“I support this bill because hate crimes are rising sharply across Canada, especially against religious groups. The bill bans hate symbols like the swastika and stops people from blocking or intimidating others at places of worship and community centres. Protecting people from hate crimes is the federal government's job, and this bill takes the right steps.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9. My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position. That said, I think it is worth reiterating a number of points regarding Bill C‑9, because I would say that too much misinformation has been spread about this bill. Whether in good faith or bad faith, this disinformation has significantly undermined the bill’s social acceptability. I would say that hate is like a cancer on society. It is eating away at our society from all sides. We see it online in social media comments that are not only unacceptable but often go so far that legal action is taken. Forty or 50 years ago, we did not see the kind of hate and violence that exists in schools today. It did not exist. Today, elementary school children can attack their teachers and use language that is worse than inappropriate, violent language toward teachers. We see it on the streets. Every day, we read the newspapers and see everything that is happening on the streets. We also know that society is changing. More and more newcomers are coming from all over the world to settle in Quebec and Canada. Their customs, values, religions and education are different from ours. They are not better or worse, only different. In fact, they are so different that we have to adapt to each other. Unfortunately, this difference sometimes leads to hate or, at the very least, hateful behaviour. That is what Bill C‑9 is trying to address. Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed. Hate in Quebec and Canada has seen a significant increase. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an overall increase of 83% in hate crimes in Canada. An increase of 83% in three years is no trivial matter. When I said that society is undergoing major transformations, this is a good example. In 2023 alone, which is not that long ago, just three years ago, there were 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion. That is 516 more crimes than in 2022. In one year, the number of hate crimes increased by 516 for a total of 1,284 crimes, all targeting a religion. That is a problem we need to address. That is what we were elected to do. We are in the federal Parliament. We cannot set the school curriculum because that is up to Quebec; it is under provincial jurisdiction. We cannot run hospitals because that is under provincial jurisdiction; it is up to Quebec. All the Bloc Québécois is asking for—and as members will have noticed, we have been asking for this consistently for as long as anyone can remember—is for the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities. It collects too much tax. It should return that money to the provinces, yet it uses it to try to manipulate the provinces by saying it will give them their money back on the condition that they do what it wants. We are constantly speaking out against this. That is the provinces’ area of jurisdiction. We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas. However, when we talk about the Criminal Code and when we talk about hate crimes, we are squarely in the federal government’s wheelhouse. There was an increase to as many as 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion in 2023 and an 83% increase in hate crimes in Quebec and across Canada between 2019 and 2022. These figures should speak for themselves and convince everyone in the House that we need to address this problem. For the Jewish community alone, we saw a significant increase to 900 cases over the same period, as well as an increase to 211 cases for the Muslim community. That is unacceptable. We have laws and regulations, and we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which virtually all of us are committed to some extent. The values enshrined in the charter are values we all uphold. We think it is important, for example, to allow everyone to practise the religion of their choice in Quebec and Canada. We think this is so important that the Quebec National Assembly passed a law known as the Act respecting the laicity of the State that has attracted a lot of media attention and that is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State seeks to ensure that everyone can practise the religion of their choice without any interference from the state. The state is said to be secular. It has no religious identity or preference. As a result, public servants who represent the state in their work, such as police officers or teachers, are representatives of the state and should not show any religious preference. That is the approach that Quebec has taken to ensure that everyone, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Christian or Buddhist, can practise the religion of their choice without facing criticism from the state. We are being told that hate crimes are being committed against religious communities. It is the federal government’s responsibility to address this problem, and that is what Bill C-9 does. It is rare for the Bloc Québécois to agree with the government’s proposals, particularly those of the Liberal government, whose legislative measures we have criticized on a number of occasions. However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice, whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country. The offences or situations covered by Bill C-9 relate in particular to the incitement of hatred through the use of symbols. This bill will prohibit the use of certain hate symbols, such as the swastika or symbols associated with terrorist organizations. More recently, the noose was also added to this list following an amendment proposed by the Senate. We can discuss that. We could add many more symbols. We could take some out for all sorts of good or bad reasons. For example, I believe that the swastika is a religious symbol for the Tibetan community. I think it is the Tibetan community, but I am not sure. It is a symbol that is not just used to mark the despicable acts committed by the Nazis during World War II. It is also a symbol that has been in use for a very long time, long before the Nazis came to power in Germany. It is a symbol that some would have liked to protect and exclude from the list. As I was saying earlier, nothing is perfect. We need to try to address the issue as best we can. In the vast majority of cases, when someone uses a swastika, it is meant to recall a time that we do not want to forget, because I think we need to remember it, but a time that we do not want to go through again. Bill C‑9 will put an end to the promotion of hate through the use of hate symbols. As I was saying earlier, there is intimidation going on in our schools, on our streets and on the Internet. That is what intimidation is. Hate is being used to intimidate people, and I do not understand, or I am having a hard time understanding, how this can be happening. I do not think that should be happening. I think that, in a society, even if it is an imperfect one, where individuals respect one another and respect differences of opinion, intimidation should be banned. However, in this case, we see that intimidation was used to prevent or hinder access to public places. I am thinking of certain schools, places of worship, and community centres that have been subjected to all sorts of unacceptable acts of intimidation. Regardless of a person’s religious affiliation, or even if the person has no religious affiliation at all, everyone has this right. Everyone also has the right not to believe in God. Everyone has the right not to have a religion. Everyone has the right to be undecided. We have the right to simply have no interest in the matter. All of this is perfectly legal. However, preventing people from accessing their place of worship is disrespectful. By doing so, we create—”

