Sean Fraser
Central Nova, Nova Scotia · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity, for the first time, to formally congratulate my recently elected colleague on her presence in the House of Commons. This institution is better for her efforts.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Canada, when the government disagrees with the decision of a court, the opportunity we have to do something about it is to appeal that decision. We made an appeal on this particular case because we disagree with the superior court's assessment.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think all members of the House will agree upon is that when a dangerous person commits a serious crime, they should face serious penalties. When that includes someone who has a temporary status, they could be rendered inadmissible in this country and should face deportation where appropriate.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with a public safety agenda that is designed to ensure that dangerous people are put behind bars, it is not lost on us that we also need to do everything we can to combat the deadly opioid crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague not only for his hard work, but also for his relentless pursuit of a stronger Canada and a safer Hamilton. As a result of his advocacy, this House has adopted laws to completely renovate the bail system and to lead to stiffer sentences for violent repeat offenders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge all the work done by my colleague, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, as chair of the women's caucus. Our government is working hard to prevent gender-based violence before it even happens.”
The complete record
Every one of 382 lines we hold for Sean Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Honoré-Mercier for his question. Crime is moving online and is becoming increasingly organized and sophisticated. Criminals are using the digital environment to exploit children and to engage in extortion and human trafficking. Bill C-22 , an act respecting lawful access, gives police officers the tools to investigate, disrupt organized crime and protect our communities. Our police officers across Quebec and Canada are calling for these tools. We are listening to them. I urge all of Parliament to support this bill, which is so important for our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has asked us to state the position of the Government of Canada clearly. We disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. We have decided to appeal that decision in order to pursue a different outcome. At trial we defended fee simple, and we believe that more clarity is needed, particularly on the issue of private property rights. These debates are legal debates. The appropriate forum for them to take place is through the appeal process, not on the floor of the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, the degree to which the Conservatives have misconstrued the position of the Government of Canada indicates that they have not, in fact, read the pleadings that have been filed in the court today. To be clear, Canada disagrees with the decision that was tabled by the superior court in British Columbia, and more than seven months ago, we appealed that decision because of that disagreement. We are seeking to advance arguments, as we have at trial, that would protect the private property rights of citizens, and we believe that this deserves legal clarity in the moment. I look forward to making the argument before the British Columbia courts, where this decision will be determined as a matter of law, not politics.”
“I completely agree with the member on the intelligence and evidence divide. I am happy to work with my colleague on that. Given that I am out of time, I will make good of my commitment to finish this conversation off-line.”
“Mr. Speaker, I expect I am going to run out of time in my response. I will offer a conversation to my colleague to ensure we can work together to advance the best version of this bill and the associated supports that would allow it to function in practice. To address some of his concerns about a back door, this was a concern I heard about during the consultations. I believe that, with the ring-fencing of the information that can be provided and the combined strategy of GIC regulations and ministerial orders, with the oversight of the intelligence officer, we would actually be able to prevent that kind of harm. We will work with service providers to identify the best way of ensuring that they would be able to share this information. For large service providers, I do not think it is going to be too onerous of a responsibility.”
“With respect to RCMP training, obviously that engages the responsibilities of one of my colleagues. I will continue to be an advocate for improving the quality of the training RCMP officers receive, particularly as we add additional personnel to help keep our communities safe. There are no easy solutions, but we should start with the work that has been done to inform those solutions, including the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has a deep history with and love for my home province of Nova Scotia. I remember like it was yesterday, locking my family inside my basement for fear that there was an active shooter in my community. There are families I know personally that lost their loved ones that day, and we must heed the advice of the Mass Casualty Commission, which was led by one of the most esteemed justices in my lifetime, Chief Justice Michael MacDonald, who did exemplary work. There are a number of recommendations that came out of that process, some of which have already been implemented or are being implemented, including through different pieces of criminal legislation I have tabled in the House since I have had the opportunity to serve in this particular position.”
