Bill C-9

Combatting Hate Act

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

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(b) repeal the defence based on the expression of opinions on religious subjects or texts in relation to the offences of wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism;
(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie.

I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election.

I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history.

It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here.

It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber.

To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place.

It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition.

Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline.

However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be.

We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out.

Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do.

This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen.

If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do.

I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.”

The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government.

Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda.

The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject.

I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little.

The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

Consideration of Government Business No.9

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9, Bill C-5 and Bill C-12. Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unsurprising to hear this member in particular complain about Conservative use of social media accounts. During the debate on Bill C-9, my colleague from London and I were doing a livestream, explaining to the public what was going on, and this member came by, trying to offer some comment. We invited him to join the livestream, but he quickly ran away.

If he objects to how we use social media, I would like to give him another chance. He can join me for a livestream to discuss the bill and to share his thoughts with my followers. I will certainly happily share my thoughts with his.

Canadians are frustrated by the attack on democracy that we are seeing. Canadians deserve better.

Religious Freedom

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present another petition from residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. I believe this is my sixth petition on this issue.

The petition calls on the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that removes the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, to protect Canada's constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression and to ensure that legislation does not criminalize good-faith religious discourse and teaching.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions to present today from the fine folks in my riding of Niagara West.

The first petition talks about Bill C-9 and the petitioners' concern around the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religion or cultural places, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.

I have another petition to present on Bill C-9. Once again, there are thousands of signatures from people in Niagara West. The concerns of petitioners are that the state has no place in the religious texts or teaching of any faith community, and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

Therefore, the petitioning citizens and residents call upon the Government of Canada to protect religious freedom; to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts; and to prevent government overreach when it comes to matters of faith.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions I would like to present to the House today.

The first petition is from citizens who are deeply concerned about the Liberal attack on religious freedom contained in Bill C-9. They are concerned that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. They observe that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of faith communities, and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

The petitioners call on the government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreaches in matters of faith.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on amendments to Bill C-9, which constituents are concerned will impact the freedom of religion in Canada.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to give that example. Hopefully, there will not be another point of order to prevent it.

There is a suite of legislative initiatives to deal with an important issue in the member opposite's riding, my riding and ridings across the country. The Government of Canada has been pushing hard for this since day one following the election, and that was to deal with the issue of crime. We brought forward Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and Bill C-22. This is all legislation to make our communities safer, and the Conservatives, through their filibustering tactics, have denied important reforms such as bail reform, which has been supported across the country by stakeholders, law enforcement, mayors, premiers and others.

They have also prevented lawful access from being put into place, with Canada being the one and only Five Eyes nation that does not have it. That, I suggest, would deal with issues such as child sexual exploitation, extortion and repeat violent offenders. These are the types of actions that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have been pushing for since the last federal election, and the Conservatives have played political games, putting the Conservative Party's interests ahead of Canadians' best interests. As a direct result, we have lost out greatly.

Talking strictly about funds to help young people acquire skill sets, $594.7 million over two years went to Employment and Social Development Canada for the Canada summer jobs program to support 100,000 summer jobs in 2026. Members can think about that. I referred to it earlier in my comments. It is for youth to acquire skill sets. Members opposite might want to minimize that program, but there is not a Liberal member of Parliament who does not recognize the true value of what that program is. It is such a valuable asset to not only the communities we serve but also the communities that Conservatives serve. Every region of the nation benefits from that program, and the Conservatives mock it today, which does not surprise me because it was Stephen Harper who cut a lot of the funding to the program. He did not cut the program, but he did cut the funding.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the government to recognize the value, understand the need for it and support it. That is why we will have close to 100,000 young people, and the types of jobs they will get will allow them to enhance their skill sets in many different ways, possibly opening doors to them for future jobs.

I think of the types of jobs that come to Winnipeg North, such as child care. I amplify the importance of child care. Many summer students who have gone through this program are working in child care today. I think of places such as Stanley Knowles School using the lunch program. There is another $307 million over two years for the horizontal evaluation of the youth employment and skills strategy to provide employment, training and wraparound supports. There is mentorship, transportation and mental health counselling. It is estimated that there are literally thousands of youth who will benefit from it, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000.

