me a question about my comments. I suspect it is because they are a little reluctant, given the seriousness of the debate, and they recognize the weakness, and, in fact, that they are making a mistake, by not getting behind Bill C-9. Instead of getting behind it, they are allowing their House leadership team to continue to promote and get out misinformation on the issue.

Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie

Liberal
“This bill promotes peace, not hatred. I want my colleague to explain why the opposition is against it.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to add to that because I do not believe that anyone is opposed to peace, which is the opposite of hatred. This bill will help us build a new Canada that is fundamentally committed to promoting peace. Could my colleague offer his comments and explain why the opposition continues to fight this bill?

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

Liberal
“Canada's diversity is one of our greatest strengths. We can show leadership to the world by passing this bill to protect it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, to pick up on the first part of the member’s comments, Canada is a diverse country. Our diversity is one of the greatest strengths that we have, and we can demonstrate leadership throughout the world by passing legislation of this nature and cherishing our diversity.

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“This bill creates a separate crime for hate. I want to know if the member thinks someone should get a harsher punishment if they commit a crime because of hate.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, although I disagree with much of the speech of the member opposite, what I wanted to know from her is, since this bill proposes a stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code, which essentially doubles up on other offences, if someone in her community were to commit a theft, for example, of a convenience store, but they did it based on a hate motivation, does she believe that person should have a tougher sentence? This is what I want to know from the member. Is she tough on crime? Does she believe a hate-motivated crime should be a tougher offence?

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“Jewish people in my community and major Jewish groups support this bill. They have faced hate, and this bill will help keep them safe when they go to their places of worship.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I come from a community in the Durham region, which has Chabad, a Jewish community centre. It has active members of the Jewish community who exercise their faith, go to their synagogue and have their own community centres and places of worship. They have asked for this legislation. In fact, they have supported it from day one, because they have experienced acts of hate in our community throughout the Durham region. They have asked the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to offer more protections so that they can express themselves, worship the way they choose to worship in their community and feel protected and safe. We also have CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and B’nai Brith Canada, which have all supported this legislation. I can read the quotes. Does the member opposite not believe that anything those organizations—

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“The member is talking about a different bill that has nothing to do with this one.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the relevance of the member’s speaking to a completely different bill, which has nothing to do with Bill C‑9.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“This bill doubles the punishment for people who stop someone from entering their synagogue. The community supports this bill because it gives harsher penalties to people who commit hate crimes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about underlying crimes that are in the code already, such as assault or mischief. This bill would take the penalties for those crimes and double them for people who would dare prevent somebody from going into their synagogue. I know the community is supportive of this bill, because it would give longer and more meaningful, substantial penalties for those who commit hate crimes in Canada.

