← Your dashboard·HoC · 45-1passed
Official record· LEGISinfoHouse of Commons · Bill C-9

C-9 · Combatting Hate Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

Introduced Sep 19, 2025·Sponsor: Sean FraserLPCHIGH
AI-assisted analysis
At a glance
  • Creates offences for promoting hatred against identifiable groups by displaying specific symbols in public.
  • Repeals a defense based on expressing opinions on religious topics in hate promotion cases.
  • Establishes hate crime laws for offenses motivated by hatred based on defined factors.
  • Prohibits intimidation and obstruction of access to religious or cultural places.
Identifiable groupsReligious communitiesLaw enforcement agencies
AI-assisted analysis
What's actually in this bill
Full billNew offences for promoting hate symbols
What it does

This part of the bill creates new offences related to the willful promotion of hatred through the display of certain hate symbols, including those associated with terrorism and Nazi imagery. Additionally, it establishes penalties for intimidation aimed at interfering with access to religious buildings and other spaces used by identifiable groups.

Why it matters

This legislation aims to enhance protections for marginalized communities against hate-driven actions and symbols, potentially fostering a safer environment in public spaces. It addresses societal concerns about increasing hate crimes and the normalization of extremist symbols.

The problem it addresses

The bill is raising these measures in response to growing incidents of hate crimes and the visible display of hate symbols in communities.

Who benefits

Communities targeted by hate groups stand to benefit from stronger legal protections and reduced fear of intimidation in their public spaces.

The tradeoff

The enforcement of these rules may impose limitations on freedom of expression, as individuals could face prosecution for displaying certain symbols, putting the burden of legal compliance on individuals and potentially chilling free speech related to artistic or educational expression.

Identifiable groupsVictims of hate crimesCommunities of worshipLaw enforcement agenciesIndividuals expressing controversial ideas
Read the actual text (13)
Short title

1This Act may be cited as the Combatting Hate Act .

2Paragraph (a) of the definition offence in section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (lxxi.1): (lxxi.2) section 423.3 (intimidation — building used for religious worship, etc.),

Consent

3Subsection 318(3) of the Act is replaced by the following: (3) No proceeding shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

Wilful promotion of hatred — terrorism and hate symbols

4(1) Section 319 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.1): (2.2) Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place, (a) a symbol that is principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity , as defined in subsection 83.01(1); (b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz or the Nazi double Sig-Rune, also known as the SS bolts; or (c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b) that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b) . Punishment (2.3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (2.2) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (1.1) Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is repealed. (1.2) Paragraph 319(3.1)(b) of the Act is repealed. (2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following: Defences — subsection (2.2) (3.2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.2) (a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or (b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. Forfeiture (4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.1) or (2.2) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct. Exemption from seizure of communication facilities (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2), (2.1) or (2.2) or section 318. Clarification (6) For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. Consent (6.1) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2), (2.1) or (2.2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. (3) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: hatred means an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation; ( haine )

Offence motivated by hatred

5The Act is amended by adding the following after section 320.1: Hate Crime 320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence — referred to in this section as the “included offence” — under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the included offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, is (a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the punishment provided for in subsection (5); or (b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Definition of hatred (2) In this section, hatred has the same meaning as in subsection 319(7). Clarification (3) For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. Limitation (4) No proceedings shall be commenced under subsection (1) by way of indictment if the included offence may be prosecuted only by way of summary conviction proceedings. Maximum penalty (5) Everyone who is found guilty of an indictable offence under subsection (1) is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than (a) five years, if the maximum term of imprisonment for the included offence is two years or more but less than five years; (b) 10 years, if the maximum term of imprisonment for the included offence is five years or more but less than 10 years; (c) 14 years, if the maximum term of imprisonment for the included offence is 10 years or more but less than 14 years; or (d) life, if the maximum term of imprisonment for the included offence is 14 years or more and up to imprisonment for life. Applicable provisions (6) Subject to paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) and subsections (4) and (5), any provision of this Act or any other Act of Parliament — including one in respect of procedure, orders or consequences — that would have been applicable in relation to the included offence applies in relation to an offence under subsection (1).