There is $40 million over two years going to Employment and Social Development Canada to create the youth climate corps and to provide paid skills training for young Canadians. They will be trained to quickly respond to climate emergencies, support recovery and strengthen resilience in communities across the nation. We are thinking of training the next generation of Canadian builders by providing $75 million over three years, starting in 2026-27, to Employment and Social Development Canada to expand the union training and innovation program, which supports union-based apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades.

That gives us a sense of what it is and how the government is dealing with young people today. We recognize the importance of the issue, but the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that we recognize it year-round. We are focused on building a strong economy that works for all Canadians. That is our goal, and we will achieve that. We will get the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7. I believe that is an admirable goal.

The Conservative Party continues to want to play games on the floor of the House of Commons, not deal with the issues that are a priority for Canadians. They only want to deal with what is a priority for the Conservatives. That is fine. We will be focused on delivering tangible results for Canadians because that is the right thing to do. A part of that means encouraging my opposition friends to stop playing games and be more creative. They can be a critic of the government and be more cooperative. That is what Canadians want—

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in a word, wow. We can talk about conspiracy theories. We can talk about misinformation. When we want to talk about safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister from less than a year ago, as well as a new government.

Bill C-9 deals with hate propaganda. Bill C-14 deals with bail reform. Bill C-16 actually restores mandatory minimums. We have Bill C-22 that deals with sensitive issues such as national security, terrorism, extortion and child exploitation. They are all substantive pieces of legislation.

On the other hand, the biggest thing the Conservatives have done to date has been to filibuster and slow down the progress of legislation because, in the minds of some, there is a giant conspiracy that the Government of Canada wants to take over the world.

Does the member support the principle of lawful access?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way.

It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government. The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2, but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation.

The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way. If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it.

Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time.

The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against. The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it.

Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day. The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime.

The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public. The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight.

Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not?

We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers.

There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way.

Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today. They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election.

Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power.

Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers? Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong.

Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this? It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May.

The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control.

Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament? It is all about control, about central control by the central banker.

Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information.

We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience.

There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians.

There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5. Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information.

Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast.

It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different.

The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again.

The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their—

Religious Freedom

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also present four more petitions today on behalf of residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. These citizens call on the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that removes the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, to protect Canadians' constitutional rights of freedom of religion and to ensure that legislation does not criminalize good-faith religious discourse or teachings.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is in regard to Bill C-9.

The petitioners state they are concerned that the Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The petitioners state that the government has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community, and that freedom of expression and religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I will present briefly.

The first petition is one that I continue to receive from constituents and Canadians right across the country with respect to Bill C-9. We know the bill has passed over to the other side, and hopefully it is being properly vetted. I believe the Senate will do the work that is required, which was perhaps not done properly in the House. It is with respect to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which are fundamental rights that must be preserved in our country. The goal is to have the bill properly vetted by the Senate so that, when it comes back to the House, it no longer exists.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today is in regard to Bill C-9.

I have many petitions on this issue, which has passed from this House to the other place. I have been requested to continue to present them because the bill will come back. The petitioners are hoping that this particular concern around the ability of all scriptures for all religions in our country to be protected as they are supposed to be is addressed and that, in the future when the House on the other side is doing the research, it will truly do its job and have the witnesses and stakeholders that will present what we hope will bring what Canadians want, an end to Bill C-9.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

As the member spoke about Bill C-8 and Bill C-9, I wonder how those bills, having meandered their way through this House and committee, have informed his position on the issues he is raising with respect to this bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

This is an incredibly important issue, and it is one that, as lawmakers, we cannot afford to get wrong. On one hand, we are talking about ensuring that the people enforcing the laws that we set out in this place have the tools, resources and laws in place to do their jobs. On the other hand, it is about being a guardian of the most fundamental rights and freedoms Canadians have: the right to due process, the right to privacy and the right to freedom from search and seizure. I am someone who understands and greatly values both of these things.

