Combatting Hate Act

Bill C-9, Combatting Hate Act · Time allocation motion · now law Where it stands

The House debated a time allocation motion limiting to five further hours debate on the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which amends the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda, hate crimes, and access to religious or cultural places. The Liberal side said the bill fulfills a campaign promise, has already had extensive debate in both Houses, protects all faiths and peaceful protest, targets only wilful promotion of hatred, and responds to rising hate crimes; they said Conservative claims about it are misinformation. Conservatives opposed cutting off debate, said religious and faith groups object to the removal of the good-faith religious expression defence, cited a minister’s comments about religious texts, and asked where the line is between practising a religion and committing an offence. The Bloc Québécois said the bill does not ban holy books and accused Conservatives of spreading disinformation, while the Green member opposed the bill and asked for more debate time. Some time at the start went to a point of order about whether a secretary of state, rather than a full minister, could move the motion.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

37 statements

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want to limit debate on the Senate's changes to this hate crime bill to five hours. After that, the House must vote on them right away.”
Official Hansard

moved: That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendment to the Bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Andrew Lawton, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South

Conservative
“The rules say only a minister can make a motion to end debate. This person is a secretary of state, not a full minister, so she cannot move this motion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Standing Order 57 says that: Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole, any minister of the Crown who shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be.... It is a long sentence. The point of this is that Standing Order 57 is clear that a minister of the Crown must do it. This is the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, who does not have a department and is not the minister sponsoring the bill. I believe that the standing order does not actually permit her to move this motion of closure or to introduce this motion today.

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“We have over 150 years of parliamentary history on our side. Past ministers have moved this motion many times.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the good thing is that we have over 150 years of precedent on our side on this. If members go back and look at the precedents, I am sure they will find many examples where ministers of state have moved this motion.

Frank Caputo, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola

Conservative
“The Liberals are rushing this hate crimes bill through the House. Many religious leaders and faith groups oppose it. I am asking the government to slow down and listen to them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers. We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want us to end debate and pass this bill. It will keep Canadians safe in their places of worship.”
  • 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, this is a platform promise that our newly elected government made last May. This bill was introduced on September 19, and it has gone through all the democratic channels through this legislative process. I believe it is now time for us to end debate on the bill so that Canadians can be safe in their places of worship.

Jacob Mantle, York—Durham

Conservative
“A minister said parts of the Bible and the Torah are hateful and should be prosecuted under this bill. I want the government to tell us if they agree with that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the most concerning things about the bill is how it has been described by members of the cabinet across the way, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who suggested that passages of the Bible and the Torah are inherently hateful and are worthy of prosecution. I wonder if the secretary of state for thought crime would get up and say whether or not she agrees with that minister.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“This bill only punishes people who clearly intend to spread hate. It follows our constitution and protects people of all religions. Its goal is to keep Canadians safe and stop hate crimes.”
  • 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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very targeted and would address hate crime with the mens rea, the intent, to wilfully promote hate. I believe that is constitutional and is within the means. It would protect all faiths in this country. The intention of the bill is to protect Canadians and to make sure that people are deterred from committing hate crimes in Canada.

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“This bill does not ban holy books like the Bible or the Quran. People can still read them. It only stops people from using religious texts as an excuse to spread hate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what the religious exemption that is eliminated by Bill C‑9 refers to, because I am hearing things from our Conservative colleagues and I cannot believe what I am hearing. There was never any question of prohibiting people from reading the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. What is prohibited is spreading hate based on a religious text. Some people use that as an excuse to spread hate, and that is what is being prohibited. That is the defence that will be removed from the Criminal Code. Reading the Bible, the Quran and the Torah is allowed, it always has been, and I hope it always will be.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“We made sure this bill still lets people talk about religion, politics, or science. They just cannot spread hatred against any group or treat Jewish people badly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. In addition to that, we included, for greater certainty, a clause to clarify that nothing prevents a person from communicating statements on matters of public interest, such as religious, political or scientific matters, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group or wilfully promote anti-Semitism.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I oppose this bill, and I do not want the government to cut short our debate on it. Many of my voters are worried about it. It could violate people's rights by punishing them for protesting near places like day cares or synagogues without realizing it. We need more time to debate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, no matter how well-intentioned the bill may be, I do not think I have ever received so many angry and concerned calls, letters and emails from constituents about a bill. I do oppose the legislation, but I would appreciate adequate time to be able to explain the reasons I agree with those from the civil liberties community who believe the bill would create more litigation and more charter violations through the provisions that are unclear about when someone happens to be on the street and does not know that around the corner there is a day care centre or a synagogue, but they are expressing their charter rights to be able to participate. I cannot support time allocation on this. I know everybody is in a hurry, but rather than push us to bulldoze things through, why not consider keeping— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but we are debating time allocation. I feel like I am being heckled and cannot express myself properly. If we are interested in having proper time to debate bills, why does the government want to use time allocation as opposed to allowing us to sit until Friday, which was the original schedule?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“We have debated this bill for many hours. People are spreading false information about it. It does not ban peaceful protests or free speech.”
  • 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, this bill has had an unprecedented number of hours of debate, whether in the House or at committee. Like I said previously, it was tabled in the House September 19. Let me be clear, because there is a lot of misinformation about the bill. I too have been receiving a lot of calls, but I have been trying to correct the narrative, because many people misunderstand and have misinterpreted the bill. The intimidation and obstruction offence in the bill would not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication.