Intimidation — building used for religious worship, etc.

6The Act is amended by adding the following after section 423.2: 423.3 (1) Every person commits an offence who engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in a person in order to impede their access to (a) a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is primarily used (i) for religious worship, or (ii) by an identifiable group , as defined in subsection 318(4), (A) for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events, (B) as an educational institution, including a daycare centre, or (C) as a residence for seniors; or (b) a cemetery. Obstruction or interference with access (2) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful authority, intentionally obstructs or interferes with another person’s lawful access to a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or to a cemetery. Punishment (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is (a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Exception (4) No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) by reason only that they attend at or near, or approach, a building or structure referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or a cemetery for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information.

7[ Deleted ]

8Paragraph (c) of the definition secondary designated offence in section 487.04 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (xi.01): (xi.02) subsection 423.3(1) (intimidation — building used for religious worship, etc.),

9(1) Subsection 515(4.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b.11): (b.12) an offence under subsection 423.3(1) (intimidation — building used for religious worship, etc.), (2) Paragraph 515(4.3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following: (b) an offence described in section 264 or 423.1 or subsection 423.2(1) or 423.3(1);

Offence under subsection 320.1001(1) charged

10Section 662 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6): (7) For greater certainty, if a count charges an offence under subsection 320.1001(1) and the evidence does not prove that offence but proves an included offence, the accused may be found guilty of the offence that is proved.

Endorsement — offence under subsection 320.1001(1)

11The Act is amended by adding the following after section 726.2: 726.21 When an offender is found guilty of an offence under subsection 320.1001(1), the court shall endorse, on the information or indictment, as the case may be, the included offence that has been proved by the evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the endorsement is proof of that fact.

Clarification — subsections 319(2) and (2.2)

11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of 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. Clarification — subsection 319(2.1) (2) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2.1) of 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 antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.

30th day after royal assent

12This Act comes into force on the 30th day after the day on which it receives royal assent.

Official record· parl.ca
Official drafter summary (parl.ca)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, (a) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place; (b) repeal the defence based on the expression of opinions on religious subjects or texts in relation to the offences of wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism; (c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors; (d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and (e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places. Available on the House of Commons website at the following address: www.ourcommons.ca 1st Session, 45th Parliament, 3 - 4 Charles III, 2025 - 2026 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-9 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places) His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: Short Title Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Combatting Hate Act . R.‍S.‍, c. C-46 Criminal Code 2 Paragraph (a) of the definition offence in section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (lxxi.‍ 1 ): (lxxi.‍ 2 ) section 423.‍3 (intimidation — building used for religious worship, etc.‍), 3 Subsection 318 ( 3 ) of the Act is replaced by the following: Consent ( 3 ) No proceeding shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General. 4 ( 1 ) Section 319 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection ( 2.‍1 ): Wilful promotion of hatred — terrorism and hate symbols ( 2.‍2 ) Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place, (a) a symbol that is principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity , as defined in subsection 83.‍01 ( 1 ); (b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz or the Nazi double Sig-Rune, also known as the SS bolts; or (c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b) that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b). Punishment ( 2.‍3 ) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection ( 2.‍2 ) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. ( 1.‍1 ) Paragraph 319 ( 3 )‍(b) of the Act is repealed. ( 1.‍2 ) Paragraph 319 ( 3.‍1 )‍(b) of the Act is repealed. ( 2 ) Subsections 319 ( 4 ) to ( 6 ) of the Act are replaced by the following: Defences — subsection (2.‍2) ( 3.‍2 ) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection ( 2.‍2 ) (a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or (b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. Forfeiture ( 4 ) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 2.‍1 ) or ( 2.‍2 ) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to His Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct. Exemption from seizure of communication facilities ( 5 ) Subsections 199 ( 6 ) and ( 7 ) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 2.‍1 ) or ( 2.‍2 ) or section 318. Clarification ( 6 ) For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. Consent ( 6.‍1 ) No proceeding for an offence under subsection ( 2 ), ( 2.‍1 ) or ( 2.‍2 ) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. ( 3 ) Subsection 319 ( 7 ) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: hatred means an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation; ( haine ) 5 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 320.‍1 : Hate Crime Offence motivated by hatred

