“I want the House to pass this bill to protect people from hate crimes. Black, Jewish, Muslim, and other groups are facing real hatred and violence across Canada. A Conservative member wrongly claimed that the noose is just an American problem. The noose is a symbol of racism here in Canada too. This bill adds a clear definition of hate and creates a new hate crime law to keep people safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I rise to speak to Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, at a time when Canadians are looking to us for clear, serious and determined action to better protect them from hate and intimidation. I will begin by clearly describing the context we are currently in. Across Canada, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ, indigenous and other communities are feeling extremely vulnerable. The rise of hate is far from theoretical. It is a palpable, painful and disturbing reality that we are seeing in schools, on the street and even in places of worship. I cannot give this speech without mentioning the events that recently took place in Montreal. We live in a country of rights and freedoms. What we are experiencing right now illustrates the whole reason for this bill. It may be a combination of circumstances or an unfortunate coincidence, but this happened here, in Canada. We have to discuss it and address the problem immediately. It is not okay for people in positions of authority—regardless of their discretionary power—to incite any kind of targeted intent toward a particular community. In Canada, diversity is our strength. In Canada, our differences unite us. As an elected official, I cannot believe that a member of Parliament would say something with such serious implications. I am referring to the member for York—Durham. He said things that are hard to imagine, things that are beyond the pale. People may assert their parliamentary privilege, but they cannot say whatever they want just because they have that privilege. Growing up, I was always taught that not every truth should be uttered. Yesterday, an elected official said something unacceptable. He outright dismissed the pain and stress that the mere thought of a noose can cause my community. He argued that we are importing an American problem into Canada. That is shocking. In Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia, where the first Black communities were established, this symbol evokes a past marred by racism and intimidation toward Black people. In the North American context, the noose remains one of the most powerful and universally recognized symbols of racial hatred directed at Black communities. Today, that member will have an opportunity to retract his remarks, now that he has had a chance to sleep on it. Hopefully he woke up this morning, drank his water and his coffee, and came to realize the implications of what he said. Hopefully he recognizes the importance of exercising his parliamentary privilege responsibly and of not simply saying whatever comes to mind while fulfilling the duties of this fine office. We must respect the House of Commons. It is the House of Canadians from all backgrounds, from east to west. The noose has long been recognized as a symbol of virulent hatred directed at Black communities. It is deeply rooted in the history of anti‑Black racism. The violence associated with the noose is not merely a historical phenomenon; it is a symbol that forms part of the hatred and violence to which Black Canadians are regularly subjected and which are rooted in a white supremacist ideology. This ideology is associated with the noose. Now is the moment we have been waiting for. Canadians across the country have made it clear that they want to be able to live openly, safely and freely as themselves, regardless of their background, faith, ethnicity, gender, identity or community. We all share the same goal: to protect Canadians from all forms of violence, particularly those that target the most fundamental aspects of being human. Canadians asked us to take action and keep them safe, and that is exactly what this bill does. Bill C-9 has been carefully examined by both chambers. It is now time for Canadians to get the protection they deserve from the government and the elected officials they have chosen. For the first time, the Criminal Code will include a definition of hatred, which will describe the conduct that falls under the new stand-alone hate crime offence. This is an extremely important change that must not be overlooked. This new offence and the new definition of hatred will address the particularly reprehensible nature of this crime, which undermines the very foundations of the Canadian values of equality and respect for our citizens. By passing this bill swiftly, we will not just be strengthening the Criminal Code; we will also be sending a clear message to Canadians that their safety matters, their dignity matters, and their right to fully and freely belong in this country will be defended. I urge all members of the House to support this bill and ensure that Canada continues to be a country where no one, and I mean no one, is made to feel unsafe simply because they are Canadian and have chosen to live in accordance with their identity while respecting their culture and heritage.”

“No one in Canada should feel unsafe because of their religion or who they are. Hate against Muslims has made too many people feel unsafe. I want to know how this bill will help people feel safer.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell my colleague how deeply moved I am by what he just said. I also want to go back to the comments that a Conservative member made yesterday about the noose, which I think were shameful. Here in Canada, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise, or where they gather. Recent incidents of Islamophobia have left too many people feeling vulnerable. Could my colleague tell us how Bill C-9 will help our constituents feel safer?”

“This bill keeps Canadians safe and clearly defines hatred. The member for York—Durham should take back what he said.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 seeks to guarantee Canadians the safety and security to which they are entitled. It also establishes a clear and precise definition of hatred. Today, the member for York—Durham has the opportunity to rise in the House and withdraw his remarks.”