“I support this bill because it stops people from blocking places of worship and punishes hate crimes more harshly. My party helped improve it. We made sure top government lawyers must approve hate crime charges to avoid bad cases. We used the Supreme Court's exact definition of hate. We also agreed to a compromise that protects religious discussions, as long as people do not use them to spread hate.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague. I was talking about the offence of intimidation in order to obstruct or interfere with access to a place of worship. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It is disrespectful and creates frustration, which often leads to acts of violence. We need to address this problem. Of course, protests must still be allowed. The Bloc Québécois cares deeply about that. We care deeply about these values regarding rights and freedoms. I see that some of my colleagues are starting to leave. I must be a little bit more boring now. I apologize. We are committed to freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We have no objection to people demonstrating outside public places. We believe that it can be a wonderful expression of democracy when done respectfully. However, blocking access—for example, demonstrating outside a church to prevent people who attend that church from entering, or intimidating them to discourage them from returning—is disrespectful and unacceptable. Bill C-9 addresses this problem. There is also the issue of offences under the Criminal Code that are committed and additionally motivated by hatred. We must do something about this. Bill C-9 addresses this. Sentences may be increased by up to 10 years. Committing theft or another offence under the Criminal Code is one thing. There are penalties in place. A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing. I say “unfortunately” because, like most of us probably, I wish we never had to do this or worry about this issue. We should live in a society where, first of all, no one commits crimes, and second, when someone does, it certainly should not be for hateful motives that are unacceptable in our society. These are all important things that we welcome with great pleasure, though that is not quite the right word. We certainly agree with that. The Bloc Québécois felt that Bill C-9 was incomplete and had certain shortcomings, which is why we proposed a number of amendments. We are pleased that, following discussions, the minister came to the conclusion that this made sense. Some of the proposed amendments were adopted. The first was to restore the prior consent of the Attorney General before starting proceedings under these hate crime provisions. When we talk about hate, we are talking about a number of things that often stem from frustration, which is often due to a lack of respect. One thing leads to another and we see situations where the parties are at odds with each other and things get heated, if we can put it that way. Without this requirement to obtain the Attorney General’s consent, we run the risk of ending up with cases that might have little chance of success or that could, at the very least, turn into frivolous prosecutions. We do not want that. I think that we need to be prudent, remain calm and use some wisdom when dealing with these hate crime offences. Personally, I like to think that there are people in the Attorney General’s office who will keep a close eye on things. It was a Bloc Québécois amendment that sought to undo the elimination of the prior consent of the Attorney General from Bill C‑9. That provision will remain and will ensure prudent and reasonable management of this whole issue. Then there is the definition of hate. There was a definition in Bill C-9 that struck us as somewhat flawed. In fact, it was a sort of exercise in rephrasing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Keegstra case, changing a few words to try to come up with wording that was a bit more catchy or flashy. I think that was a bad idea. We wanted to stick to the definition established by the Supreme Court in the Keegstra decision, and the Minister of Justice agreed to do so. We therefore amended Bill C-9 to adopt the exact wording proposed by the Supreme Court. This will spare us legal setbacks, rulings that would delay the implementation of the law, or even hinder or overturn certain trials. Finally, there is the issue we have been discussing for some time now. It feels like when we talk about Bill C-9, that is all anyone talks about. Members will notice that I waited to bring it up, because I have spoken about it so often that everyone knows where I stand on the matter. I am referring to the religious exemption. Hatred, hate crimes, hate propaganda and anti-Semitism are already covered by section 319 of the Criminal Code. However, one of the subsections created an anachronism. I do not have the text in front of me, but I believe it states that no person shall be convicted of these offences if it can be proven that they spread hatred in good faith based on a belief in a religious text. That makes no sense. How can someone spread hatred in good faith? That seems contradictory to me. Canada, like Quebec, has also enshrined freedom of religion in law. In a state that claims to be secular, how can one claim that a person can twist and distort religious texts to make them say things that serve to spread hatred and that this constitutes a valid defence? I am sorry, but that seems unacceptable to me. We reached a compromise with the Minister of Justice because some people had been spreading a lot of propaganda about repealing the religious exemption, claiming that people would no longer be allowed to read the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. I find that troubling because members of the public accepted that idea, whether out of naivety or because they trusted elected officials in whom they believed, and now they are concerned about Bill C-9. We added subsection 319(2), which states that nothing in 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...[or] if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.” This clearly indicates that a person may make a statement of a religious nature as long as it is not done for the purpose of spreading hate. That seems like an acceptable compromise to me. I will stop there. I sense that my time is up. I was pleased to address the House on this issue.”

