Anthony Housefather
Mount Royal, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“It makes it clear that a person cannot obstruct people from entering or leaving the building, which is what happened that night in March 2024. At the time, I called for this change to the criminal law.”
“However, the police failed to arrest people. They failed to stop what was a demonstration that descended into illegality. They said at the time that they did not have clear enough instructions or clear enough rules related to when a demonstration outside of a community centre, a school, a temple, a church or a synagogue has crossed the li…”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton . [ English ] The combatting hate act has been before this House for nine months. During those nine months, we have had extensive debate in this place, in the other place and at committee. This bill is important.”
“Yes, there was dissent, but the dissent was not on the vast majority of issues, including the intimidation and obstruction offence. However, that has not stopped what the Prime Minister called the “crisis of anti-Semitism” that has overwhelmed the western world, including Canada, where over 70% of religious-based hate offences are against…”
“Mr. Speaker, the organizations that speak for the organized Jewish communities, all of them, support the bill, whether it is CIJA, B'nai Brith, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the numerous groups that Mark Sandler has assembled in Toronto or the Canadian Women Against Antisemitism.”
“We also inserted a provision for greater clarity, to make clear that this is not the case, but we should not have had to do that, because it is obvious that this is not the case. People will not be charged because they read, quote or preach the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or any other holy book. This is entirely made up.”
The complete record
Every one of 227 lines we hold for Anthony Housefather, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“These key protections would include bans against foreign individuals or organizations improperly influencing how or whether someone votes in a contest, offering or accepting a bribe to influence how or whether someone votes in a contest, publishing misleading information falsely claiming to be from a nomination or leadership contest, using deepfakes, and using a computer system to interfere with the conduct or results of a contest. There is nothing more important than electoral law when we talk about all parties working together. No changes to our process should ever be made if there is not a real consensus in the House of Commons and the Senate.”
“As is currently the case under the Canada Elections Act, good-faith arguments, opinions or honest mistakes would not be captured by the measures. Additionally, the existing prohibition against the unauthorized use of a computer to affect the results of an election by intercepting information or hacking into a system would also apply to efforts to use a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election inside and outside Canada. Finally, the bill would apply key protections that help keep our elections and electoral participants safe and secure in nomination contests and leadership contests, recognizing these contests as important democratic events within our broader electoral process.”
“This includes statements someone might make that they know to be untrue but that they spread anyway in order to affect the conduct or results of an election, such as intentional falsehoods regarding who may vote in the election, for example telling people they cannot vote unless they are aged 35 or over; about the voting registration process, such as falsely telling people they cannot register from outside the country even if they are Canadian citizens; when, where, and how to vote, and we have all seen text messages where people have sent information saying that people are supposed to vote in false locations; who an individual can vote for, for example text messages saying that people are required to vote for a certain candidate; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated and counted; or, of course, the results of an election.”
“Beginning with the issue of obstruction, let me explain further. Under the bill, the prohibition against obstructing the electoral process or obstructing an investigation would apply equally inside and outside Canada, instead of just in Canada as is currently the case. Similarly, the current prohibition against impersonating certain electoral actors would apply outside Canada, as would the ban against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral actors. Recognizing the severe harm that may be caused by the intentional spread of false or misleading information, the bill would ensure that knowingly making false statements about election activities and the voting process to disrupt the conduct or results of an election would apply, even if the contravention occurs outside Canada.”
“(1250) As I said before, threats to our democracy can occur at any time, but they can also occur from anywhere in the world. Indeed, aided in part by increasingly inexpensive, sophisticated and easy-to-use technology, malicious actors are not limited by international borders when seeking to undermine confidence in or affect the outcomes of our elections. The bill would ensure that six new and enhanced rules under the Canada Elections Act would also apply outside Canada. This includes prohibitions against obstruction of the electoral process or an investigation, impersonation, misleading publications, false statements regarding election activities in the voting process, and the unauthorized use of a computer. There would also be new protections for nomination and leadership contests.”