AI-assisted analysis
What MPs debatedCONTESTED306 speeches · 65 MPs · 72,947 words
Points of contention
  • Removal of the good-faith religious defence
  • Concerns over vague definitions of hate
  • Disagreement on necessity of new charges versus existing laws

The Liberals support the bill while the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois have voiced strong opposition due to concerns over free speech and religious freedoms.

Where MPs stood59 MPs · grouped by party · ranked by speaking volume
AI-assisted analysis
CPC32 spoke · 0 support · 31 oppose
AL
Andrew LawtonOPPOSES24 speeches · 6,690 words
Argued that Bill C-9 threatens freedom of expression and religious beliefs.This is not a surprise... Canadians know legislation will not protect people of faith or any Canadian from hate when it exposes them to prosecution for expressing good-faith religious beliefs.
Larry Brock
Larry BrockOPPOSES10 speeches · 3,417 words
Criticized the Liberal government for not justifying the removal of the religious defence from the Criminal Code.This is not about protecting hate. It is about protecting the boundary between the state and the conscience of the individual.
Ziad Aboultaif
Ziad AboultaifOPPOSES12 speeches · 3,131 words
Argued that existing laws on hate crimes are sufficient and emphasize the need for enforcement rather than new legislation.If the government has no intention of actually enforcing this anti-hate bill any more than it does the existing Criminal Code provisions, it may not matter, except that any assault on freedom of religion matters.
Jeremy Patzer
Jeremy PatzerOPPOSES9 speeches · 2,849 words
Argued that the bill represents government overreach and censorship, particularly against religious groups.They have made it abundantly clear that is what they want to do, and so I am happy to be able to stand hopefully later today and later this week to vote against this bill.
Brad Redekopp
Brad RedekoppOPPOSES4 speeches · 2,083 words
Argued the bill is flawed and redundant as existing laws already address the issue of hate crimes.In terms of the first points that I made, we already have the laws to cover what we need to do here.
SM
Shuvaloy MajumdarOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,990 words
Criticized the government for increasing hate crimes and failing to protect vulnerable communities, particularly Jewish Canadians.The Conservatives are the party of free speech, not the party of prosecuting those whose speech we do not agree with.
Ted Falk
Ted FalkOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,975 words
Argued that Bill C-9 criminalizes lawful speech and religious expression.Bill C-9 would give the government more power over freedom of speech and expression.
JM
Jacob MantleOPPOSES7 speeches · 1,953 words
Argued that Bill C-9 threatens religious texts and the good-faith defense for free expression.We do not trust the Liberal government because it has shown itself to be untrustworthy when it comes to defending the liberties of Canadians.
CA
Carol AnsteyOPPOSES6 speeches · 1,917 words
Argued that the amendment removes the good-faith religious defence and restricts freedom of expression and religion.My opposition to this legislation is not rooted in just my interpretation of this legislation; my concern is shared widely and consistently by faith communities right across the country.
James Bezan
James BezanOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,911 words
Criticized the bill as an attack on civil liberties and freedom of religion.We know that the Liberals are now censoring debate by bringing this closure motion.
Brad Vis
Brad VisOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,813 words
Argued that removing the good-faith exemption from the Criminal Code was unnecessary and erodes fundamental freedoms.Canadians are left wondering not just what they can say in a place of worship but what they can post, share or discuss online in good faith.
Cheryl Gallant
Cheryl GallantOPPOSES6 speeches · 1,780 words
Criticized the bill as an attack on freedom of speech, arguing it targets religious expressions without addressing actual hate crime enforcement.Removing the religious text exemption to the hate laws has just one purpose: to instill fear.
DB
David BexteOPPOSES7 speeches · 1,678 words
