TranslatePolitics.ca

Anthony Housefather

Liberal 3:35 p.m.

“I want the Parliament of Canada to act. I want to make it clear that police and prosecutors should have more tools to charge people for hate crimes. I want greater protection for minority communities across this country. I want to deliver protections to all religious faiths, the LGBTQ+ community, and indigenous communities. I do not accept the argument that we should not give police the tools they say they need. I want the federal government to do something.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. The combatting hate act has been before this House for nine months. During those nine months, we have had extensive debate in this place, in the other place and at committee. This bill is important. I want to take members back to what started the process of amending our hate laws in a way that is broader than the way they have been amended in the last 30 years. In the spring of 2024, in my own riding of Mount Royal, the Jewish community centre, the Montreal Holocaust Museum and The Jewish Public Library were surrounded by demonstrators. They were surrounded by demonstrators yelling hateful things. They were surrounded by demonstrators carrying signs, some of which supported terrorist organizations. However, the police failed to arrest people. They failed to stop what was a demonstration that descended into illegality. They said at the time that they did not have clear enough instructions or clear enough rules related to when a demonstration outside of a community centre, a school, a temple, a church or a synagogue has crossed the line. The combatting hate act makes clear that these buildings deserve special protection. It creates new intimidation and obstruction offences related to protests outside of community centres, places of worship and schools that make it clear that these buildings deserve special protection. It makes it clear that a person cannot intimidate someone from entering that building to hear a speaker they want to hear, to worship as they want to worship or to attend their classes. It makes it clear that a person cannot obstruct people from entering or leaving the building, which is what happened that night in March 2024. At the time, I called for this change to the criminal law. I said that, because the police told me that they were unable to take action, the Parliament of Canada has a duty to act, to rewrite existing criminal laws so that they are clearer and so they provide more tools to police officers. The same thing happened with respect to Mr. Charkaoui. He said things that were absolutely hateful in the streets of Montreal, but the prosecutors did not take action. We ended up in a situation where the House set up a committee. I asked for the justice and human rights committee to study anti-Semitism. We did, and in December 2024, we put out a unanimous report, on most issues. Yes, there was dissent, but the dissent was not on the vast majority of issues, including the intimidation and obstruction offence. However, that has not stopped what the Prime Minister called the “crisis of anti-Semitism” that has overwhelmed the western world, including Canada, where over 70% of religious-based hate offences are against the Jewish community, which makes up 1.2% of the population, and where a Jewish Canadian has a 19 times greater chance of having a hate crime committed against them than the average Canadian. I want to point out that two weeks ago there was an attempted arson attack on a temple in Westmount, Temple Emanu‑El, where I joined the Minister of Canadian Identity, former senator Marc Gold, and the Secretary of State for Youth to support the community at services. This law has a stand-alone hate provision, which can be used alongside the arson charges that gentleman will face, to make sure the person who is charged will face more jail time than previously. We also have provisions in this bill to say that when people fly terrorist symbols, the Nazi hakenkreuz or the SS bolt, or now the noose, which was added by the Senate in its recent amendment, in a way that inspires hate against a community, they would now easily be charged by the police. The bill offers greater protection for minority communities across this country, and for majority communities, by the way. It offers greater protections to Christians as well, who are a majority. It delivers protections to all religious faiths. It delivers protections to the LGBTQ+ community, the indigenous communities and other communities that face hate. Why would anyone be against it? Why would anyone be against this bill? The only argument I have heard to date against this bill, the number one reason I have heard, is that the law is not being enforced and we should just enforce the existing law, as if the federal government was responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code. This is something that is in the hands of the provinces. The decisions on whether to charge people are made by local municipal police, in most cases, and provincial prosecutors, not the federal government. The argument that we should not give police the tools they say they need to prosecute these crimes, because we should just tell them to do what they are supposed to do, does not wash, because it is essentially saying that the federal government should do nothing. We have the ability to write the Criminal Code, and we are doing so. With this bill, when it is enacted, and with the new bail and sentencing reform bill, which just received royal assent, we can now, as the Minister of Public Safety confirmed, go to the provinces and territories, have a PT meeting with the provinces and territories, and say that we need to act together to train police and prosecutors. We need specialized hate crime prosecutors across this country, to be named by the provinces. We need, most importantly, to have prosecutorial directives or other measures, where police are told by the provincial attorneys general how they should prosecute these crimes. It should be consistent across this country. The passing of this flurry of justice bills is an opportunity for us. I also want to address some of the misinformation I heard earlier today in the debate. First, one member talked about parents being worried about what they can say at the dinner table. Private discussions are not covered under the wilful promotion of hatred provisions under section 319 of the Criminal Code. To have members tell people that they have to worry about what they say at their dinner table is knowingly false. It is not true. Second, there were claims that the government would go out there and charge people, that somehow one minister's comments would lead to a government that could go out and say that people should be charged. However, we live in a system where independent prosecutors, working with police, make these decisions. They are not influenced by what a government person tells them to do or not to do in any individual case. The only way for the government to have its view is prosecutorial directives that apply to an entire class of people, which would come from the provincial attorneys general, not the federal one usually. I am kind of shocked to hear these claims that are so far out of reality that it diminishes what we are trying to do in the law. Finally, let me be absolutely clear. We also inserted a provision for greater clarity, to make clear that this is not the case, but we should not have had to do that, because it is obvious that this is not the case. People will not be charged because they read, quote or preach the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or any other holy book. This is entirely made up. It is negated by the Charter of Rights. It is negated by the “for greater certainty” provision in the bill. This is a really important bill. As a member of the Jewish community who has felt this hate, I know that every major organization in my community supports this bill. It is a really important bill to get hate off our streets, to make sure criminals get off our streets and to make sure there is deterrence. I would call upon everyone to support this bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 3:35 p.m.