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill and include the noose on the list of banned hate symbols. The noose is a tool of racial terror against Black people. This bill will make it a crime to display hate symbols in public, and it will protect people from being blocked or threatened at their places of worship.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. In Canada, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, their religious practices, or where they gather. However, recently we have seen an increase in hate crimes. As members of Parliament, we cannot stand idly by. We must take action. Bill C-9 introduces a targeted set of reforms to the Criminal Code to protect safe access to community spaces, address hate crimes and clarify the legal definition of hate. Bill C-9 also expands the existing offence of wilful promotion of hatred by recognizing a modern expression of hate: the public display of hateful or terrorist symbols. We thereby recognize that when a person displays certain symbols with the intent to deliberately promote hatred, this constitutes a separate offence. Today, we are focusing specifically on the proposed Senate amendment to add the noose to the list of symbols of hate. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has heard from numerous witnesses and organizations who have stated that the noose is a recognized symbol of terror and intimidation against Black people and that it should be treated in the same manner under the new offence relating to hate symbols. I sincerely believe that when people targeted by these symbols courageously come forward to testify before a parliamentary committee, whether in the House of Commons or the Senate, to explain how a symbol is perceived as an instrument of violence, threat, and hatred directed at them, we have a duty to listen to them. The noose is closely associated with the history of racial lynchings that have left their mark on North America. It has been used to terrorize, humiliate and control Black communities for generations by making them feel that they were neither safe in their own communities nor fully accepted within society. Its use against Black people is a form of racial intimidation and a symbol associated with violence and white supremacy. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Displaying it in a workplace, in an educational institution, at a demonstration or elsewhere in the public sphere goes beyond the bounds of legitimate expression. When it is used to target or intimidate Black people, it then symbolizes real acts of persecution, violence and hatred. As a Canadian citizen, I believe that we should all be concerned when such symbols are used to promote hatred against colleagues, friends or members of our communities. Combatting hate is not just an issue for those who are directly affected by it. It is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Even when we are not personally targeted by hate symbols, we cannot remain silent. As members of Canadian society, we have a duty to strongly condemn behaviours that seek to intimidate, exclude or terrorize some of our fellow Canadians. This goes to the very nature of living together in harmony. Especially when members of our communities are being targeted, being there for one another is what defines us as Canadians. Our diversity is a strength, but it can only thrive in a climate of respect, dignity and security. Last night, I was appalled by the tone of the remarks made by certain Conservative colleagues, in particular those of the member for York—Durham. He downplayed the impact of the use of the noose in Canada, going so far as to say that it was odd to include it in the bill as a symbol of hate. I feel my colleague’s remarks are inappropriate and deeply out of place. The MP’s comments unfortunately demonstrate a lack of consideration for the experiences of many members of the Black community. Questioning the need to recognize the noose as a hate symbol is akin to downplaying the suffering, fear and trauma that this symbol evokes for those who have historically been targeted by racial violence. These remarks also show disregard for the testimony of many individuals and organizations who have come before parliamentarians to explain the historical and contemporary significance of this symbol. In this context, downplaying its significance sends a worrying message. It gives the impression that the concerns being expressed by the Black community are not being taken seriously. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to listen, understand and acknowledge the realities experienced by communities affected by racism in order to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Brushing aside their concerns, as my colleague did last night, or questioning the legitimacy of their experiences does nothing to help build a more inclusive society. On the contrary, it risks trivializing behaviours that have no place in a democracy that respects the dignity of every individual. These comments from the Conservative member are all the more concerning because they ignore the reality experienced by many Black Canadians. Hate crime data that is reported by police shows that Black people remain among the most frequently targeted groups for hate crimes based on race or ethnicity. Behind these statistics are individuals, families and communities that experience the real consequences of racism and intimidation. In this context, it is difficult to understand why some people would choose to downplay the impact of a symbol that is widely recognized as a historical instrument of racial violence. Instead, we should be listening to affected communities and being serious about measures to protect them better. As legislators, we have a responsibility to act seriously, with sensitivity and respect, toward people who are the target of hate crimes. I sincerely hope that my colleague from York—Durham will retract his statement and reconsider what he said last night, because it was completely unacceptable. His statement has no place in the House or in society. In Canada, there is no place for hatred or intimidation based on race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. We have a collective duty to build a country in which everyone can live, work, learn and practise their religion safely and without fear of being targeted or intimidated. That is why I support the Senate amendment to recognize the noose as a symbol of hate. Adopting the amendment sends a clear message. We have heard the affected communities, we acknowledge their experiences and we refuse to turn a blind eye to hatred. This is how we strengthen our shared way of life and the truly Canadian values of respect, equality and dignity. I will use the last few minutes of my time to say that I am disappointed by the excessive partisanship we have seen in the debate on Bill C‑9. In a debate as serious as this one, a debate about fighting hatred, about the lived experiences of people in our communities, we should be able to set partisanship aside and truly reflect on how to make our communities safer for everyone. We must rise to the occasion. Canadians expect us to elevate the level of debate, to rise above partisan games. Unfortunately, that is not what we have seen from the Conservative side. I urge my colleagues to exercise caution and rigour in the tone and content of their remarks, particularly when it comes to issues as sensitive as combatting hate. Sensationalist slogans and simplistic statements designed to stir up people on social media have no place in such a serious debate. We are here to legislate responsibly, not to polarize public discourse. As lawmakers, we also have a duty to maintain a healthy social climate and to consider the consequences our words may have in the public sphere. Unfortunately, during the debate on Bill C‑9, we also saw a major disinformation campaign circulating, particularly on social media. This campaign was fuelled in part by the remarks made by Conservative members of Parliament. As my colleague mentioned earlier, certain aspects of Bill C‑9 have been completely distorted from reality and have even been used in the Conservative Party’s political fundraising activities. I do not believe this is commensurate with the issues before us, and I find it deplorable. Lastly, beyond the issue of hate symbols, Bill C‑9 is an important step forward in a number of ways. For one thing, it includes a new obstruction offence that prohibits obstructing or interfering with lawful access to a building or structure used primarily for religious worship or by an identifiable group. This is indeed a problem. People must be able to enter the place they use for religious worship or gatherings in complete safety. This is fundamental. The bill also proposes a new intimidation offence that would prohibit behaviour meant to intimidate, threaten or frighten persons trying to access a building used primarily by an identifiable group or for religious worship. These measures will make our communities safer for everyone. I am calling on all of my colleagues to support Bill C‑9, now in the final stages of the legislative process, so that it can be implemented and address the very real concerns of our communities.