“Additionally, the ban against offering or accepting a bribe to influence someone's vote, as well as against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral voices in order to mislead voters, would no longer to limited to the election period. Furthermore, using a broadcasting station outside Canada to influence whether or not an elector votes during an election, and the candidate or registered party they vote for, would also be prohibited at all times. Together, these measures would help Canada assume a proactive posture, protecting electors and the integrity and fairness of our elections throughout the year, not only once an election is called. Importantly, these measures would also come into force immediately upon royal assent so Canadians could benefit from these additional protections as soon as possible.”
“The bill tackles these challenges head-on by applying existing and new electoral safeguards at all times, not just during elections, and by ensuring that these safeguards apply wherever in the world such breaches may occur. [ English ] In order to ensure that Canadian elections are protected year-round, not only during the formal election period, the strong and free elections act would apply at all times. This would include current rules against undue foreign influence, specifically attempts by foreign individuals or organizations to influence someone's vote or prevent them from voting at all.”
“This bill takes a forward-looking, evidence-based approach to address the vulnerabilities identified by the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada Elections. The bill aims to improve existing safeguards for our electoral system and introduce new ones so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in the fairness and transparency of our federal elections. More specifically, this bill recognizes two fundamental truths about modern elections. The first is that democracy must be protected at all times, not just during election periods. The second is that threats to democracy are not confined by geographical borders.”
“Across the world, however, election threats continue to grow through sophisticated disinformation campaigns, new kinds of foreign interference and digital security attacks, while technology continues to evolve quickly and bad actors switch up their interference tactics. Canada is not immune to these global realities. While we are fortunate to have a strong and resilient electoral process supported by the trust of Canadians, we must not take that trust for granted. To maintain that trust, we have a responsibility to adapt and strengthen our electoral safeguards by ensuring that our system remains prepared to defend itself against new and emerging threats in a constantly changing world. With the introduction of this bill, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action to achieve this.”
“People vote and choose a person to represent them here in Ottawa, and that person, each and every one of us, is accountable to our electors for the decisions we make during the course of our term. The bill makes it far more sure that people are going to be voting based on real information, not misleading information, not deepfakes and not false information coming from foreign sources. [ Translation ] To me, what is most important is that our elections remain free, fair, transparent and impartial. That is the bedrock of our system. When Canadians step up to the ballot box, they quite reasonably expect to cast their vote without interference, manipulation or threats from inside or outside the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation . [ English ] Before I begin, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on having referred to himself by his name more than I have ever heard any other member of Parliament do in any speech, ever. I congratulate him on that. I am going to be dealing largely with foreign interference. Before I do, I just want to say that I strongly support the strong and free elections act going to committee. There is nothing more important in our society, in a democratic western nation, than having the ability to vote and choose our representatives. I agree with what the previous speaker said.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, especially for his personal story about what happened to him in 2015. As he said, nomination contests frequently, for certain parties in certain regions, choose the person who is almost certainly going to win the seat. I understand what happened in these contests, and I understand the concern, as a result, about having permanent residents participate in the process, but it sounds like in the 2015 nomination there were people other than citizens and permanent residents falsely participating in the process. Can the member envisage a way where permanent residents can continue to participate and we can better protect the system from people who do not have that status?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech. The Conservative motion is based on the assumption that the price of oil will stay the same until the end of year. Can my hon. colleague explain why this assumption is incorrect, given that we have no idea how the situation will unfold?”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things the Conservatives are assuming in their motion is that the cost of oil will remain the same for the rest of the year, but the price of oil fluctuates constantly. The $9 billion to $10 billion that the Conservatives claim is going to be collected by the government depends on oil prices not falling over the next nine months.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, global gas prices are driven by global supply and demand. When some of the leading producers in the world are unable to ship oil to markets, the price goes up. When we have instability, the price goes up. When the President of the United States makes certain announcements, the price goes up. Global oil prices are completely unstable, which has led to an increase as a result of the conflict and the inability to deliver oil to market from certain of the most important producing regions in the world. As such, prices in Canada and around the world have gone up. What we need to do is give temporary relief, as we have done. Today, the Prime Minister announced that the excise tax is being cut until Labour Day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering the question that was asked at the beginning of my colleague's speech. Yes, I believe that some proposals in the Conservative motion are unrealistic. These proposals do not consider the environment and its importance. They also do not take into account the fact that the costs they are trying to eliminate have nothing to do with the price at the pump, as my hon. colleague said earlier.”
