Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for offering to share her time with me. That said, I would like to know whether she can tell us why roughly 10 years came and went between the day that Justice Marie Deschamps's first report was released and the day that this bill was tabled. We know that there was a number of earlier reports and bills, but it seems rather extreme to me that it should take 10 years to come up with a bill like this. Can my colleague explain that time lapse?”
“Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not agree with my colleague. I do not believe that Bills C‑5 and C‑75 are responsible for femicides, homicides or all the crimes committed in Canada. I believe there are a number of things we need to work on and focus on. Prevention measures must be taken and the presumption of innocence must be upheld, but we must also make the judicial process more accountable and ensure that individuals who commit crimes or who are likely to commit crimes are more closely monitored.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the good question she asked. That is a concern. She was right to mention it. As I said earlier, I believe in the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the Jordan decision. They are essential and they must be preserved. However, until we can try people within the time limits set out in the Jordan decision, we have to ensure that the justice system is allowed to deviate from these time limits in special situations, including cases involving femicides like the ones I mentioned. We cannot let people walk free without first standing trial. This would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. People would lose all trust in our justice system, and that may be the worst danger of all. We are going to come back with a bill similar to the one we introduced before.”
“Sooner or later, the federal government will have to sit down with the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other provinces to find ways to provide funding for efforts to fight the heinous crimes being carried out in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, of course, we can work on the Criminal Code. However, a large part of the issue falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. In Quebec, we need to invest in prevention efforts, but we have no money. We run deficits year after year. Where does the money go? I am not the minister of finance or even the finance critic, but we need to revisit how we do things. The federal government must take responsibility. It cannot just take the money and run when it is hardly even involved in managing things that affect people's everyday lives. What people in Quebec and across Canada care about in their daily lives is health, education, roads and justice. Money needs to be invested in those things.”
“It is certainly not the best way to convince criminals to stop committing crimes. I have just said a lot in a short time. As I said, it troubles me and makes me uncomfortable when I see crimes like the ones that have happened this week. I am thinking, for one, of the unfortunate crime against Gabie Renaud in Saint‑Jérôme, in my riding of Rivière-du-Nord. It is so difficult. I feel completely useless. I cannot understand why we have not been able to make progress sooner and prevent situations like this. I hope we can work on it, but unfortunately, our Liberal colleagues will have to agree to revisit the principles they have established, and our Conservative colleagues will have to agree to revisit theirs. We must stop shifting from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt.”
“For instance, I proposed that when a minimum sentence is established for a certain crime in order to send a clear message to the public, courts should still have the option to choose a different sentence in exceptional circumstances. If, for any reason, a judge hears evidence during a trial and determines that a minimum sentence is not the most appropriate penalty, he or she could depart from that provision of the law. The judge could therefore waive the minimum sentence. That is one possible compromise, but not the only one. I came up with a compromise, and I am not the only one with ideas. I am sure we can come up with others. We need creative solutions to move forward, instead of constantly going back and forth, which gets us nowhere and undermines public trust.”
“I encourage everyone to give this matter more thought. There is also the issue of minimum sentences. Our Conservative colleagues keep coming back to this issue. As the Supreme Court has found, adding minimum sentences to just about everything in the Criminal Code is unconstitutional. The government had to backtrack on this matter. The previous government had to reverse what the government before it had done. I hope we will not be playing this game forever, constantly going back and forth depending on which party is in power. We need to find a reasonable path forward. I have tried to make suggestions in the past.”
“We must act by being more vigilant. Why are repeat offenders being released when the Criminal Code already states that public safety has to be taken into consideration in bail decisions? I have not read any of these cases in particular, but I am sure the judges are not stupid. If they decided to release these individuals, they must have had good reasons. I would be interested in finding out what they are, but there must have been reasons. In that case, what can we do? We can, of course, tighten the criteria for release, but the question would be how to do that. The Conservatives want to invert the principle and switch from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt. There has to be some space between the two. Reason should be able to navigate between these two principles.”
