“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.”

“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—”

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

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“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?”

“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?”

“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?”

“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?”

“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.”

“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.”

“I want to know if the member agrees with her Conservative colleague. Yesterday, he downplayed the harm of the noose in Canada and questioned calling it a hate symbol. I want other Conservatives to say where they stand on his comments.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would rather hear my colleague tell me whether she supports the remarks made by her colleague from York—Durham. Yesterday, he made comments that downplayed the impact of the noose in Canada. He said it was odd to include it as a hate symbol. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. I would be very interested in hearing from more Conservative members and finding out what their positions are with respect to what their colleague said last night.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Police have asked us for better tools. Conservatives usually say we need tougher laws to fix crime, but now they act like tougher laws do not matter. I want to know if the member thinks tougher penalties matter or not.”

“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—”