“Religious leaders in the Jewish community are worried about the removal of the religious exemption. I want to protect religious freedom and freedom of speech. I don't want people to have to go through a long court process to get a remedy. Why are you ignoring the concerns of the Orthodox Jewish community?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first, I would put to the member that the Orthodox Jewish community and the religious leaders within the Jewish community are overwhelmingly opposed to the removal of the religious exemption. I would encourage the member to take their concerns seriously. Moreover, the idea that a statute that denies religious freedom and attacks freedom of speech is not a big deal because the charter protects religious freedom is not great comfort to most people. It may be that this law could be found unconstitutional, if a person who is charged then addresses the issue of religious freedom through the courts and eventually gets a remedy for that, but that is a long and difficult process for an individual to go through. It would be better if we did not pass laws that violate religious freedom in the first place, therefore not requiring that kind of charter action. Why is the member proceeding with this in light of those obvious concerns, especially from the Orthodox Jewish community?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Anthony Housefather

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“I don't care what that other guy said. All the big Jewish groups like this bill. Most of the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I know like this bill. Canadian Jews want this bill. I want this bill. Nothing in this bill hurts religious freedom. The old rule we took out never worked anyway.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the organizations that speak for the organized Jewish communities, all of them, support the bill, whether it is CIJA, B'nai Brith, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the numerous groups that Mark Sandler has assembled in Toronto or the Canadian Women Against Antisemitism. I do not know of any major Jewish organization in the country that does not support this bill, so I do not believe that to be true. Most of the Orthodox Jewish rabbis I know support this bill, so I do not believe that is true. There may be some who do not, just like there are some in every religion who do not, but the vast majority of Canadian Jews have been asking for this bill and want this bill. As to the question of religious freedom, there is nothing in this bill that would thwart religious freedom. We removed a defence that has never successfully been used in Canadian history.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 3:45 p.m.