“I want all members to vote for this bill. I believe everyone here acts in good faith. If members read the law carefully, they will see that we need to remove this old religious exemption.”

“Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague’s hope. I wish a bill like this one could pass unanimously. I have said it before and I will say it again: This fall, I will be marking 11 years in the House, and I have never met a member who was acting in bad faith. I profoundly disagree with many of them on many issues, but I think that they all defend their points of view in good faith because they truly believe in them. I also trust everyone’s intelligence, and I think that, if members carefully read the Criminal Code provisions on hate and the religious exemption, they should easily come to the conclusion that we need to move forward and get rid of this archaic provision that is holding us back.”

“Nobody can spread hate in good faith. You cannot use religion to excuse hate against any group of people.”

“Mr. Speaker, it seems pretty clear. No one can tell me that it is possible to spread hate in good faith or to interpreting a religious text to read that hate is a good thing. The same goes for hating Jewish people, Muslim people, Christians, Catholics, Black people, white people or God knows who else. It may be possible, but can we agree that all of it is done in bad faith? Spreading hate in good faith is impossible, and doing it based on religious writings is even more impossible.”

• 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 to hear my colleague's thoughts on the changes my party made to this bill. Why was it important to make sure the Attorney General must still agree before anyone is charged with promoting hate?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for all of the work he did during the study of this bill, which required a lot of effort, listening and compromise. I personally was pleased to be here to listen to his speech from beginning to end. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the amendments that the Bloc Québécois managed to get adopted during the study of Bill C-9, particularly the one aimed at restoring the consent of the Attorney General to lay charges for the crime of promoting hatred. Why was it important to secure that win?”

“We still need the Attorney General's approval before hate crime charges are laid. The Attorney General is an expert who can stop unfair trials, keep people from abusing the law, and make sure charges are only used for clear crimes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj, who always asks thoughtful questions. Working with him is always a pleasure. Obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General is important to avoid misuse and abuse. Bill C‑9 endeavours to avoid certain hate-related abuses. The goal is to avoid excessive prosecutions or pitting one group against another. Rather than allowing people to bring proceedings without guard rails, the Attorney General is a subject matter expert who can set limits on prosecutions and ensure that charges are only laid in situations involving clear violations of the Criminal Code provisions.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Adil Charkaoui clearly promoted hatred against Jewish people, but the government did not charge him. As a former lawyer, I understand why prosecutors did not take the case. The law allows people to spread hatred if they base it on a religious text, so the case had almost no chance of winning.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point. The Adil Charkaoui case shocked everyone in Quebec at the time, and probably everyone across Canada. I do not have the text in front of me, but this individual used biblical texts to say something along the lines of “Lord, eliminate all of Allah’s enemies, spare no one”. It was clearly an incitement to hatred against Jews. However, the Attorney General did not bring any charges in this case. It seems that my colleague has information that I do not have. He seems to know why no charges were brought. I do not know. I do know one thing, though. I practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament, and I know one thing. There are quite a few cases in the Crown prosecutor’s office. Before deciding to assign a case to a lawyer and instructing them to bring charges, the director of the office will assess whether there is a reasonable chance of success or not. They will ask themselves whether they are getting involved in a case that is a non-starter or whether it makes sense. In Charkaoui’s case, if I had been the director of the Crown’s office at the time, with a provision like the one in subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which permits hatred to be spread if it is done in good faith based on a religious text, I would likely have said that my chances of success are virtually nil and I would not have wasted the lawyers’ time on such a case.”

“We need clear rules to deal with hate. I want the Attorney General to keep overseeing these cases because they have the right expertise.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just said this, and I do not want to repeat myself, but I think it is important to have guidelines. We are dealing with explosive issues. Hate is fuelling outbursts of anger online, on the streets, in schools, and just about everywhere. We want to try to tackle hate. For heaven’s sake, let us approach this with some wisdom and keep this guideline of entrusting general oversight to an expert—the Attorney General, in this case. That seems to me to be the wisest and most effective way to tackle this issue.”

• 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 to know if the member thinks the proposed changes to this bill will actually work to stop hate speech.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I listened carefully to my colleague. Does he believe that the amendments proposed in committee will really ensure that the bill effectively addresses this hate speech that should not even be happening in the first place? Does he believe we have the necessary tools to tie all this together properly?”

“I hope this bill will help us fight hatred in our society.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her question and for the important work she does here, particularly regarding the status of women and seniors. Her work is invaluable. I am hopeful that Bill C-9 will help us combat the scourge, the cancer, as I said earlier, of hatred in our society.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 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 →