Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and to speak to the bill. I would like to start by providing a comment on both the question I posed to the member who just spoke and some of the discussion that was taking place late last night around midnight on the floor of the House. I will quote specifically Senator Bernard from comments she has made, because there has been a lot of talk on the floor about the issue of the noose. This is what she stated: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act. I will start by asking you to join me for a walk. You have just had dinner with your family. After dinner, you go for a walk alone in your neighbourhood. You are walking down the street at dusk, and a group of young men pass you in a pickup truck. They yell profanities at you and tell you to go back to Africa where you belong. You look at the vehicle as it drives away, and there is a noose hanging from the back of their pickup truck. This, in part, is why we need to bring in the legislation that is before us today. I find it disrespectful when individuals in essence mock or try to belittle something as serious as the noose, because we do know that racism hurts. It hurts a great deal at times, physically and mentally. For many years, from the beginning of my political career in 1988, I have had the opportunity to talk about a wide variety of issues. On one occasion when I was at a hotel, I was talking to a wonderful young lady from our Black heritage community, and an individual walked up to us and asked her how long she had been in Canada. The individual in question was somewhat offended, and understandably so, because if the person had understood Canadian heritage and our history, I am sure that person would have realized it was a silly question to ask. I suspect that if I had been standing beside someone from the European community, from a Caucasian community, who had just landed at the city of Winnipeg airport and walked into the hotel, it would not have been an issue. The question would not have been asked. I draw the contrast between Senator Bernard's account and an incident of this nature. I believe at my core that Canada's greatest asset is our diversity. We should be looking at a way in which we can champion that. Canada should be showing the world just how important diversity is and how valuable it is to our society. I believe that provincial Hansard from decades ago would show that I talked about how the best way to combat racism is to deal with it through education and that it needs to be incorporated into the curriculum of our schools. I have taken the issue very seriously virtually from day one, as Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the party, appointed me on the issues of tourism and ethnic diversity. I attended things such as Folklorama, where in my first year, I believe I went to 26 different pavilions, where I was able to be baptized in the many different cultures and heritages that make us who we are as a nation, at least in part. Our diversity is something we should all be very proud of. However, there is an ugly side that is real, that is tangible and that hurts Canadians every day of the year. Whether the Conservatives may want to turn a blind eye to it or not in certain areas, the government will not do that. That is the reason we have Bill C‑9 before us. The Prime Minister has recognized it and made it a priority issue. It is a part of the series of crime bills we have brought forward, and we are looking for the Conservative Party to recognize the harm that is caused by hatred here in Canada. The Conservative Party has an opportunity to get onside and support Canada's diversity, whether it is ethnic background, religious background or social behaviours. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in the environment in which they live. We should all take pride in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when we see racist action being taken, whether it is innocent or is intentionally done, we all have a responsibility to call it out. We are leaders of our community, and as such we need to take a stand on the issue, which is why I wanted to start my comments with that very important issue. I appeal to my Conservative friends to take a look at the consequences of voting no on Bill C‑9, and this is where I will get into the religious component. There is so much misinformation spread through social media and through false information that is being talked about here on the floor of the House of Commons, and it needs to be dealt with. Opposition members need to be held accountable for the things they are actually doing and saying. It is not very often that I take a quote from the Toronto Sun, but this is from Joseph Neuberger, who provided a story to the Toronto Sun that was published in January. He said, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” The article continues, and it is perfectly clear: “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust.” He goes on to say, and I appeal to people to listen to this aspect very carefully, that “Bill C‑9 does not weaken it.” That is the truth. That is the reality. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right element within the Conservative Party, has used this issue to whip up all sorts of anxiety and concerns that cannot be justified. Whether it is mosques, gurdwaras, temples or Christian churches of all forms, our faith community is intentionally being misled by Conservative propaganda, and I would like to give members some specific examples of that. I have received a number of emails from the Conservative Party of Canada related to Bill C-9. This is from one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” That is shameful. It goes on: “These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be STOPPED at once.” If we go to the bottom of the email, it says, “Donate now.” An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member from across the way asked, “What's wrong with that?” If he does not understand the challenge in terms of ethical behaviour that the current far right within the Conservative Party has today, it is a very serious issue to use to ask for, to raise, money. There are other emails I have received, such as this one: “Kevin, for 10 years the Liberals have been trying to control what you can see and say.... C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures the government considers politically incorrect.” What a bunch of crap that is. I withdraw the word “crap”, but it is true. Again, that came from the Conservatives. They pump out hundreds, if not thousands, of emails. Here is another one: “The Liberals and Bloc”, so the Bloc has been included on this one, “want to prosecute people for quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” If we go a little further down, the email asks people to add their name, so the Conservatives are actually mining. They go out and promote hatred. At the end of the day, they are trying to cash in on their promotion and are mining to get additional support. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am honest. I am actually quoting Conservative emails, and I can say that there are a lot more emails with regard to Bill C-9. With respect to what Bill C-9 actually would do, I provided a quote providing those assurances. It would deal with hatred in Canada in different ways. It would protect our institutions, whether they are community centres, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, temples, mosques and synagogues, from protests that are intimidating to people who want to be able to attend. It would protect us from hatred-driven or hatred-motivated offences, whether they are assaults or mentally related issues, if I can put it that way. Those are the types of things that are tangible and that the legislation would actually deal with. The Prime Minister has said that we want to include Bill C-9 in a series of bills dealing with crime. We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do. It would be a fulfillment of an election platform that we made just last year when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. In fact, today, among the Liberal benches, there are 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, not to mention a new Prime Minister. A series of actions has been taken to deal with crime. I will make quick reference to some of them, and I want to provide some additional thoughts on the hate file. I can say that every Liberal caucus member recognizes that, as a government, we want to do something to deal with hate, something of substance and a reflection of what members have been hearing from the constituents they represent. That is what is reflected in this bill. We also believe that it would meet any constitutional challenge and that it complements the Charter of Rights. These are the changes that we believe are in the best interests of the public. If we contrast that to those in opposition to the bill, I would suggest we need to look at the motivation behind it, as I have already articulated, issues such as data mining, fundraising and catering to a far-right element of society. That seems to be their motivation, not what is in the public good or the best interests of Canadians. There is a responsibility of all members to be straightforward on some of the things being said in this House because of the anxiety and concerns being raised in our faith communities. Whether they are leaders in faith facilities or members of a congregation, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the types of things we are hearing talked about and preached about in synagogues, PAOC churches or other faith facilities. There is very little tolerance in Canada for hatred and terrorism by the constituents we represent. I would ask members to reflect on that and for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning. They do not have to vote against this legislation. I have heard a lot of arguments from the Conservatives, many hours of argument, and I have done a lot of reading. Not one argument that has been presented, I believe, has any legitimacy or justification for voting against this legislation. It seems to be more of a self-serving argument as opposed to what is in the public best interest. I referred to a series of legislation and I want to highlight them. We have Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, that we are debating today, Bill C-12, the new borders act and asylum issue, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform legislation, Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and highlights new legislation dealing with feminism and coercive action, and Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. There is a suite of crime and hate legislation that is real, tangible and would make our communities safer. That is what our constituents want. My last appeal would be for members to look at those bills as a holistic package and get behind what the Government of Canada is doing to make our communities safer.
View on ourcommons.ca ↗