Argued that the bill would lead to self-censorship and undermine free speech and religious freedom.This bill would go far beyond what is necessary. In doing so, it would put at risk two of the most fundamental freedoms we have as Canadians: freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
Jamil Jivani
Jamil JivaniOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,627 words
Criticized the Liberal government for associating sacred symbols of the Hindu community with hate in Bill C-9.A government that is deserving of trust would, of course, be one that is honest with the people of the country.
Helena Konanz
Helena KonanzOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,581 words
Argued that Bill C-9 attacks religion and undermines freedom of speech and democracy.In a free society, people should not have to second-guess whether expressing their beliefs would lead to legal consequences.
AG
Aaron GunnOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,545 words
Argued that Bill C-9 would lead to censorship and undermine free speech.To think that in a country where free speech and freedom of religion serve as two of the foundational principles... the government would seek to criminalize the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs just seems so outrageous.
Matt Strauss
Matt StraussOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,497 words
Criticized the legislation for potentially driving hate groups underground, limiting opportunities for public opposition.However, a careful distinction must be brought to bear between condemnation and criminalization, and we must always note this.
Leslyn Lewis
Leslyn LewisOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,472 words
Criticized the bill for concentrating government power that could be weaponized against dissenters.Bill C-9 would not create new protections; it would create a fake law.
Rhonda Kirkland
Rhonda KirklandOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,450 words
Argued that Bill C-9 lacks seriousness and effectiveness, labeling it as a political gesture rather than a genuine measure against hate.If we are serious about combatting hate, then we must do it with precision and cultural understanding.
Mel Arnold
Mel ArnoldOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,449 words
Criticized the removal of exemptions for clergy from hate speech charges, arguing it threatens freedom of religious expression.What is more concerning is the Liberal government's introducing this programming motion that would limit the debate in this House and limit the ability for Canadians to have influence on how and what legislation gets passed...
Scott Anderson
Scott AndersonOPPOSES5 speeches · 1,446 words
Argued that Bill C-9 expands government power over speech, which could lead to repression of Canadians' rights.Safety cannot come at the cost of freedom. The issue is not whether we oppose hate; we all do. Bill C-9 introduces ambiguity where we need clarity.
Blaine Calkins
Blaine CalkinsOPPOSES2 speeches · 1,158 words
Argued that Bill C-9 undermines religious freedom and could lead to criminalizing traditional beliefs.This is an unjust and barbaric assault on the freedoms of Canadians who merely think differently from the government, while the real criminals are able to reoffend.
Kelly McCauley
Kelly McCauleyOPPOSES4 speeches · 364 words
Criticized the bill for not addressing the rise in hate crimes effectively.Does he bear any responsibility, or does he believe it is just a coincidence that the massive rise in hate just happens to coincide with the 10 years the Liberals have been in government?
SB
Steven BonkOPPOSES3 speeches · 254 words
Argued that existing laws already protect against hate speech, deeming the bill redundant.We do not need more hate speech law. We already have mechanisms in place in Canada that protect us from hate speech.
John Brassard
John BrassardOPPOSES2 speeches · 231 words
Argued that the bill should be reconsidered due to concerns from multiple faith-based organizations.As it stands today, the bill is not.
Frank Caputo
Frank CaputoOPPOSES2 speeches · 222 words
Criticized the promotion of individuals who label religious readings as hateful.When I see somebody saying something like reading from the Torah is hateful and then that person gets promoted to cabinet, that is a bit of a problem.
BZ
Bob ZimmerOPPOSES2 speeches · 214 words