John-Paul Danko, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas

Liberal
“I want this bill passed quickly. Jewish people in my community support it because it protects their synagogues and gathering places. Can the secretary of state speak about the talks that led to this bill and why we must pass it right away?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. secretary of state bringing forth closure on this very important legislation, it being a key campaign promise. I happen to represent the majority of the Hamilton Jewish community, who are extremely supportive of the bill and the protections it would offer for their places of worship, their synagogues, and the places where they gather and deserve to be safe. I was wondering if the hon. secretary of state could talk about the consultation that has gone into this legislation and the need for it to be passed as quickly as possible.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“Hate crimes against religious groups, racial minorities, and LGBTQ people are going up. I want this bill passed so people who commit hate crimes face harsher punishments.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, many community groups have been asking for the government to take action, as we have seen a rise in hate crimes against many people of different ethnic backgrounds, religions and races. This is important. The LGBTQ community has also faced a rise in hate in this country. This is part of a larger set of initiatives that we as a government are taking. There is the Canada community security program, which we have heavily invested in. There is Canada’s action plan on combatting hate. We are doing work to collect data. However, it is important to also deter and punish those who take part in hate crimes. Those who commit them will face harsher penalties after the bill is passed.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“The government is rushing debate on this hate crimes bill. Rushing past bills caused backlogs and confusion. I want to know why we cannot take the time to study this bill properly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have risen just this week to talk about why the government’s inability to plan a legislative agenda should not become an emergency in the House. This is yet another move toward time allocation. I want to remind everyone in the House that the rush the Liberals did with Bill C-3, when they rammed it through the House and undid the amendments that were done at committee, showing a disrespect for the committee process, led to unintended consequences, creating a large document backlog, confusion for families and a very broad path to citizenship for people with a limited connection to Canada. I see another bill and another set of unintended consequences, and we have gotten so much mail about this. I would like the member to explain yet again why we cannot take the time to properly consider this important legislation.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“This bill has been debated and changed by both the House and the Senate. Conservatives are spreading false claims about it, so people are worried about things that are not in the bill. It is short, it follows the Charter of Rights, and it does not stop anyone from practicing their religion.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been considered in the House. It has been considered in the other place. Amendments have been made in both Houses of Parliament, and the bill has come back for genuine debate. I know the Conservative Party of Canada has been busy for many months spreading a misinformation campaign, so we have been getting a lot of calls from people thinking stuff is in the bill that is not. It is a short bill. It is very targeted, and it is in compliance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not limit anyone’s ability to practise their faith in this country.

Michael Kram, Regina—Wascana

Conservative
“Religious groups are worried about this bill because it removes protections for religious speech. I want the government to explain the line between practicing one's religion and committing a crime under this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, many religious groups have expressed concern about Bill C‑9, in particular about the removal of a long-standing good-faith religious expression defence. Now that the Liberals have decided to dismiss these very legitimate concerns, could the Liberal member clearly explain where the line now falls between the lawful expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and a criminal offence?

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill to protect Canadians. It clearly defines hatred based on court rulings, and it has safeguards to make sure it is used properly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, through the committee process, a lot of good ideas came forward. In this bill, we have a clear definition of what hatred means. It was taken from Supreme Court precedents and those from other levels of court as well. The definition of “hatred” has been well established in this country, so it is very clear. Considering the fact that the Attorney General’s consent would also be required in this bill, there would be an additional safeguard provided. Work has been done on the bill, and I thank all parties for contributing, but it is time to get this passed so we can protect Canadians.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The Conservatives are spreading false information about this bill. People will still have the right to protest, but the law must be able to stop protests that spread hate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Bloc Québécois tabled certain amendments it felt were essential. During one debate, I even heard people go so far as to say that people would no longer be able to protest. Normally, a protest is a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. I do hope, however, that if a protest is intended to incite hatred, there will be tools available to intervene.

Ruby Sahota, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)

Liberal
“This bill does not stop peaceful protests. It will only punish people who spread hate on purpose. We brought this bill forward because violent hate crimes are rising and we want to stop them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, protesting is a fundamental right in this country, and this bill would not limit the right of peaceful protest, but it should be recognized that under section 1 of the charter, rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Those who are not wilfully participating in hate would not end up being charged under any provision of the bill. There has been a lot of misinformation. I want to reassure Canadians that the bill was brought forward with good intentions after lots of consultation and demand from communities, because we have seen these acts of violence increase in this country and we want to make sure that the government sets the precedent that we will not tolerate hate in our country.

Andrew Lawton, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South

Conservative
“The government admits this bill limits free speech, yet it wants to shut down debate quickly. Many religious groups and over one million Canadians oppose this bill. I want the government to listen to them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the secretary of state just admitted that the government is thinking of this bill as a limit on freedom of expression. That means we are actually just debating whether it is reasonable. That is a very important concession, and it is the first time we have heard section 1 of the charter from the government in the context of Bill C‑9. I will note that the secretary of state put on notice her intent to seek closure 12 minutes after the debate on this bill began. She and her colleagues have no interest in listening to Canadians, and there are a lot of them. For example, 4 My Canada, led by Faytene Grasseschi, shares that there have been 194,000 phone calls; 1,000 organizations that have signed a declaration against Bill C‑9, representing 1.4 million Canadians; and 240,000 pieces of mail. When the secretary of state says that this is all Conservative misinformation, is she saying the United Church of Canada, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Canadian Muslims are misinforming, or is it just anyone they disagree with? This is a very important point, and the Liberal government has refused at every stage to listen to Canadians. Will it start now?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 136

  1. Private Members' Business Income Tax Act 14 statements
  2. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 32 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 20 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Access to Information 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  12. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  18. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 31 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 50 statements
  20. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 41 statements
  21. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 37 statements
  22. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 38 statements