“Mr. Speaker, given that the first four minutes of my speech dealt with fuel prices, I would say of course, which is why we are removing the excise tax. The excise tax has been in place since the 1990s, and we are taking the proactive step based on the current worldwide oil prices to cut that. The excise tax is 10¢ per litre for regular people buying standard gasoline. This will no longer be the case from next week until Labour Day. Of course we are sensitive to the issue. What I was talking about was all of the different things in the Conservative motion that were not things that should be done.”
“With the results of the by-elections last night, we have a choice. We can all work together across party lines to continue to make things better for Canadians, or we can hear diatribes directed against former colleagues, personal attacks against other members of Parliament, and not work together. (1050) [ Translation ] As Canadians and as elected officials from all political parties, we have the opportunity to continue working together in committee and in the House. I truly hope that, as parliamentarians who represent our communities and who are concerned about affordability, we will be able to take a practical look at what we can do together. [ English ] I thank the House very much for giving me the time, and I look forward to the questions from my colleagues.”
“This change will ensure that nearly 22 million Canadians benefit from tax relief of up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 a year. A more affordable Canada also means a more competitive Canada. As members can see, we are delivering. At a time when many Canadians are feeling the pressure of rising costs, our government remains focused on what matters the most: supporting people and easing financial strains wherever we can. We can take practical, responsible and pragmatic actions to help families afford the essentials, strengthen household financial security and ensure that economic growth works for everyone. Every decision we take should be guided by a simple principle: to stand with Canadians, protect their well-being and help build a more stable and resilient future for communities across the country.”
“We will build faster and smarter thanks to the launch of Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency that will drive investment and public-private co-operation. In addition to housing, we are working to provide Canadians with relief from the financial squeeze of everyday expenses. We all know that one of the areas that stresses Canadians the most is the cost of groceries. Food costs have gone up far too quickly in this country. Our government's new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford day-to-day necessities. We have also cut taxes for the middle class. Since July 1, 2025, Canadians have been paying less tax after the government announced lowering of the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%.”
“Investment in housing-enabling infrastructure under this program will help accelerate the right housing-related infrastructure needed to support housing growth. To access funds for infrastructure related to housing and post-secondary education, provinces will also need to show a commitment to reducing development charges where those charges pose a significant barrier to new construction. Provinces and territories will also need to commit to not levying other taxes that hinder housing supply to encourage housing development. We have also eliminated the goods and services tax for first-time buyers on homes valued up to $1 million, and we reduced the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.”
“Bill C-26 will deliver a federal investment of $1.7 billion to provinces and territories so they can implement measures to boost the housing supply. These funds can help reduce development fees or levies on new home construction. They can also make incremental investments in existing provincial and territorial programs that are dedicated to building more homes. We are also enabling more homebuilding across the country with investments in infrastructure that Canadians rely on every day. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister officially launched the build communities strong fund, a $51-billion investment to help build essential infrastructure projects, including hospitals, universities, roads and bridges, and water and transit systems.”
“At the same time, we preserved carbon pricing for large industrial emitters, focusing emissions reductions where they are the most effective, while easing cost pressures on households and maintaining a strong, competitive economy. I can assure members that we have been working tirelessly to address cost of living challenges experienced by too many households across this country, and we are absolutely delivering for Canadians. We have presented ambitious plans to reposition Canada for a far better future, but of course, this will take some time. We know that Canadians need immediate relief, and we are delivering. Let me take a moment to highlight some of our recent actions to address housing affordability in Canada. Put simply, we need to build more homes. We recently introduced Bill C-26 , which will help unlock new housing across Canada.”
“Moreover, the Conservatives are allowing their ambivalence toward environmental action to overshadow a reasonable approach to the environment and the economy. They know that the clean fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump. They know that an industrial carbon price makes us more competitive in a lower-emissions global economy. They are intentionally conflating these issues instead of focusing on what matters to Canadians. This measure builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which also lowered costs at the pump. One of the first things we did was to eliminate the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025. Our government removed the consumer carbon price on gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuels while ensuring that Canadians received the final rebate during the transition.”