“I support this bill because it protects Canadians. The law gives us freedom, but we must respect each other. This bill clearly defines hate so we can punish people who break the law.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives Canadians the freedom to express themselves, to move about the country and to do as they please, provided that they do so in accordance with the law and, above all, with respect for the freedoms of each and every one of us. Bill C-9 provides clear protection for Canadians. It defines hatred so that those found guilty can be properly punished in accordance with the law.”

“What the other member said is not true and confuses people. This bill defines hatred and keeps people safe across Canada. We need to focus on it.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is playing a very dangerous game, namely, sowing confusion in the minds of Canadians. What she said is not true. This bill is designed to protect Canadians. It provides a definition of hatred. Let us stick to the bill, because it is important and protects Canadians from east to west.”

“I want the House to pass this bill to stop hate crimes. Jewish Canadians face most of the religious hate crimes in our country, and Jewish groups want this law. I also support the change to ban displaying a noose. People have used nooses to threaten Black and Jewish Canadians, so we must treat it as a hate symbol.”

“Mr. Speaker, I might take an opportunity to just pick up on something that happened a moment ago with a question from my colleague opposite. I think it is very important that she understands the following: It is a defence. That means that a person has to be in court before they can use it. That means that a person has to have been investigated by police for having spewed hate in this country before they can have the ability to use the defence. To suggest that there would a change in anything regarding that law, that it would be amended by Bill C-9 in a way that would remove something that already exists prior to the legal proceedings in court, is simply false. I would gladly welcome a question from my colleague on this at the end of my remarks. As a Jewish Canadian, I often have the opportunity to attend events in my riding that the community is a part of, not only as their representative but also as an individual who was raised as a member of the Jewish faith. It has been made very clear to me, from members of the Jewish community, both in Winnipeg and across the country, over the course of the past number of years, that they want what Bill C-9 would accomplish to take place as a meaningful step forward for their protection in this country. All of the major Jewish advocacy groups in the country have spoken in support of the bill, whether that be B’nai Brith, CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center or a variety of grassroots members. I know because they have put pressure on me and my colleagues in the Jewish caucus on this side of the aisle, and on Jewish leadership across the country, to take action. The question is, of course, why? Well, the reason for this is that we have seen a significant increase in hate in this country. It is not just targeted at the Jewish community, but we know that those in the Jewish community, representing less than 1% of the Canadian population, are the victims of more than three-quarters of reported religiously motivated hate crimes in this country. I am going to, in a moment, speak to the amendment that the Senate put forward vis-à-vis a particular hate symbol, but there are a couple of arguments I have heard, put forward by my colleagues in the opposition, that I just do not quite understand. I welcome the opportunity for them to perhaps add some clarity in the questions that they will be permitted to ask when I am done my remarks. One argument came from one of our colleagues during debate about an hour ago. My question was, if what the Conservatives are saying is true, that this is not needed because it is simply a matter of a lack of enforcement on the part of police across the country, then why do they hold the government accountable for police not enforcing the law? If they argue that the laws are already there, that the laws are already strong enough, and therefore there is no reason for Bill C-9, an argument I have heard many make throughout this debate, then what is it that they want the government to do? The member’s answer was similar to what I have heard from others. They said it is very important for the government to show leadership. It is very important, they say, for the government to have legislation that makes it easier for the police to be able to enforce the law. Is that not exactly what Bill C-9 does? If we look at some of the other arguments that have been made, again from colleagues across the way, they will say things like Bill C-9 is not going to stop a shooting at a synagogue. It might be true that, unfortunately, the targeting of a synagogue will take place regardless of how good our laws are, but that argument is like saying that we have a law preventing murder, but people still get killed, so what is the point of having a law that prohibits murder? It does not make any sense to me. What I continue to hear from my colleagues across the way is rooted not in fact, but in fear. I cannot help but note how much fundraising my colleagues have done off of this piece of legislation in the last year. They are telling Jews, for example, that they will not be able to say they are Zionists. That is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. It is important for us to have healthy debates in this chamber about how our public policy and laws will impact Canadians. What is not acceptable is to use those conversations to create divides and wedges in our country for political purposes. If we look at the Senate amendment that was put forward, the subject of our debate today, it is very important to note a couple of things. The first is that members opposite, including the member for York—Durham, yesterday suggested something that I am still struggling to understand, which is that the noose in Canada is not a hate symbol. Here is something I find interesting. Two weeks ago, when a noose was put around the neck of an effigy of a Jewish leader being burned on a street in Montreal, members across the way were, rightly so, up in arms, and they should have been, but now the member for York—Durham is saying that the very symbol placed around the neck of that Jewish leader, which he and his colleagues condemned, is not, in fact, a symbol of hate worthy of being included in this legislation. Again, I do not understand. We have heard the noose described by colleagues across the way as an American problem, as though it is a relic from somebody else’s history. They have said that it is wrong for the Senate to have asked for that amendment. The request to have the noose included in Bill C‑9 was brought forward by many community organizations. The Black Opportunity Fund and, from my home province, the Black-Manitobans Chamber of Commerce testified at the human rights committee at the Senate. They were supported by Black Health Alliance, a co-author of Canada’s Black justice strategy, researchers at McGill University, the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations and Black-led justice organizations in Nova Scotia and from across the country. When that many credible Canadian voices are saying the same thing, it is our responsibility to listen. When we listen, we have to hear the evidence, so here it is. Between 2020 and 2021, nooses were left at construction sites across Toronto, at a hospital, at transit stations on the Crosstown line, at a tower on Bay Street and at a housing development in Regent Park. They were so frequent and so frightening that Black workers in the construction trades formed their own association in response. What does the member for York—Durham say, which was not challenged by a single member in his own party, at least that I have heard? He says this is not a Canadian problem. In Nova Scotia, two teenagers were charged after waving a noose at a Black family. In Alberta, a surgeon taped a noose to an operating room door to terrorize a Black colleague, and the conduct was found to be a serious threat. In Ontario, a 13-year-old girl found a drawing of a noose in her backpack on the first day of school. This is not some other country’s history. This is today in Canada, in our own time. Those are Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian children, and it reaches this very institution, where these stories have been shared. In testimony before the Senate human rights committee, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard described being harassed in her own neighbourhood, being shouted at to go back to Africa by someone with a noose hanging from the back of their truck, yet the member for York—Durham says this is not a Canadian problem. I raise this because, when a member of Canada’s Parliament has had a noose brandished at her on a Canadian street, we can no longer pretend this is a foreign problem. It happens here. It is happening here, and we need to take action. I would say, with respect, to any member who calls the noose an odd inclusion, that it is critical they listen to the testimony and experiences of our colleagues in Parliament, as well as those of Canadians from across the country, who are experiencing this form of hate. I do not understand why my colleagues opposite would not support the inclusion of this clearly problematic symbol of hate as an important amendment to the bill. It is a bill that I am proud to stand here, as a member of Parliament, as a Jewish member of Parliament and as a Canadian, in support of.”