I have the great privilege of sitting on the justice committee, where Conservative colleagues and I worked vigorously to ensure that real, tangible reforms to the bail system were put forward in the government's bail bill, Bill C-14, not so long ago. The bill was inadequate, but it did something. In fact, law enforcement officials had been telling us that they wanted more. They had been telling us that the Liberal government had actually caused the bail problems in this country and that they wanted more to fix them. We were happy to do that.

I have also been, as many people would know, very vocal, even before I was elected to the House, in calling out decisions and bills by the current government that would erode not only trust in institutions but also civil liberties of Canadians. I have seen this first-hand since I had the great privilege of being elected, just shy of one year ago.

The government's very first bill was presented to Canadians and to the House, Bill C-2, as a border security bill. Again, I have been among the people talking for years about how the government has allowed the borders of this country to become a joke. I welcomed the Liberals' recognizing that there was a problem, but when we looked into the bill, we saw that lawful access provisions had actually been snuck in.

We also saw that the bill, which, again, was presented to Canadians as being an answer to the border crisis, inexplicably had a proposed ban on transacting in cash above a certain amount. That is not something Canadians wanted and is actually something that Canadians rejected so vociferously that the Liberals, thankfully, decided to, among other things, pull it aside and not proceed with it.

Bill C-2 also would have given the ability to, without a warrant, inspect Canadians' letter mail. Even letters that Canadians send to us as members of Parliament and letters that someone might send to a loved one across the country would have been subject to warrantless scrutiny by Canada Post. Therefore, we had to look into the details of Bill C-2, and in doing so we found that it could not be supported.

Then there was Bill C-8, which, again, on the surface is something we want and welcome. It is legislation that would deal with very real threats to cybersecurity infrastructure that companies and countries face. This was something that, again, I thought we would be able to find common ground on across party lines, but the devil, as always, is in the details.

We looked at Bill C-8, and I thank my colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler and my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for their work on this. We saw that the bill would actually give the Minister of Industry and cabinet members of the Liberal government incredible power to take people or companies off-line, with no oversight and no scrutiny.

I am so proud to be part of a team that understood that enforcing the law and protecting Canada from threats cannot and need not come at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms and at the expense of civil liberties. Conservatives worked collaboratively with our colleagues in the Bloc, and we put forward amendments that would deal with these challenges.

However, now there is Bill C-22, a bill that repackages a lot of what was already in Bill C-2, a lot of what had already been rejected by Canadians, and it puts it forward for review. Fortunately, the Liberals have finally understood the essence of some of these challenges. I am very grateful that in part 1 of the bill, they have eliminated some of the most problematic components. I will give credit where it is due. Again, the Liberals should have been more keenly aware of these things from the get-go, but there have actually been significant improvements.

That being said, the lack of oversight on some parts of Bill C-2 very much warrants scrutiny here. Why I bring this up and why it is so important is that the reason there has been such push-back with respect to Bill C-22 so far, from civil liberties groups in particular, on the left and on the right, is that the Liberal government has squandered the trust that Canadians have and can have in government, specifically in the current government, due to the way that it has eroded civil liberties in the past.

Again, as I say this, I am reminded of the fact that a few weeks ago the Liberals filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on their Emergencies Act usage just over four years ago. That is relevant because what the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal found is that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians not only by unlawfully invoking the Emergencies Act but by using the fake emergency to justify freezing people's bank accounts.

Now, this was one of the reasons that our amendments in Bill C-8 included conscience and speech protections, because recent Liberal government history has revealed precisely why those protections are necessary, and why, when people come up with scenarios, we do not actually take the Liberals seriously when they try to dismiss those scenarios by saying that would never happen and it would never get there. We have seen them go there already. We have seen them go down roads that most people never would have thought possible, using plain language that we must take at its word and at face value.

The Liberal government has not been constrained by the charter, and it has not been constrained by norms. That is why Canadians from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms have raised concerns about Bill C-22.

That being said, I do have to acknowledge the very real demands that law enforcement have made. I have taken on the responsibility, not just as a member of the justice committee but as the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, to talk to law enforcement and to speak to them exactly about the shortcomings they feel exist in the current system. Now, one thing I will point out is that they welcome having expanded powers and clear authority. They welcome a lot of what is in Bill C-22.