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“I want this bill to include the noose as a hate symbol. We must call out people who downplay how much these symbols hurt targeted groups.”
  • 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, I was also in the House yesterday at that late hour. I actually do think that condemning it is entirely legitimate. We cannot remain silent when people make comments that minimize the repercussions that certain symbols can have on targeted communities. I was not planning on speaking to Bill C-9 today, but after listening to my colleague, I wrote my speech this morning to call out those kinds of remarks. I also wanted to point out that witnesses appearing before the Senate explained why the noose should be included as a hate symbol in the bill. Minimizing these repercussions within the Parliament of Canada could have an impact on people listening to us. I found that—

Ryan Turnbull, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Liberal
“I want this bill passed to help stop hate crimes. People in my town have faced attacks and hateful symbols, and many communities asked us for this law. Does the member agree that we need to pass it quickly?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague’s support of this bill. I know that all members on this side of the House take this bill very seriously. In my community of Whitby, we have seen acts of hate, including a swastika burned into the playground lawn in a local park behind a school. We saw a woman wearing a hijab almost get set on fire in a local library. These acts of hate are things that our government is seeking to address through this important legislation. Definitely, we had requests from the Jewish community at the outset, but also from many other communities that are impacted by hate. Could the member opposite speak to how important it is to get this legislation done?

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“I want everyone to vote for this bill. It will protect people from hate and help keep our communities safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, no one should feel threatened or unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise, or where they gather. This is essential. Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia have no place in Canada. For the sake of people who are victims of hateful behaviour, we have a duty to ensure that communities are safe for everyone. Bill C-9 includes several proposals that represent a significant step forward in ensuring that everyone, no matter who they are, can live in safe communities in Canada. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill because it is essential.

Natilien Joseph, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Liberal
“I want to ask my colleague a question. Do elected officials have a duty to speak out against hate, even when it comes from their own supporters?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois ask my colleague a question. To respond respectfully, I would like to ask my colleague a question that will help broaden the discussion a bit. Does my colleague agree that elected officials have a responsibility to speak out against hate when it comes from people who support their own side?

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“We must all care when symbols are used to spread hate, even if it does not target us personally. A Conservative member wrongly downplayed the harm of the noose as a hate symbol. That is why this bill is important.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I think that, as Canadian citizens, we all need to take notice when symbols are used to promote hate. We do not need to be personally affected. As members of Canadian society, we are all affected when our colleagues, friends or community members are the target of hateful behaviour. Last night, we heard a Conservative member downplay the symbolic impact of the noose in Canada. He even said that it was odd to include it as a hate symbol in the bill. I think those remarks are completely out of place. That is why I rose in the House this morning to speak out against these remarks and to remind members about the importance of Bill C‑9.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 137

  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