“When it comes to extortion in particular, we are hearing timelines to get through this process that sometimes stretch into months, 11 or 12 weeks, when in fact we can shrink that timeline to days or, in some instances, even hours to get the information they need. How that translates into better safety outcomes, which is what the law enforcement sector is really working towards, is that tougher criminal laws can punish bad actors after something has happened and this bill would sometimes allow agencies to prevent that bad act from taking place in the first instance.”
“Certainly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed to members of a number of policing organizations whom he has met with in his community who have supported this bill. However, to be clear, it includes not only his local police forces but the National Police Federation, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Vancouver Police Department, the Toronto Police Service, the Peel Regional Police and the Ottawa Police Service. I think people get the idea. One of the reasons that we see such strong support from law enforcement organizations is they are living with the reality of communities that could be made safer if this bill were passed in its current form.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I would like to speak to that concern. I have a different perspective on the issue. We proposed the bill and at the same time we invested in increasing the number of federal police officers in Canada. Last year's budget, for example, included investments to increase the RCMP workforce by 1,000 and border security staff by 1,000 as well. We can make investments and ensure that police have the resources they need to enforce the law as it exists now. However, we also need to change the law to ensure that Canada is equipped to protect our communities. I am very pleased to keep the conversation going.”
“If the protections that we are seeking to include in the bill are not realized in the community, the bill will not be worth the paper on which it is written.”
“Mr. Speaker, I take the question in the spirit in which it was intended. The question is an important one. The first element is whether the bill is constitutionally compliant. I believe it is. I am happy to discuss, in public or off-line, the details of my constitutional assessment of the bill. I also think it is functionally necessary, and let me explain why. The core of the bill is to provide an opportunity for law enforcement to request particular information that would allow them to investigate criminal activity. They can only obtain that information if it exists. We can imagine the futility of the exercise in empowering law enforcement to make a request of a third-party service provider that would normally hold this information if there was no obligation for that information to be held in the first place.”
“I want to thank the many stakeholders and parliamentarians who shared their perspectives to help us refine the initial version of the bill that was put forward into one that does a better job of advancing both security and privacy interests at the same time. [ Translation ] We must continue to introduce criminal laws if we want to fight crime in our communities. It is also essential to work with everyone so that the government understands the perspectives of the various people who have contributed to the solutions proposed to improve the bill. [ English ] We have an opportunity to do something in the House this week that has been 30 years in the making, and that is to bring Canada's laws in accordance with a modern standard that would give law enforcement the tools they need to keep our community safe.”
“So, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, my thanks to this government and my hope that all parliamentarians will work together to ensure the safety and security of this country. I want to give my thanks in particular to Murray Rankin, a former colleague in the House, for his engagement on this issue and for consulting with stakeholders to ensure we had a broad base of perspectives to understand what changes needed to be made. I want to thank Leah West, a professor with unique expertise in security and privacy issues, who helped guide some of this work and provided invaluable feedback to get the bill in the shape that it is today.”
“I want to read a quote from the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and commissioner of the OPP, Thomas Carrique. He said, “I engaged in the first conversation on lawful access in 1996—” I was still in elementary school when this conversation began. —when police leaders said we were at risk of going dark for access to digital evidence. We are now here, 30 years later, with the support of this government. This is a non-partisan issue. This is a public safety issue. From Internet child exploitation to extortions, to home invasions, to carjackings, to drive-by shootings, to hate motivated crime, to extremism. Lawful access is absolutely required and it's required now.”
“It means they are going to be able to do a better job at preventing crime from taking place in the first place and at conducting full investigations, should a crime be committed, to ensure that the bad actors are indeed brought to justice at the end of the day. It struck me, when I was speaking to law enforcement, when the bill was first tabled, just how seriously they treated this issue. We were joined by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of police here in Ottawa. They not only described the urgency with which this issue must be addressed but lamented the decades-long process that it has taken successive governments of different parties to get here.”