Highlighted concerns about freedom of religion and freedom of speech under Bill C-9.I have been hearing from Christians across the country who know me, Christians in my own church, about the threats of Bill C-9 to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Andrew Scheer
Andrew ScheerNEUTRAL1 speech · 175 words
Highlighted the Speaker's authority to address unparliamentary language immediately.Members would feel free to make all kinds of accusations about the groups members opposite might be associated with.
Garnett Genuis
Garnett GenuisOPPOSES1 speech · 164 words
Argued that the government is misrepresenting the issue as one of lack of offences instead of ineffective enforcement.That is a grotesque statement from a senior Liberal.
Rosemarie Falk
Rosemarie FalkOPPOSES1 speech · 132 words
Criticized the government for creating division among Canadians.The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture [...] stated that parts of the Bible should be banned and identified as hate speech.
Michael Guglielmin
Michael GuglielminOPPOSES1 speech · 86 words
Argued that the bill does not take religious freedom seriously.the Liberals do not understand why it is fundamental to our country.
HG
Harb GillOPPOSES1 speech · 81 words
Argued that existing hate crime laws are sufficient and need to be enforced instead of creating new legislation.The chief of the largest police service in this country says that the laws that govern hate crime already exist and that they just need to be used.
LPC14 spoke · 12 support · 1 oppose
Kevin Lamoureux
Kevin LamoureuxSUPPORTS45 speeches · 5,145 words
Argued that Bill C-9 is essential for combatting hate and protecting communities from hate crimes.I am going to be voting in favour of the legislation, because the Charter of Rights guarantees every Canadian the right to freedom of religion.
Patricia Lattanzio
Patricia LattanzioSUPPORTS11 speeches · 3,063 words
Argued that Bill C-9 provides strong measures to combat hate and protect Canadian communities from harassment.Bill C-9 would come in and protect Canadians.
AH
Anthony HousefatherSUPPORTS4 speeches · 1,697 words
Argued that this bill provides necessary protections for various communities, especially marginalized ones like Jews and LGBTQ+ individuals.This bill is action. This would change the law to make sure that not only the Jewish community is protected, but that other faith groups and other minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, are protected.
AS
Abdelhaq SariSUPPORTS4 speeches · 1,597 words
Argued that Bill C-9 is urgently needed to combat the rise in hate crimes and protect Canadians.This bill seeks to combat hate. It is an essential bill that is urgently needed to protect Canadians.
Lori Idlout
Lori IdloutOPPOSES4 speeches · 1,472 words
Criticized the bill for failing to address violent activities of the white nationalist movement.With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form.
John-Paul Danko
John-Paul DankoSUPPORTS8 speeches · 653 words
Argued that the Combatting Hate Act is essential for protecting vulnerable communities from acts of hate and violence.The purpose of the combatting hate act is to protect vulnerable communities from what we are seeing on the ground in municipalities across the country.
Yasir Naqvi
Yasir NaqviSUPPORTS3 speeches · 458 words
Argued that the bill provides necessary protections for individuals targeted due to their faith, sexual orientation, or identity.It is incumbent upon us to provide protections for them, to make sure that people are not being victimized because of their faith, sexual orientation or identity.
Bardish Chagger
Bardish ChaggerNEUTRAL4 speeches · 414 words
Highlighted the procedural focus of the current debate on the removal of a short title rather than substantive amendments.I agree. We have received many emails regarding this legislation from all sides. It is a true diversity of perspectives.
JD
John-Paul DankoSUPPORTS4 speeches · 396 words
Argued for stronger action against the growing presence of white supremacist movements in Canada.At its core, the bill codifies the definition of hatred as extreme detestation or vilification, and a hate crime as a public incitement of hate or hate against an identifiable group.
MG
Mark GerretsenSUPPORTS2 speeches · 182 words