“When are changes going to be made in the way money is spent here to ensure that it goes where it is most needed, namely to the management of provincial institutions like the health system, the education system and the justice system? All of that is important. Concerning bail, a solution has to be found, as I was saying. I do not know the exact figures, but at least 90% of femicides are committed by men. That is shocking, shameful, disturbing, troubling, and any number of other qualifiers one may care to add. However, my colleague was right to say earlier that of all the clients he represented as a defence lawyer, not one of them had read the Criminal Code before committing a crime. I do not imagine anyone is surprised by that. It should be obvious. Yes, we can add provisions to the Criminal Code, but above all, we must act.”
“If people are denied justice through the courts, they will take matters into their own hands. That will lead to anarchy. We do not want that either. It is important to respect the Jordan time limits, but to do that, the federal government will have to appoint judges and fill vacancies within a reasonable time. That is something else we are going to tackle. (1135) Money also has to be transferred to the provinces so that they can administer justice more fairly and be more efficient when it comes to laying charges and proceeding to trial. The federal government also has a part to play in that. The health transfers to the provinces are unsatisfactory, and the same goes for the transfers for education and justice. When is this going to be fixed?”
“That kind of thing has absolutely no place in a society like ours. How can anyone look at that situation and decide that nothing can be done? Come on. That is our job. We need to address this. We agree with the Jordan decision and the principle of trial within a reasonable time. I agree with that. It does not make sense for someone to wait 10 years to be found guilty or innocent of the crime they were charged with. There are strict time limits. The Supreme Court examined all that and introduced time limits in the Jordan decision. Yes, they must be complied with. Unfortunately, the provinces do not have the money to comply. They do not have enough courtrooms, judges and personnel to hold trials within the time limits. More money must be invested in the justice system. I often say that too. Justice is the backbone of a society.”
“I have been in this House for 10 years, and I am about to table my third bill aimed at combatting criminal organizations by creating a registry of criminal organizations with associated consequences, such as a reverse onus for the seizure of property and a ban on support and displays of support for such organizations. It would be similar to the list of terrorist organizations, which is working well. We should copy that idea and use it to fight organized crime effectively. It is true that femicides like the ones I was talking about are not related to organized crime, but this registry would be one way to fight crime. With regard to religious exemptions, we saw such an incident again last year when a preacher was shouting something like, “Allah, kill all the Jews and don't spare a single one”.”
“I would not want to live in a society where a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent. That happens in other parts of the world, but I do not want that here. The presumption of innocence may cause turmoil and suffering, but it is my humble opinion that we would have even more turmoil and suffering if the presumption of innocence did not exist. We should not get rid of it. As the saying goes, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The bathwater does need to be changed, though. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj also spoke about criminal organizations.”
“I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj for his intervention, which was just before mine. He said it very well. The bill has not yet been introduced. We cannot say at this point that we are in favour of a bill that we have not read, since it has not been introduced, but that should be introduced eventually and should close certain loopholes. It does not work like that. We must do things in the right order if we want to be effective. The Bloc Québécois cannot support the Conservative motion today. That being said, again, there is great concern, and it affects us all. We are deeply troubled by situations like this. Now, I am not ready to give up on the principle of the presumption of innocence. I believe that it is essential in a free and democratic society.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question raised by our Conservative colleagues' motion is of particular concern to me today. The body of a young woman, Gabie Renaud, was discovered in my riding this week. I offer my deepest condolences to her family. I must say, I am shocked and dismayed by this incident. Her partner, the man who allegedly killed her, was on his 16th parole violation. I do not get it. I think we need to change the way things are done. This is unacceptable to me. This is not the only case. Earlier today, I read that another woman in Saint‑Charles‑sur‑Richelieu was murdered yesterday. It is endless. We cannot just sit back and do nothing in the face of incidents like this. We have to get to work and find solutions. I am in. What are the solutions? Our colleague from the Conservative Party is proposing one solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government's Bill C-9 would make it illegal to wear the swastika. It would also make it illegal to wear symbols associated with groups that appear on the list of terrorist entities. However, the government does not have the courage to do exactly the same thing for criminal groups, such as the Hells Angels. Their patches represent organized crime, murder and the rise in gang-related violence that is worrying Quebeckers. It seems to us that this is a hateful enough symbol for the Liberals to ban it. What are they waiting for?