“The announcement made earlier today by the Prime Minister reflects that. The Conservative motion today, on the other hand, is, unfortunately, anything but serious. Canadians expect and deserve more than “back of the napkin” math. Let us look at some of the issues with the Conservative motion. Oil prices, as we know, are highly volatile and highly unpredictable. We know that recent events have led to a global spike in prices, but we also know that it is difficult to forecast what will happen six, eight or 12 months down the road. Conservatives are arguing that the current price per barrel will generate an additional $9 billion to $10 billion in government revenues. This assumption is based on the price per barrel staying the same between now and the new year. The Conservative plan is based on forecasts that are optimistic at best.”
“As the Prime Minister made clear, Canada's new government will use the improvement in the fiscal outlook associated with higher oil prices to provide targeted relief to households and businesses. Specifically, we are reducing pressure on fuel prices at the pump by suspending the application of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, effective next week until Labour Day, September 7, 2026, delivering over $2.3 billion in relief to Canadians at a time when they need it the most. This temporary suspension of excise taxes for gasoline and diesel is expected to save Canadians up to an estimated $5.75 on regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a typical 50-litre tank of fuel. This is a serious moment in our nation's history, and it deserves serious leadership and consideration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this important debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester . (1045) [ English ] Our government knows how difficult it is for some Canadians to cover their day-to-day costs. Making life more affordable has always been a core priority of this government. More pressingly, we know that a significant pressure on household budgets is the cost of fuel. Recent events in the Middle East, including the partial blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, have led to a global spike in oil prices, and Canadian families are feeling the impacts. That is why I am pleased to be able to say that today the Prime Minister announced further action to help Canadians manage these challenges.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for my colleague. Last week, I was with the Minister of Finance in my riding, where Kraft Heinz announced a $250-million investment to increase the number of Canadian products being made here at home in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. That is because Kraft Heinz has confidence that the new government knows what it is doing with the economy. I think we should look at this investment as an asset for Quebec and Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that this bill, when we talk about anti-Semitism, is something that has been asked for by all of the main Jewish organizations in Canada, including CIJA, B’nai Brith and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center. I can go on and on about the Jewish organizations that support the bill and have asked for the bill. They want to see actual action, not just words. 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.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is no. It is clear that people could read any sacred text, pray to it, or do anything else, and no one would be charged for reading a sacred text. The issue here is the promotion of hatred, that is, deliberately wanting someone to be slandered. The idea that this would happen simply because a person goes to church and reads the Bible there makes no sense. It is not fair. It is not true.”
“There are a lot of things in this country that are hateful but do not rise to the level of prosecuting them under the Criminal Code for the wilful promotion of hatred, which rises to the level of detestation and vilification. While I may disagree with what my hon. colleague said, he never said that somehow, people would be prosecuted as a result of doing what he said they—”
“Mr. Speaker, I extend the same appreciation to my colleague, whom I often work with and very much enjoy working with. The member asked about two things. First, I have called for the repeal of the religious-based defence since early 2024, when CIJA called for it, and I agreed with them, following what happened with Charkaoui in Montreal. I have supported removing that for two years. It has never successfully been used in Canadian history. The fear is that it deters prosecutors from pursuing a case against somebody who clearly and wilfully promotes hate in the street. Second, as the hon. member knows, hateful speech is not hate speech.”
“It is absolutely asinine. It makes no sense that the person arrested by the police and charged by the prosecutor, agreed to by the provincial attorney general, would be somebody who was benignly reading or preaching a religious text. Everyone here knows that is not true. When we scare people and pretend something is true, of course they are going to react, sign petitions and call, but it is not true. I am someone who has always fought against the use of the notwithstanding clause. I opposed it with respect to taking away religious rights in my own province, and I even held rallies for religious freedom, so the idea that I would support something that would do that is ridiculous. This bill is important. I encourage all of us to adopt it.”
“There is no stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code right now. This bill would add measures. That is why it is important. The other argument relates to the removal of the defence for wilful promotion of hatred. The argument is that it is somehow going to mean one thing because one member said one thing at one committee meeting that is now being extrapolated. For someone to be charged with extreme detestation or vilification, they would have to be someone the police arrested and the prosecutor wanted to charge because they were promoting hate wilfully, and that rises to a level of extreme detestation or vilification. It would have to be something that is wilful. The person must knowingly and intentionally want to promote hatred, and that would apply to somebody reading the Torah, the Quran, the Bible or any religious text.”