“I also want to cheer for this bill to pass. No Jewish groups I know disagree. The bill counts as "protecting" the Jewish community. Jewish people need special protection because there is a lot of anti-Semitism. I want the Liberal member to agree the bill will let Jewish people feel safe.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking along the same lines as my colleague from Mount Royal. I congratulate him on his speech. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois's call over the past several years to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code has finally been included in Bill C-9, which we are debating today. Like my colleague from Mount Royal, I have never heard any group representing the Jewish community speak out against this request from the Bloc Québécois. On the contrary, it is seen as yet another tool to protect Jewish communities, which have been particularly targeted by hate crimes over the past few years and even in recent days. Once again, we are witnessing extremely troubling acts of anti-Semitism in our society . I would like to know what my colleague thinks. In fact, he just touched on the answer a bit in his response to our Conservative colleague, but I want to know what he thinks the repeal of this exemption will mean for the sense of security among Jewish communities in Canada.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Anthony Housefather

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“I claim this bill will make people feel safe. A Jewish group agreed with a Bloc proposal once. I'm sad no charges happened after some march in Montreal. This religious defence has never worked in court. But I still want the bill. No one should use their religion to excuse hate.”

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“Our leader promised this in the last election. It will look bad if we don't pass it. I have faith our leader wants to stop hate. I hope my colleague reassures me the government will pass this bill.”

Anthony Housefather

Liberal 3:45 p.m.

“I'm telling a story about how our leader agreed with me years ago. I want you to think well of him. I claim this shows we keep our promises.”

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Independent 3:50 p.m.

“I'm saying goodbye. I am grateful to my riding and my party. I have fought for Quebec's interests in Parliament. Quebec can do great things. I am leaving the Bloc but I will still fight for Quebec. I want Quebec to become a country.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2019, I came with a deep sense of gratitude toward the people of Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, who had placed their trust in me. That was the name of my riding at the time. I also arrived with a conviction that has been with me for many years, that Quebec is a nation and that this nation must be able to freely choose its future. I became a member of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois when I was 16 years old. Since then, my involvement has taken many forms. Activism, studying, research, teaching, writing and, ultimately, political representation. These different steps were always guided by the same desire to understand the world that we live in and to contribute in a small way to the advancement of Quebec. Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of representing our region in this House. I have risen in this place to defend the interests of our workers, our businesses, our agriculture and our communities. I have brought Quebec's voice into debates on international trade, the economy, defence and the choices shaping our collective future. I have also learned how battles are fought here, what crisis management is about, and the importance of dialogue despite differences. Often, behind the sometimes heated debates that pit us against each other, are women and men sincerely devoted to the common good. For that, I want to thank my colleagues from every party, along with House staff members and everyone who contributes on a daily basis to keeping our institutions running. However, my time here has also strengthened some of my convictions. I have witnessed the full scope of the talent, resources and creativity that Quebec possesses and that it will need to rise to the future challenges that await it. I have also seen the limits it confronts when it tries to pursue its national priorities within a political entity whose interests sometimes diverge from its own. This observation has not discouraged me, on the contrary. It has strengthened my faith in Quebec's capabilities. It has strengthened my conviction that our nation must continue building its institutions, its economy, its culture and its capacity to act. Throughout our history, Quebeckers have often made the most progress when they chose boldness over resignation. We have built institutions. We have developed an economy. We have asserted our culture. Generation after generation, we have demonstrated that we can accomplish great things when we have confidence in ourselves. That confidence is what inspires me today. Public service remains one of the greatest privileges a person can have. No matter where we are called to serve, our duty remains the same, and that is to work with integrity, diligence and loyalty. Once again, I thank the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the honour they have bestowed upon us. I would like to thank my family, my friends, my associates and everyone who has supported me on this journey. I thank all the staffers who have worked in my constituency office over the years. One of them has been with us from the very beginning, and that is Amélie, my wonderful constituency assistant. I would like to thank all the party supporters who led us to three victories, with an increasing number of votes every time. I would like to thank my predecessors, Yvan Loubier and Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, who have always been very supportive. I thank them for their invaluable advice. I cannot leave the House without expressing my heartfelt gratitude to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Over the years, I have had the privilege of belonging to a political party made up of people who care deeply about Quebec and about advocating for Quebec. My colleagues are competent, generous and dedicated, and their friendship and support have meant so much to me in the political arena and beyond. I am also especially grateful to our leader. I call him our leader because, even though I am listed as independent, I am still a Bloc Québécois member and activist and will remain so until we achieve independence. His leadership, political acumen and confidence have enabled me to grow as a parliamentarian and as a representative of our fellow citizens. I have learned so much working alongside him. The Bloc Québécois will continue to play an essential role in advocating for Quebec. I am now taking on a new challenge, or rather, I have decided to fight this battle elsewhere, but I am still motivated by the sense of hope I felt at age 16 when I first joined the party. My hope is for a Quebec that makes its own choices, that has faith in its capabilities and that is resolutely focused on the future. I will continue to devote myself entirely to this cause until Quebec becomes a country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Luc Berthold