Last week I spoke to Chief Thai Truong of the London Police Service. It is a very large police service given London's size. I also spoke to Chief Marc Roskamp of the St. Thomas Police Service. I have spoken to other frontline officers and I am happy to continue doing this work because, unlike the Liberal government, this party has a history of listening to law enforcement when they say they do not want anything to do with the Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme, when they say they need real bail reform so they are not arresting the same people over and over again, and when they say there are tools and clarifications they need to do their jobs. We will continue to do that.

The men and women of law enforcement in my riding and across the country want to take bad guys off the streets. We, as a party, want to make sure they have the tools and resources to do that. It is not entirely accurate to say that Canada has no lawful access regime. Police have been able to access subscriber data, they have been able to access electronic materials and they have been able to get warrants to search people's computers, phones and accounts. The issue is the speed they need when dealing with it. We welcome anything that provides an opportunity, lawfully and with judicial oversight, to access the type of information at play here.

We cannot look at any of these things in isolation. We cannot look at simply being able to confirm subscriber data, perhaps for an offender or a suspected offender who is possessing, producing or disseminating child sexual exploitation and abuse material, and say that that will solve the overall problems.

We have to look at lawful access in the same vein as we look at other things in the criminal justice system that would interact with that suspected offender, such as the sentence they are going to get. This week the justice committee is reviewing Bill C-16. We are saying that the Liberal government is jeopardizing mandatory minimum sentences for people who peddle in child sexual exploitation and abuse material. We believe wholeheartedly that the government needs to have robust punishments to vigorously go after these heinous predators.

What the Liberal government has been doing, and not just on lawful access but on other justice bills that have come before them, is selectively deciding when they want to listen to law enforcement and when they do not, selectively deciding when they want to hide behind this stakeholder or that stakeholder and when they do not.

We are the lawmakers in this chamber. It is an honour I do not take lightly. We have to listen to all stakeholders and come to a reasoned constitutional position that balances the rights and needs of a free citizenry in this country with the practical expectations and needs of law enforcement to effectively discharge their duties. That is a balance that we need to get right, not only because it is simply our duty but also because the last thing we want to do is pass a law that we will have to somehow find a way to fix years later if a court finds it to be unconstitutional. This is the tricky thing we have to deal with here. We cannot pass law that will not withstand charter scrutiny.

Interestingly, with regard to Bill C-8, I mentioned the tremendous work of my colleagues on the public safety committee and other colleagues in caucus. Bill C-8 had been amended by Conservative efforts, with the support of the Bloc, to have judicial oversight for some decisions that the minister would make, and that was so important. In the end, it was unfortunate that this was ruled out of scope when it came back to the House because that would have been an incredibly important safeguard that would have told Canadians we are not giving unchecked power to cabinet ministers representing a government that, by the way, does not have a great track record on upholding civil liberties and that when cabinet ministers say to just trust them, we might as well play the laugh track from a 1990s sitcom because that is about as much as it is worth. We are always going to approach anything that looks like surveillance or a violation of privacy rights with a level of skepticism. When the Liberals bring forward bills that touch on these issues, they should not dismiss these very real and, I would say, good-faith concerns that people across this country are making because of that lack of distrust that I was talking about.

When we look at some of the details, there is a blanket retention of metadata, but so much of our personal information is captured and so much of what is in metadata is not as anonymized as people may think. For example, in comparing this to other jurisdictions, in the United States, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act allows for preservation of metadata on demand, but it does not require blanket retention. It does not even allow blanket retention. The Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that blanket retention of metadata is incompatible with the fundamental rights that Europeans have, especially when it comes to privacy.

When we look at electronic service providers, specifically the applications in part 2 of the bill, we do not have a definition of what a service provider is. We only have the expectation that the government will come up with a definition down the road. This category could actually include email providers. It could include messaging apps. It could include other cloud services and storage systems. It is not just about whether one has a Telus account or a Rogers account. It could extend to the accounts that have content. That is where accessing someone's electronic information is truly accessing a window into their lives, their most intimate experiences, thoughts, conversations and photos. Therefore, we cannot afford to not get this right.