“They cannot even do what the attorney general of the province can do, which is provide clear instructions as to when the charge should be laid in a provincial matter. The idea that we should not do this because it should just be enforced means that we, as a federal Parliament that can rewrite the Criminal Code, should do nothing. We can say our fancy words and say we are very upset that the police are not arresting people, but we would be doing nothing. Why on earth would we do nothing when we could add the specific offences police have asked for and said would make it easier for them to prosecute the people we want them to prosecute, who are committing hate offences? The idea that there is already an intimidation and obstruction offence protecting these specific buildings is not true.”
“We tried our best, I think, to accommodate the many reasonable comments we got from everyone. There are two arguments that I hear on this bill, particularly from my Conservative colleagues. The first relates to enforcement. It is the idea that we do not need a new bill. We just need to enforce existing laws. One of the things about enforcing existing laws is that provinces enforce the Criminal Code. In 90-some per cent of cases, it is provincial authorities and the people on the ground who make the decisions on arrests, working with their local prosecutors, which are usually provincial, and the local police. The federal government, and even the Prime Minister , cannot tell the Toronto or Montreal police they have to arrest Mr. X or Mrs. Y.”
“We went back and used an amendment that reflected the wording of Keegstra, requiring extreme detestation or vilification to rise to the level of wilfully promoting hate. While I felt the consent of the provincial attorney general should not be needed for public prosecutions, and I personally advocated for amending the bill to say only that attorney general consent was required for private prosecutions, I listened to my colleagues who had concerns about the attorney general not being needed for public prosecutions. So did my other colleagues from the Liberal Party, including the parliamentary secretary for justice . We voted to remove the part of the bill, as recommended in the anti-Semitism report of the justice committee, that would have removed attorney general consent. We put it back. The attorney general consent is there.”
“Those recommendations included a stand-alone offence for hate, an intimidation or obstruction offence to stop people from blocking people's access to community buildings and something to deal with terrorist symbols and hate symbols to make it harder for people to go out in public, yelling and screaming chants and holding terrorist symbols, such as the symbol of Hamas or Hezbollah, in these demonstrations. These were all recommendations made by the committee, and when we look at the Conservative Party's dissent in the report, it did not dissent on any of those four issues at all. (1650) We also tried in this bill to deal with and accommodate concerns that had been expressed. There were concerns, including from me, related to the way hate was defined and the fact that it did not completely reflect what Keegstra said.”
“It would allow people to know that they can enter or leave a space without protesters yelling hateful slogans, carrying terrorist symbols or screaming and yelling at them. To me, that is the core of this legislation. There are many parts to the legislation, and all of them, as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, were recommended by the justice committee. When we did our study on anti-Semitism in 2024, a study that I moved, we came up with different recommendations. Some were for the federal government, some for the provincial governments, some for municipal governments, some for colleges and universities and some for the police. There are many jurisdictions involved in stopping hate in this country.”
“When I talked to the police about it, they said that it was not really that clear that intimidating and obstructing people from entering or leaving a building was a criminal offence. It was not one they felt comfortable charging. What we then said was that we needed a specific offence for this. We needed a specific intimidation offence, an obstruction offence, to make sure people have the right to enter or leave their churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, places of worship, schools, community centres, seniors homes or LGBT centres. This is included in the bill. This bill would afford people special protection in the event that they are part of a group in Canada seeking to worship.”