“This bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canada to make requests of its international partners, should we believe that foreign networks may have the same kind of information that I have described that would allow us to dig more deeply into investigations. It would also allow other states that are concerned about information that may be held in Canada to co-operate, through agreements that we reach with our allies, to ensure that we are doing our part to help protect the security interests of our closest friends and allies. (1215) Let us just think about what this means for law enforcement. It means that they are going to have more streamlined investigations. It means that they are going to be able to more quickly deal with threats that are playing out in real time.”
“Again, we are not specifically requiring the individual content of every message, but only trying to identify what messages may have been sent at what time, for example. This information would help ground a police investigation that could lead, obviously, to the prevention of crime, or perhaps to the investigation and prosecution of a crime. There are other elements of this bill that would also facilitate the co-operation of international criminal investigations when it comes to organized crime. The ability to operate seamlessly across borders creates opportunities for criminal organizations and puts obstacles in place for the states that are seeking to combat their heinous activity.”
“It is only where there are exigent circumstances, for example, where there is child exploitation being livestreamed, that there would be some provision for law enforcement to obtain this kind of information without first receiving judicial authorization. This process I have laid out would position Canada as the jurisdiction amongst G7 counterparts, for example, that would contain the most serious privacy protections within a lawful access regime that comes to exist. It is important that, if we are going to ask this information of service providers, we also ensure that they maintain that information. One part of this bill is dedicated to the kind of information that those service providers would be required to hold. Now, we are mainly focused on large-scale networks to ensure that we understand the metadata behind messages.”
“That information is not present when it comes to a person's IP address or modern cellphone numbers. However, when the police believe that a particular IP address, through reasonably obtained information, is tied to criminal activity, we need to have the ability to understand what network that information rests upon and who the subscriber behind it is, which would allow the police to not only investigate who may be involved with the crime but, at the early stage of the investigation, save enormous law enforcement resources by ruling out certain actors from criminal investigations. Let us keep in mind that throughout this process, even just to get the subscriber information, we are still requiring that law enforcement, under most circumstances, obtain judicial authorization before that information is shared.”
“In the event that the service provider responds affirmatively and says that IP address, which is part of an existing criminal investigation, is in fact on their network, the next step would allow law enforcement to apply to the court, based on a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed, to have the network share the subscriber information, the name and address, that would be tied to that phone number or IP address. When we think about this law simply keeping pace with changes to technology, we are not dealing with a broad-based overreach of information. This is the same information that used to be in our phone books. We do not see them around these days anymore, perhaps for obvious reasons. However, as a kid I remember it was common for a particular phone number to be listed next to a name and address.”
“When they are seeking to look into an IP address just to determine which network it may be on, the current process could take months. It requires production orders where someone would go before the court only to establish whether a particular IP address belongs to one network over another. If they got it wrong on the first one, the process would of course begin again with the second and third. This would provide for an expeditious pathway for law enforcement to request whether a particular phone number or IP address is tied to a particular service provider.”
“Let me explain why this piece is of particular importance. (1210) When a police officer is charged with investigating a heinous crime, looking into extortion rings or the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material, they frequently receive tips from foreign law enforcement agencies or come to understand through tools that we have here in Canada that there are specific phone numbers or IP addresses that lead law enforcement to believe that a crime has been or will be committed. However, we do not have the ability to act swiftly in Canada to deal with the threats that we do know exist, including when we receive these tips from foreign law enforcement agencies. Let us think about the position this puts law enforcement in.”
“The first feature of this bill that I want to draw attention to is that it would establish a process through which law enforcement could make a request for very basic information of electronic service providers. We are not talking about privileged information. We are not talking about advice from lawyers. We are not talking about health care details. In the first instance, where there is an existing criminal investigation and the police believe a crime has been or will be committed, this bill would enable the police to make a request that would confirm the service of an Internet service provider or a cellphone company that is tied to a particular phone number or IP address. This is not asking about the content of particular messages that may have been sent, but only whether a particular number or IP address exists on a particular network.”