Argued that the bill appropriately addresses the needs of all places of worship, including Christian ones.I take great offence to this member coming into the House and trying to suggest that he represents the voice of all Christians.
AK
Arielle KayabagaSUPPORTS1 speech · 141 words
Argued that the bill is essential for protecting victims of hate crimes, especially people of colour.Would the member not agree that the bill would do exactly that?
Robert Oliphant
Robert OliphantSUPPORTS1 speech · 110 words
Argued that the bill stands with victims of violence and crime, particularly those affected by hate crimes.This bill stands with victims of violence and crime, particularly hate crime.
DO
Dominique O'RourkeSUPPORTS1 speech · 108 words
Highlighted the need for action against anti-Semitism and hate crimes.It is shocking to me that in a city like Guelph, members of the Jewish community are worried about their safety.
Sukh Dhaliwal
Sukh DhaliwalSUPPORTS1 speech · 105 words
Argued that hate crimes create a sense of unsafety in communities.I feel so unsafe about sending our kids out to school.
BQ11 spoke · 5 support · 4 oppose
Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rhéal Éloi FortinSUPPORTS4 speeches · 1,404 words
Argued that the elimination of religious exemptions from the Criminal Code is a significant step toward a secular state.I believe that in Quebec, as in Canada, the state is secular; the laws are and must remain the same for everyone.
MC
Martin ChampouxOPPOSES6 speeches · 1,023 words
Criticized the Conservative Party for using fearmongering tactics regarding the bill.How can anyone in good faith, using their religion, call for hatred, foment hatred and incite violence against specific groups, like Jews, for example?
Andréanne Larouche
Andréanne LaroucheOPPOSES3 speeches · 431 words
Argued that the bill is necessary to address rising hate crimes and to ensure that no one can hide behind religious exemptions.It is unacceptable, but that is our current reality. This is not misinformation.
MS
Mario SimardOPPOSES4 speeches · 357 words
Criticized the bill's religious exemption for hate symbols as illogical and unjustified.This bill allows the use of hate symbols for religious purposes, but not for political purposes. It makes no sense.
Gabriel Ste-Marie
Gabriel Ste-MarieSUPPORTS3 speeches · 309 words
Argued for eliminating the religious exemption that allows for the promotion of hatred.Why should we allow the religious exemption to be used as an excuse for promoting hatred? Why not ban it in all its forms?
PB
Patrick BoninMIXED4 speeches · 289 words
Argued for the need to debate the religious exemption in the context of the bill.We see that with online bullying. Bill C‑9 is relatively weak.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas
Maxime Blanchette-JoncasSUPPORTS2 speeches · 278 words
Argued for modernizing the Criminal Code to effectively address hate speech.If he wants to crack down on hate speech, why does he not agree that we should put the legislative tools in place to do so?
Alexis Deschênes
Alexis DeschênesSUPPORTS3 speeches · 275 words
Argued that the bill removes the ability for individuals to incite hatred under the guise of religious texts.At the end of the day, the only people who have anything to fear from Bill C‑9 are those who want to incite hatred—so they are already doing wrong...
SL
Sébastien LemireSUPPORTS2 speeches · 212 words
Argued that the Bloc's aim is to make it illegal to use religion to promote hatred.Ultimately, we want to prevent crime from being committed in the name of religion, crimes that could have catastrophic, even fatal, repercussions on the lives of innocent people.
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay
Simon-Pierre Savard-TremblayOPPOSES2 speeches · 114 words
Criticized the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code that allows certain hate speech.Does he agree that certain elements of the Criminal Code can be recognized as hate speech, but that, as long as such speech is religiously motivated, it can be exempted, risk free?
Jean-Denis Garon
Jean-Denis GaronMIXED1 speech · 110 words
Highlighted concerns about the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code undermining legal credibility.The real systemic risk is not an overuse of prosecution, but rather the normalization of rhetoric that targets protected groups under the guise of religious legitimacy.