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec announced that it wants to prevent the Hells Angels from displaying their colours. Quebec would not need to take action if the federal government did its job by making patches illegal under the Criminal Code, which falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois even introduced a bill to that effect in 2017, Bill C-349 . Every party voted against it. Quebec is once again being forced to do the federal government's job for it because no other party here has the courage to take on organized crime. Will the government finally take responsibility and make it illegal to wear the emblems of organizations—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is saying that the Bloc Québécois did not do the work in its ridings. Are people in Lac-Saint-Jean really asking their MP to eliminate the gas tax because of rising grocery prices? That seems a bit strange to me. In my riding, people are asking whether prices can be capped, whether we can get inflation under control and whether we can subsidize food banks, but no one has ever asked me about getting rid of the gas tax. I would like my colleague to confirm whether that is really what is bothering people in Lac-Saint-Jean.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are studying a motion that seeks to eliminate the fuel tax. However, the government already decided to eliminate the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in Bill C-4 . Apart from these measures, which seek to produce more oil, does our colleague's Liberal government have any tangible measures to propose for combatting rising consumer prices? I am thinking of a price cap on groceries or transfers to the provinces so that they can better fund food banks. What does my colleague think his government could do?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier when I was asking our Conservative colleague a question, I think it is absurd to ask for the gas tax to be cut as a way to lower food prices. I would like my colleague to tell me what the Liberal Party plans to do about the cost of food. Is it considering imposing a price cap through legislation, or increasing transfers to Quebec and the provinces to improve funding for soup kitchens? What tangible measures is it going to take, other than cutting the fuel tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that inflation is driving up the cost of food. We could pass legislation to set a cap on grocery prices. We could increase transfers to the provinces and Quebec. We could do a lot of things to fund food banks. However, as we speak, oceans are warming, icebergs are melting and forests are burning. There is more and more smog everywhere. The planet is suffocating, yet the Conservatives are proposing that we do away with the gas tax to help lower grocery prices. I am sorry, but I do not see where they are going with this. They are making the problem worse, not solving it. Does my colleague not agree that it makes no sense to eliminate the gas tax when what we need to do is cap grocery prices?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very similar. Lawyers who appear in court must wear a robe. Nurses must wear scrubs. There are dress codes for different professions. As for police officers, in my humble opinion, there should be secularism requirements in their dress code.”
“That is a great question, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying in my speech earlier, the definition of hate is a bit— I hesitate to say ambiguous because I must admit that, if I were to write this myself, I would not have known where to start. That said, I will repeat the definition: “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. That description is rather vague. In terms of enforcement, a decision would have to be made as to whether a particular individual carried out a specific action with hateful intent. I wish the judges good luck.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I am not the one deciding on specific cases today. What do we do about Jewish police officers, Sikh teachers or Muslim judges? I agree that much work remains to be done. However, just because the challenge is great does not mean we should refuse to take it on. I repeat that, in my opinion, for example, if a Muslim, displaying Muslim religious symbols, is arrested by a Jewish police officer, displaying Jewish religious symbols, they might feel uncomfortable. If they go to court and the presiding judge is displaying Sikh or other symbols, it all creates a difficult climate that affects our ability to live together in society. As I have stated before, I think the state must be secular and that, yes, at home, in our daily lives with our friends, we can display all the religious preferences we hold.”
“I assume that, for all sorts of reasons, they were embarrassed, bothered, uncomfortable to say that the Bloc Québécois had a good idea, and so they did not talk about it. I thank the minister for his openness. In committee, we will endeavour to tackle this issue head-on, as it is a major one and essential to harmonious coexistence.”
“Madam Speaker, that is yet another excellent question. Once again, I have to hand it to my colleague and thank him for the question. I too heard our colleague the Minister of Justice say this afternoon that he would seriously consider our proposals regarding the religious exemption if they were brought forward. That is great to hear. I just wonder why he did not make those same proposals himself from the beginning. He covered all of the other points that were going to be discussed, but the religious exemption issue never came up. We do not talk about that. I have a hard time understanding why. I imagine that this bill, like many others, was discussed by many different people.”