“I want to give full credit to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Public Safety , for the extraordinary level of engagement he undertook to get this bill in a better place. During those consultations, we heard that it is absolutely essential that Canada create the framework that will allow us to move forward with these kinds of investigations, but that we do so in a way that respects the privacy rights of Canadians and ensures that the state does not commit some overreach in its investigations seeking to stop these heinous criminal acts, which people unanimously agree we must change the law to address. This particular bill would achieve that balance, in my view, in precisely the correct way.”
“The result of our current laws having failed to keep up with these rapidly changing technologies is that the investigations, although they still do take place, become cumbersome, difficult and time-consuming. When we are dealing with threats playing out in real time, it is important to understand that the ability to bring a perpetrator to justice depends upon police being able to do their job in real time as well. This debate started not today, although it is formally under this piece of legislation, but in fact in one of the very first pieces of legislation we brought forward in this Parliament. At the time, it was Bill C-2 , the strong borders act. We took that bill to this House. We consulted broadly, not only with law enforcement but with privacy experts, security experts and, importantly, members of Parliament from different parties.”
“Over the last number of years, countries around the world have been advancing their laws in a way that allows them to gain access to critical information, where a criminal investigation is taking place, to ensure that they are actually able to move forward with that investigation in order to stop crime and to prevent it, in the best case, or, when a criminal act is committed, to have the ability to bring the perpetrator to justice through a full and expeditious investigation, followed by a prosecution. When I look around the world, it is clear that Canada needs to catch up. Every other G7 partner has established a lawful access regime. Each of our other Five Eyes partners has established a similar regime, and it is time for Canada to do the same.”
“[ Translation ] I often speak with police officers and representatives of organizations that protect our communities. They tell me that as technology changes, the laws need to change along with it. Right now, criminal organizations can use technology to commit crimes with complete anonymity. It is not okay to simply accept these problems. We need to tackle these challenges by changing the laws, specifically the Criminal Code. [ English ] That is where this particular piece of legislation comes in. If we want the law to keep up with crime, we have to realize where we have fallen behind. This is where the concept of lawful access comes in, in the appropriately named lawful access act.”
“We know that the digital environment has caused the number of instances of this absolutely horrific criminal behaviour to increase dramatically in the number of examples we can find. One thing that is particularly challenging when it comes to the use of technology to commit these different kinds of atrocious criminal acts is the anonymity of the person who is doing wrong. It is not possible for the police to arrest an IP address or to investigate a phone number and bring it to prosecution. We have to understand that there are human beings who are willing to do bad things for their own personal gain and hide behind the anonymity that this technology can provide. If we want to keep Canadians safe, we must advance the law in a way that reflects the changes to technology.”
“In my many conversations with law enforcement over the past year, they have pointed to the fact that this technology is often being used at a prolific rate when it comes to the commission of crimes relating to extortion in this country, often violent extortion in this country. We are being told repeatedly that home invasions and auto thefts are not simply one-off examples of isolated actors who are simply behaving badly on a particular day, but the result of sophisticated criminal organizations that have established a network and are using technology to communicate with those who are committing crimes on the ground. We also know that when it comes to the very serious, most heinous crimes in Canada, sexual exploitation and abuse material are being committed against children.”
“When we think about the way the world has modernized, we quickly come to understand that so, too, have criminal organizations. The use of technology is so prevalent that it has become a primary way in which crimes are committed across borders, often in a digital environment. All of us are walking around with powerful phones in our pockets that allow us to engage with people in a moment around the world. We have access to networks of people we can keep in touch with, primarily for ordinary purposes, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there are criminal actors in this country and around the world who use that technology for unsavoury purposes. We think about the ability of organized crime not simply to use digital communications but to communicate across borders in real time to facilitate the commission of very serious crimes.”