Conservative 3:50 p.m.

“I don't agree with your political goals but I respect your years of service. Goodbye and good luck. We all work hard in Ottawa.”

Hon. Karina Gould

Liberal 3:50 p.m.

“I will miss you even though we disagree sometimes. You worked hard and it was nice to work with you. Goodbye and good luck.”

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 3:50 p.m.

“You're leaving us for the Quebec election. You did a good job defending lots of industries and fighting forced labour. I'll miss having a friend next door to joke with but now we'll be allies fighting for Quebec as its own country.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton made an announcement today, June 17, or maybe it is June 18. I am not very good with dates, as my colleague knows. Today, June 16, he announced that he is leaving us to run for the Parti Québécois in Quebec's general election this fall. I want to congratulate this extraordinary colleague who wears such sharp suits and ties and has such a unique sense of style. He is an activist. That is a privilege that we have as members of the Bloc Québécois. Our party is full of activists, men and women of conviction who are dedicated to the interests of Quebeckers and to a great and noble cause: making Quebec a country. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton now intends to champion this cause at the Quebec National Assembly. We were colleagues and, from now on, we will be allies. What a colleague he was. He has done impeccable work as the critic for international trade over the past six years, whether in the midst of a trade war or a pandemic. He has masterfully defended the aluminum, forestry and aerospace industries, among others. He worked with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to protect supply management, and he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to combatting forced labour. Everything he did in the House, he did with conviction and generosity. He is an activist. The Bloc Québécois is losing a member who is appreciated by everyone, a friend. Personally, I am also losing a riding neighbour with whom I had the opportunity to laugh and have fun, and I will miss that. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for his years of service and his sincere convictions. I look forward to working with him in the future. I am sure we will meet each other again in our efforts to fight for Quebec as a country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Elizabeth May

Green 3:50 p.m.

“That's sad. I liked working with you. You worked hard. I wish you well. Maybe you'll still help us in Canada sometimes.”

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 4:00 p.m.