“It is unfortunate if someone decides that they must wear a religious symbol, even at work because they may have to find another job. I do not know. These are the necessary adjustments that will have to be made. One thing is certain: The secular state is a critical issue these days as people of every religion arrive here from all over the world.”
“Madam Speaker, it is quite a challenge. This needs to be clear. That is why I tried to make it clear in my speech that people are free to wear their respective religious symbols. If I walk down the street and cross paths with someone wearing a kippah, I have no problem with that. On the contrary, it sparks my curiosity and makes me want to talk to them and learn more about their beliefs. What we are saying is that government has no religious preference. If I want Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists and everyone else to feel free and welcome to express their ideas, values and religion, I have to make sure that police officers and judges resist the temptation to pass value judgements and accept these people willingly. That means they cannot wear religious symbols. I understand that it can be frustrating.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague's riding, Thérèse-De Blainville, is next to mine. I am quite familiar with the folks who live in her riding, and I can say that she is right. Like my riding, Thérèse-De Blainville has a large immigrant population. In my riding, there are organizations in Saint‑Jérôme that are responsible for integrating newcomers. One that comes to mind is Le Coffret, which does tremendous work. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the people who work for that organization. I do not want to give the wrong impression. I do not view immigration as a problem. Immigration does, however, pose a challenge. That is what we are dealing with. In order to tackle this challenge, we need to work together, get appropriate budgets and clearly articulate what our values are.”
“However, we know very well that this section was drafted by former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and that it was the compromise without which the charter would not have been adopted. It is not a sovereignist, separatist or Quebec invention. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's invention. If a province did not like his charter, at least it had that as a consolation prize. I find it a little strange that it is being taken away from us today. My time is up. I thank my colleagues, and I look forward to seeing what we can make of Bill C‑9 in committee.”
“That does not work. Today in the House, our colleagues from the Conservative Party supported our motion calling on the government to withdraw its factum to the Supreme Court. I thank them for that. However, I am deeply disappointed that our Liberal and NDP colleagues voted against the motion. This means that in a few weeks or months, Supreme Court justices, who are appointed by the federal government and are obviously not elected, will have to rule on this issue. They will have to tell us whether Quebec and the provinces have the right to use the notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I could talk about this at greater length, but perhaps this is not the right time.”
“They cannot wear religious symbols. The state is secular. Citizens can be religious or not; the choice is theirs. Their values are their own, and we respect that. For that to come about, Quebec had to pass a law: the laicity act. We understand that this legislation may clash with some aspects of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why the Government of Quebec said it would proceed by using the notwithstanding clause. These are our values. They are important enough that we ask they be respected even if it deviates from principles set out in the charter. The Liberal government has said that it is challenging this right. It wants us to welcome people from all over the world, treat them generously, care for them, educate them, feed them and clothe them. However, the government says that it does not care about our values.”
“We think it is important to establish that. It should not be established after the fact. It should be established well in advance, now. People coming to settle in Quebec need to know that. There is also secularism. In my riding, we respect all religions. People can practise whatever religion they want at home. That is precisely the beauty of the laicity act. It says that all residents, everyone in Quebec, can practise the religion of their choice and believe whatever religious principles suit them. That is what freedom of religion is all about. In Quebec, maybe more than anywhere else in Canada or the world, we believe that religious freedom is too sacred to allow the state to take up any one religion. We do not try to persuade people that ours is the best. However, we require that people who represent the state do so in a secular way.”
“There is a financial cost, but there is also the political will needed to adopt the legislative framework needed to welcome newcomers appropriately. What is that framework? It includes legislation on French-language training. We talked about Bill 101 and said we were going to improve it. People need to know that when they come to Quebec, they are not arriving in some sort of no man's land. They are arriving in a society that has existed for a long time and that has its own values, its own social foundations, including the fact that the official language, the common language in Quebec, is French. Yes, many Quebeckers speak and understand English. English speakers will not starve to death; they will still be taken care of. However, when communicating with Quebec authorities, they should do so in French.”