“First, we are introducing legislation to strengthen criminal law across the country. Second, we are providing support to police officers and others who protect our communities. Third, we are making investments to build safe communities. (1205) [ English ] I want to focus specifically on this second pillar of giving the tools to law enforcement to help keep our communities safe. It will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone sitting in this chamber or those who live in our communities across Canada that the world we live in has changed over time and continues to change. In particular, the rapid pace of technological change demands that governments take actions to ensure that our laws reflect the reality in which we live today, not simply positioning us to address threats that existed during our childhood.”
“The third pillar, which I would suggest is among the most important, is to make upstream investments to help build safer communities and healthier people in the long term, including investments in affordable housing, mental health and addictions, and programs that particularly target at-risk youth, among other things. Today's bill arises in the context of the second pillar that I mentioned. That pillar, again, is to support the front line. It is easy for us, when we think about support for the front line, to think that it simply means more officers, which it must, as I pointed out, with significant investments in the federal aspect of both the RCMP and the CBSA, but importantly, it requires us to give law enforcement the tools they need. [ Translation ] Our strategy rests on three pillars.”
“The first is to adopt stronger laws, including laws that would reform bail and sentencing in this country, laws that would combat hate, and laws that would more forcefully defend Canadians against gender-based violence and, in particular, the exploitation of Canadian children, particularly in an online environment. The second pillar involves supporting the front line. This includes 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders, but also support for community organizations that help keep communities safe or support victims. It also includes providing law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe.”
“moved that Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-22. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank everyone for being here to take part in this important debate. First of all, I believe it is essential to understand the context of this debate and the importance of this bill. [ English ] It is no secret that public safety and crime in Canada are major political concerns for the government, and of course that reflects the reality that they are major political concerns for Canadians who go about their lives day to day concerned about the reality in their communities. Over the course of the past year now, we have been advancing a framework to address public safety in this country that rests on three key pillars.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservative strategy when they lose an argument is to blame the media and throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Let us actually talk about the facts. Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, from inception, was designed to protect religious freedoms, to combat hate crimes that were taking place in this country, to protect the ability of the Jewish community to go to their synagogues and the Muslim community their mosques and Christian communities their churches, and to ensure people could pray freely without fear of intimidation or obstruction. We heard loud and clear that people are sick and tired of hate crimes in this country and want their government to do something about it. The Conservative option is to send out fundraising emails. We are—”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the member's colleagues from Windsor included in her flyer those same tired talking points. The Windsor Star spoke to some of her constituents, who said that her flyer was divisive, inflammatory and insulting to their intelligence, and that they were more concerned with the misinformation from the Conservatives than with the content of the bill. Bill C-9 , the combatting hate act, is designed to protect religious freedoms, to ensure people of faith can practise within their community of faith without fear of intimidation or obstruction, and to make sure we recognize the moral culpability when a person is targeted for a crime on the basis of their identity. That is good policy that would keep Canadians safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy for economic growth in Atlantic Canada. I would like to point out that he once served as the critic for Atlantic Canadian economic development, before he joined the governing benches. Despite almost five months passing, the Conservatives have yet to appoint a successor, despite having good Atlantic Canadians they could put in the position. To my colleague's question, we are advancing new programs to help small and medium-sized businesses deal with American tariffs and to help small firms become big firms by tapping into the defence industrial strategy. We have not forgotten what built our economy, including the fishery, which the member has been a champion for to restore the Atlantic fisheries fund and to remove Asian tariffs on Nova Scotian seafood.”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government clearly has a responsibility and an obligation to defend the Constitution. It is possible to defend the French language and the right of francophones to live in French, while also defending the Constitution. This is not the right place to have this debate since the matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada. This is not the appropriate forum, since this issue is being deliberated in court. That is the best place for these discussions.”
“Mr. Speaker, we currently have an independent process that works and that benefits from recommendations from the legal affairs committee. It is important to ensure that every candidate is able to participate in the judicial system. [ English ] We are going to continue to work with provinces and territories to take their feedback into the process and make talented appointments. Regardless of the political history of the candidate, we want the best people for the job, and that is what the process is providing.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is very important to understand that we have a process that is working today. We receive recommendations from an independent committee, and we have opportunities to discuss proposals with my provincial and territorial counterparts. This process is working and there is no need to change it. However, if my counterparts want to participate in the process, all they have to do is make a call. It is as simple as that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is very important to clarify the federal government’s position. We have both an opportunity and an obligation to defend the Constitution. It is possible to defend the French language and the Constitution at the same time. The case has reached the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the appropriate forum for this discussion.”
“Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk about incompetence in politics, he need look no further than the mirror. Let us listen to the approach he takes on Canada-U.S. relations, saying it is not the Americans' fault, but it is ours and that we are stupid, while his caucus colleagues go down to the south to say that we are throwing a hissy fit up here. If they want to see incompetence, let us look at the Conservative leader's statements, calling the RCMP leadership “despicable” and calling on his political opponents to be jailed. We will move forward with thoughtful policy that ensures our immigration system moves with integrity while we welcome newcomers who can help grow the economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague has accused us of trying to distract. Let me be clear: I have no interest in distracting from the fact that the Conservatives campaigned on a commitment to hire zero new RCMP officers. I have no intention to distract from the fact that their leader has called the RCMP leadership “despicable” and called upon the justice system to jail his political opponents. Our legislative agenda has gained endorsements from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the National Police Federation, the Police Association of Ontario and the New Glasgow Regional Police force, for what it is worth. We will work with law enforcement agencies to keep our communities safe. If the Conservatives finally decide to co-operate, I would be—”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, when we dig into the plans that each of the parties put forward, to identify what their priorities really are. The Conservatives are criticizing us for failing to deliver on 1,000 new RCMP officers, which the minister said are going to be graduating over the next number of weeks. What is fascinating is that the number of RCMP officers the Conservatives committed to hiring during the last electoral campaign is zero. We are supporting the front line not only with making new hires but also by giving law enforcement the tools they have asked for to keep our communities safe. The Conservatives have opposed us at every turn. Despite their opposition, we are going to work with the law enforcement that will keep communities safe.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I thank my colleague for her question. As the member is well aware, the federal government must defend the Constitution. This case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue. It would not be appropriate for me, as Attorney General, to debate this matter in the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, as has been litigated during the debate in this chamber already today. The IRGC has been listed, and that carries with it certain consequences about the inadmissibility of certain individuals. Their files are reviewed and the people who are not allowed to remain in Canada will in fact be removed. The concern underlying the questions in the House of Commons today have to do with the safety of Canadians, including the safety of Jewish Canadians to practise their faith freely in a context where synagogues are being shot up. There is a piece of legislation, the combatting hate act, Bill C-9 , that has been before the House. We have an opportunity to offer the protection communities are asking for. It is a shame that the party opposite will not listen to Jewish Canadians and do what they are asking.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, like one of the previous questioners, raised the very real challenge of communities that are facing hate crimes, including synagogues that are being shot up in this country. There are efforts to intimidate and obstruct people from practising their faith, not just at synagogues but at temples, at mosques and at our churches. We need to do more to ensure that people can live freely. That means rights that are not just written on paper but actually enjoyed in communities. This includes adopting new laws that would criminalize certain behaviours that target people on the basis of their faith. We have an opportunity to support the combatting hate act to deliver this outcome now for Canadians. I hope the Conservative members will join us.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised a number of issues in his question. One is the reality that many communities are facing when it comes to violence committed against their community of faith. We are all aghast at the horrors of the shootings that have taken place against synagogues in Canada over the last number of weeks, but it is important that we take action to actually provide solace to the communities who are facing such serious public safety threats. This includes funding to help protect the institutions where people practise their faith and pray, and it also includes legislative efforts that will more severely punish hate crimes in this country, including hate crimes committed against communities of faith. Members of the House have an opportunity to support the combatting hate act to help provide such protection to communities.”
“We are willing to go a step further, reflect the feedback we have heard from communities of faith and amend the bill to make clear that the practice of one's faith will not be considered a crime in Canada. That is the position of the government.”