“I want to look like I'm against hate. This bill won't stop hate. It has too many words. Police need to act faster. Prosecutors need more money. The bill is too vague. It might stop legal protests. Many groups don't like the bill. The government should listen. The government ended debate. That was wrong. The bill won't make anyone safer. We should have fixed it. The government chose bad options.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, hate is real, and it is doing damage in communities across this country. No Canadian should be intimidated because of who they are, how they worship, what they look like, where they come from or what they believe. The question before us is not whether hate should be taken seriously. The question is whether Bill C-9 would actually make Canadians safer. The problem we hear about again and again is not the absence of words in the Criminal Code; it is the failure to act when people break the law. Communities are not safer when Parliament adds more words. They are safer when police respond quickly, when charges are laid where evidence supports them, when prosecutors have the resources to move cases forward, when repeat offenders face real consequences and when victims have confidence that the justice system is willing to protect them. The number and range of organizations that have raised alarms about Bill C-9 are stunning. It is not just one political party, it is not just one faith community and it is not just one type of advocacy group. Civil liberties organizations across the political spectrum have warned that this bill risks sweeping too broadly and chilling lawful expression and peaceful protest. A broad array of community organizations from across the political spectrum have warned that vague criminal law can be used unevenly and can fall hardest on the very communities it claims to protect. Progressive and traditional faith groups alike have warned about the removal of long-standing protections for good-faith religious expression. Legal and constitutional voices have raised serious concerns about the balance between public safety and fundamental freedoms. That breadth of opposition should give every member of the House pause, because when civil liberties groups, religious organizations, community advocates, legal experts and grassroots coalitions from so many walks of life all tell Parliament it is on the wrong track, the responsible thing to do is to listen. It is not to push ahead and dismiss those concerns as being fringe, unserious or misleading. The people raising these concerns are not defending hate. Many of them work every day, tirelessly, against hate, racism and violence. Their point, when they came to this place and to the other place to share their views on this bill, was to tell us that bad law can make hard problems worse. Their point has been that criminal law must be precise, fair and enforceable. When Parliament writes vague laws in the name of safety, it can create uncertainty and the opposite of safety for ordinary Canadians, while doing little to stop those who are already willing to break the law. That is the core weakness of Bill C-9. It tries to show strength through wording rather than through action or results, and yet it is remarkably confusing and imprecise in its wording. In that, Bill C-9 risks blurring the line between hateful conduct, which must be punished, and lawful expression, which must remain protected even when it is controversial, offensive and deeply unpopular. A mature democracy can punish violence and intimidation without giving the state a vague mandate to police belief, scripture, protest or political speech. For the communities that are counting on this bill, the Minister of Artificial Intelligence failed just last night to answer the key question they are asking: Who would the police be able to arrest when this law is passed who they cannot arrest today? How would this bill help bring order to the chaos that has taken over the streets in some communities right now? How would this bill actually stop the bullets, the fires and the death threats? Instead of providing answers and safety, the government brought forward a bill that has divided communities, alarmed civil society and created uncertainty about how far the long arm of the criminal law would reach. That is not careful work. That is not the careful work that Canadians expect from the House. It is not the careful work that is required when fundamental freedoms are at stake. Opposing the bill does not mean accepting hate. What it means is demanding a better answer. I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been heard. I will be the last speaker on the bill because the government has chosen to end the debate. I have said, many times in the House, that just because the Liberal majority can do something, it does not mean it should. Power gives a government the ability to move quickly but it does not give it wisdom. It does not turn a flawed bill into a good one. It does not turn words into results. In the coming weeks and months, Canadians will see what the bill would not do. It would not make a synagogue safer when threats are not met with enforcement. It would not make a mosque safer when police do not have the tools or resources to act quickly. It would not make a church, temple, school or community centre safer if the justice system still cannot follow through. It would not reassure vulnerable Canadians if the government confuses passing a bill with solving a problem. When those failures become clear, no one on that side of the House should pretend they were not warned. They were warned by civil liberties groups. They were warned by faith communities of all kinds. They were warned by legal experts. They were warned by organizations from many different walks of life, many of whom rarely agree on much else but agreed on this. They agreed that Bill C-9 is not the careful, enforceable, unifying response that Canadians deserve. The government had a choice. It could have listened. It could have fixed the bill. It could have spent the time necessary to work with the provinces to truly hear what they need, not in terms of words but in terms of enforcement, in terms of resources, in terms of real support. It could have brought forward a measure focused on real enforcement, real protection and real accountability. Instead, the government chose closure. They chose more words on paper. None of us are safer or more united for those choices. If this government is not interested in meaningful debate, we might as well save our breath. I move: That this House do now adjourn.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andréanne Larouche

Bloc Québécois 4:50 p.m.

“I want Bloc supporters to see me cheering for women. I want to be seen voting against whatever this is.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Combatting Hate Act

Anthony Housefather

Garnett Genuis

Anthony Housefather

Martin Champoux

Anthony Housefather

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Anthony Housefather

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Luc Berthold

Hon. Karina Gould

Martin Champoux

Elizabeth May

Tamara Kronis

Andréanne Larouche