“That makes a lot of sense. Without the possibility of invoking the notwithstanding clause, however, then lawyers would have to be allowed in small claims courts, which might put people in a tough situation. The notwithstanding clause can be invoked to keep that from happening. How do we proceed with the secularism law? We welcome immigrants, and we are happy to welcome them. However, we wanted to set up a framework to determine who we are. Obviously, when someone acts like a doormat, they should not be surprised when people wipe their feet on them. We decided to stand tall and be welcoming. We decided to take them under our wing, thank them, welcome them, tell them that we are happy to see them and that we will help them. However, there is a cost associated with that.”
“The motion indicated that the factum submitted by the Attorney General of Canada to the Supreme Court would undermine the protection of our values and who we are. I would remind members that, according to this factum, the notwithstanding clause used by Quebec to justify its Act respecting the laicity of the State was absurd. We were talking about secularism and the French language. I said so in a question to the minister yesterday. (1710) Then there was the issue of small claims court proceedings, where lawyers are not allowed. It is not because lawyers are not nice people. I am a big fan of lawyers; I am one. However, lawyers are expensive. I understand that. When a person starts a legal proceeding to claim $3,000 from their brother-in-law, it might be a good idea to settle it without bringing in two lawyers at $300 or $400 an hour.”
“It tries to clarify the rights and freedoms we enjoy by saying that we have freedom of expression, but that we cannot say that all Jews should be killed, for example, as we heard a preacher in Montreal say not so long ago. The Attorney General of Quebec did not even want to prosecute that preacher. The Attorney General did not say why he did not want to prosecute him, but we can guess why. Under section 319 of the Criminal Code, which I was reading earlier, it would have been a wasted effort. He would have been prosecuting someone while knowing full well that, in the end, he would be told that the defendant had the right to do it because he was basing his actions on a religious text. That is insane. Not to compare apples and oranges, but that is more or less what we saw yesterday and today with the Bloc Québécois motion.”
“If I host a party at a friend's house and I tell him he has to pay for the dinner, he will not be very pleased. That is basically what the federal government has been asking us to do for the past few years. This massive influx of people that the provinces cannot afford to integrate is causing a clash of values. Our values are not superior to theirs, but they are different. We have to find a way to make it all work. The only way to do that is to secure the necessary budget to have people on the ground working with newcomers. Unfortunately, the federal government, in announcing its generous open-door policy, forgot that there was a cost attached to that. I think we are going to have to look at that more closely. The purpose of Bill C-9 is to combat hate.”
“We like to help people in need, but they will also need help learning the language and they will need health care, which can be costly. Every year, the provinces' budget needs shoot up. They are running deficits because they cannot keep up with the demand for services. A family might arrive with three, four or five children. Good for them. That is great. I love children. I am happy to hold them, tell them stories and take care of them. However, they need schooling. They must go to school. How much does all that cost? These are major issues the federal government has never wanted to address. It told the provinces to take in newcomers and said how nice it was that they were so kind. The provinces said they wanted to be kind, but they needed help. However, the federal government did not want to help them.”
“The values and religions that other peoples bring from around the world—through their experiences, history and culture—can enrich our society. That is a good thing. However, we need to ensure that people integrate properly. If it becomes a free-for-all, there will be a lot of problems. In my humble opinion, that is the direction the Liberal government has taken us in recently. It said yes to immigration but did not allocate any budget to integrate newcomers. The provinces found themselves in an impossible financial position, wondering how they would welcome thousands of newcomers. I understand these invitations are frequently extended as an act of great generosity, since these people are experiencing problems in their home country and need to be taken in. We are generous, especially in Quebec, but no doubt elsewhere as well.”