“One of the ideas in this bill is something that I started promoting two years ago based off an incident in my riding. During this incident, demonstrators surrounded the Federation CJA and Jewish buildings in Montreal that house the Jewish Public Library and the Montreal Holocaust Museum. For a period of three hours, people were blocked from entering the building to go hear a speaker and from leaving the building after work, all while the Montreal police sat there and did not arrest one person. They did not arrest one person for blocking the Jewish community buildings, including the Jewish Public Library and the Holocaust museum, for hours. Later that week, the same thing was done outside of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, yet again nobody was arrested.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been asking for this bill for two years. This is a bill I feel passionately about, and it is a bill that is desperately needed. In the last month, three synagogues in Toronto were shot at. Jewish institutions were shot at in Belgium and Holland. A synagogue in Detroit was attacked with a car by a guy who was armed. He rammed into the gate. Over and over in this world, we have seen acts of hate directed at many communities, but in particular right now, it is directed at the Jewish community. In the last year, Jews were killed in Washington, D.C., because they were Jewish, killed in Colorado because they were Jewish, killed in Manchester in the U.K. because they were Jewish, and killed at Bondi Beach in December because they were Jewish and celebrating Hanukkah.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the most important thing is that all members of the Canadian Armed Forces in the region are safe. Our priority as a government and as parliamentarians should be the safety and security of our armed forces who are currently operating in a theatre of war. I will say that our government's priority will always be to maximize the safety and security of our armed forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe we all need to prioritize the safety and security of the Canadian Armed Forces and not expose them to unnecessary risks. There are members of our armed forces, brave men and women, operating in a theatre of war where Iran is launching missiles and drones. For reasons of operational security, specific measures to protect the forces are not disclosed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can only say, having listened to that last answer, that the hon. member has not read the bill, because it does not change whatsoever the way one levels a complaint with respect to a hate crime or the definition of a hate crime. The hon. member talked about enforcement. Can he talk to us about what he believes the role of the federal government is when it comes to police enforcement at a local level? Has he ever had a federal member of Parliament or a federal minister tell him what to do as a police officer? What does he think the federal government is going to do with respect to local law enforcement, which is a provincial jurisdiction, manned by municipal police?”
“Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion and freedom of expression are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, when I was mayor of Côte Saint-Luc, I held a rally for religious freedom. I very much believe in religious freedom. There is nothing in the bill that would stop anyone from preaching, reciting, reading or doing anything that they are doing today. This defence has never been successfully used in Canadian history, and it is used only if someone is charged with wilfully promoting hate, which no good-faith religious person in this country should or would ever do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that absolutely nothing in Bill C‑9 will prevent anyone from reading or promoting religious texts in a church, synagogue, mosque or any other place of worship. It contains absolutely nothing to that effect. For even greater certainty, considering the proliferation of disinformation, we also decided to state that point unequivocally. The Liberal members came to an agreement with the member for Rivière-du-Nord , and hopefully with the Conservative members as well, to include a statement in Bill C‑9 that reading any sacred text is allowed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada writes the Criminal Code. The enforcement of the Criminal Code is provincial, and most of that is carried out by municipal police. The idea that the federal government can interfere with enforcement, which is a provincial jurisdiction, when it is mostly carried out by municipal police that we do not hire or fire, is a fantasy. What we can do is what the Jewish organizations across this country have asked us to do, which is to improve the Criminal Code to give police more tools to prosecute people who are creating hate in this country. That was done in consultation with police groups across the country. I cited hearings of police officers from Toronto, Montreal and other places, who told us that they wanted the tools in this bill. We are doing what we are supposed to do.”
“This is saying that someone who goes out in public to promote hatred against people in this country is charged at that point, and it is at that point that this defence becomes available. This defence can be invoked only after an individual has been charged with promoting hatred in Canada, and the threshold is very high. [ English ] I will end with the following: I am very much hoping that my colleagues opposite will reconsider. Right now at the justice committee, after hours and hours of Conservative filibustering, we are studying a subamendment by a Conservative member that would essentially mean that we could never have anyone charged with wilful promotion of hate in Canada. I think most of the members of the opposition party would be shocked if they saw what that amendment says.”
“Religious freedom is explicitly protected by section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has been repeatedly affirmed by Canadian courts as a core constitutional guarantee. Nothing in Bill C-9 amends, limits or conditions that protection. The bill does not interfere with worship, belief, religious teaching, sermons, or doctrine. To suggest otherwise is to assert a legal effect that simply does not exist. I agree entirely with what Mr. Neuberger said. We are removing a defence that has not once been successfully used in Canadian history. (1310) [ Translation ] This defence is used only by people charged with promoting hatred. The threshold is very high.”