“We should listen to faith leaders, but their views cannot be the only thing that shapes our laws. People are scared because the opposition keeps sending false emails telling Jewish leaders they will go to jail for saying they support Israel. We need to be honest about what this bill actually does.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not, in any way, believe that their views should be discounted. I simply do not believe that their views ought to be the determining factor for how we choose to protect Canadians through public policy and legal reform. I would suggest that part of the reason people are scared is that we have members of the opposition sending out emails on a weekly basis to Jewish leaders that say they are going to be put in jail for publicly saying that they are a Zionist. It is not true. It is not about diminishing the importance of hearing feedback from leaders in this country. It is about being honest and transparent with them about what this law would actually do.”

“We need to pass this bill to change the Criminal Code. It will protect people and keep Canadians safe from hate.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question, but I do appreciate the reflections shared by the member opposite, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Of course, we want to live in a society and in a world free from hate. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the world we find ourselves in today. It is incumbent upon elected officials in this country to take actions, on behalf of those they represent, to strengthen the protections that they deserve. Bill C‑9 is a reasonable and important step in making amendments to the Criminal Code that would keep people in this country safer than they would have been prior to the passage of the bill.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “For whom I have a great deal of respect.”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since May 25.

  Every time it was said →

“Hate is a problem in Canada. I support this bill because it will better protect people across the country.”

“Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of my colleague’s question, but I think it is an extremely important conversation. We have a problem with hate in Canadian society, and in my opinion, Bill C‑9 is an extremely important step to ensuring that we have greater protection for Canadians across the country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We must be careful with our words so we do not spread false information or hurt the groups we want to protect. I want to know if my colleague agrees that we must stick to the facts when debating this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, as legislators, we need to be mindful of the impact that our words can have in the public arena and we must also ensure that what we say does not contribute to disinformation and does not harm certain groups that we wish to protect. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the importance of being thorough and factual when debating a bill as important as Bill C‑9.”