“I always say “if we get there” because I am still not sure whether it is a good idea to refer this bill to committee to be studied. (1705) Since my earliest childhood, I have believed that hatred must be fought. The same holds true for just about everyone in the House. I can guarantee that everyone in the Bloc Québécois shares this view. Hatred must be fought. As I said at the beginning of my speech, opportunities for hatred or hateful situations have increased significantly over the last decade. This may have even been the case over the last two or three decades, but it has been particularly noticeable in recent years. I am not against immigration. On the contrary, I believe that immigration enriches a society.”
“As I said, we have some serious work to do. Then there is the issue of restricting access to places of worship. Personally, I am obviously completely opposed to the idea of preventing people from accessing a mosque, a Catholic church, or a Buddhist temple. Regardless of the kind of place it is, I think it is just wrong. We have to reject that. I also think that these are offences that could be dealt with under the current provisions of the Criminal Code and various laws, whether provincial laws or municipal by-laws. Obstructing traffic, paralyzing traffic, or hindering access to public places is prohibited. The bill is looking to make a new provision. There may be some merit to that. I have my doubts. I look forward to hearing from the expert witnesses in committee, if we get there.”
“Perhaps that is something we can work on in committee. Personally, I cannot think of a better definition at this very moment. It seems to me that we will have to work seriously on this particular aspect in the coming weeks or months if we decide to pass Bill C-9 at second reading. It is much the same story for hate crimes. I agree that there is a difference between robbing a convenience store for money as opposed to doing it out of hatred for the owner. These situations may need to be treated differently. However, how is a judge going to decide whether the person who robbed the convenience store did so out of hatred, that is, on the basis of an emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike? It makes perfect sense, but it is rather difficult to apply.”
“The current definition in the bill is as follows: hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike. This definition came about following various decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, which has never actually validated this text. I admit that I would not want to be in the judge's position, having to decide whether someone acted out of hatred, that is, whether they acted based on an emotion that was stronger than disdain or dislike and that involved detestation or vilification. I predict that this matter will wind up before the Supreme Court, since it must be pretty hard to draw conclusions like that based on the testimony that tends to be heard in court. In any case, we need a definition, and we have one. It can always be improved.”
“Positive solutions must be proposed. That is why we introduced a bill last year, but it did not get enough support to pass. When the minister told us here that he would be introducing legislation to regulate actions that promote hatred, we were in agreement. However, I do not understand why the government did not go further. Why did it not deal with these two exceptions that do not make any sense? When I speak with colleagues in the House about this issue, almost everyone believes that it makes no sense, yet when it comes time to vote, nobody believes that they need to stand up at the appropriate time. It is rather surprising. Having said that, there is obviously the question of how to define hatred. It is a complex concept, and I am sure it will continue to be debated in our courts for some time.”
“(1700) There is one exception that states that a person cannot be convicted of this offence if the statements communicated were true. Next, no person shall be convicted of this offence under the following circumstances either: (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; It is the same exception, the same text, word for word, in both cases. That means that, currently, in Quebec and Canada, a person can deliberately promote hatred against a group or promote anti-Semitism if it is done on the basis of a religious text. I do not know who, in the House, thinks this makes sense. Once again, we in the Bloc Québécois think this makes no sense. It is not enough to say it makes no sense, however.”
“Subsection (2) talks about promoting hatred. We will now turn our attention to subsection (2.1), a later addition, which states: Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (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. The same provisions and sentence are used for both hate crimes and anti-Semitism. What else is there about subsection 2.1 on anti-Semitism? Let us read a bit further. Subsection 3.1 uses almost identical wording as was used for hate crimes: No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1) Subsection 2.1 is the one about promoting anti-Semitism.”
“That is all well and good, but a little further on, subsection (3) of the same section states: No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; Now here is the disturbing part: (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; That means a person who “wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group” is allowed do so under subsection (2) provided that person acted “in good faith” on the basis of “an opinion” or “a belief in a religious text”. I do not know about my colleagues, but that makes no sense to me, to the Bloc Québécois or to the vast majority of people in Rivière-du-Nord and across Quebec.”
“The government is proposing legislation to regulate actions seeking to promote hatred. As I was saying, we agree. However, what does section 319 of the Criminal Code say? Subsection 319(2) reads: Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.”