I would much rather see a cohesive definition of what that category would be, not something that could be redefined based on the whims of not just the current government but future governments. As we well know, if we are talking about any legislated power for government, for cabinet, for law enforcement, we have to imagine what that power will look like in the hands of another government that comes beyond. This is not a partisan issue. It is where I look beyond the left versus right on this. I do not want my colleagues on the left to be concerned about how a theoretical Conservative government would abuse civil liberties, which is certainly not the Conservative governments that we are putting forward for Canadians to choose, but how another government might use it.

That is why we must always constrain government power to protect the vital privacy rights and autonomy of individual citizens, and the lack of oversight remains a very key problem in Bill C-22. It would enable secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval and no right for Canadians to even know it is happening. That is the architecture of a surveillance state. That is something that we must always protect against.

I believe we must all come to an agreement on where we go forward, because we are being told by the Liberals that this is all fine and to just pass the bill through. We have been down that road before, and again, I do support, if the bill gets to committee, vigorously scrutinizing it, debating it, calling witnesses, looking at the ins and outs and going through it line by line, but there is a very real challenge, especially if I situate my remarks today in the broader political context of our time, in that bills can go into committee and come out worse than they went in.

The government can expand its power. We saw this recently with Bill C-9, where a flawed bill went into committee and an outright dangerous one came out, so we have to be very mindful of whether the Liberals have signalled an intention that goes beyond the text of the bill. That is why we cannot look at Bill C-22 without looking at things that the Liberals failed to advance in Bill C-8 and Bill C-2. Those have actually been pretty good indicators of where the Liberals want to go, where they think they can go and perhaps, if they have unchecked majority power in this House of Commons, where they are likely to go.

I go back to the comments I have made about law enforcement and how I am fully committed to listening to the perspectives of frontline officers and the perspectives of police leadership. I actually have a meeting coming up with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which as timing worked out, I wish I had done before I had the opportunity to speak today, but it did not work out that way. However, I will listen to law enforcement, not just on lawful access, but on the whole suite of reforms to fix the last 11 years of Liberal justice legislation, which the police have been demanding, to make communities safer.

I will just end on why this is so important. I was speaking to a grade 10 class a few weeks ago about my job and about the work that we all do in Ottawa, and like anyone else speaking to a group of grade 10 students, it is not always as engaging to talk about politics. I choose to believe it was politics that was boring them and not me, but nevertheless, I was trying to make politics relatable to them. I was trying to actually come up with a way to provide them a window into why the work we do here matters to them, and I brought up two things. I brought up employment. I asked how many of them were having trouble getting a job, and every hand went up. Then I asked them how many of them feel safe walking around downtown, and they all laughed. They all laughed, truly. To them, safe streets are a punchline, and that is the record of Liberal so-called justice laws over the last 11 years.

If we are going to listen to law enforcement, let us actually listen to law enforcement and let us start opening up the door to undoing the harmful reforms that have gotten us to where we are. If the Liberals want to know why people are so skeptical of lawful access regimes coming from the government, they need to look in the mirror and see why Canadians do not trust them to not abuse power, abuse authority and violate the rights of Canadians.

We will always stand firmly behind that. We will support law enforcement, but not at the expense of the charter, as the Liberals have a record of doing.

Religious Freedom

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing today on behalf of petitioners who presented petitions in regard to Bill C-9 when the bill was in the House of Commons and have continued to say that we must keep this in front of our House as it is before the other House, and who want to ensure that it knows as well that Canadians are not happy with the response of the government to date. They look forward to the day when Bill C-9 does not come into law.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this is just not true. We have a suite of legislation dealing with the issue of crime. I make reference to lawful access, number one, in Bill C-2, which dealt with border security. Also, there is Bill C-9, on hate propaganda; Bill C-14, which is bail reform legislation; and Bill C-16, which would restore things like mandatory minimum sentences. Bill C-12 is another important aspect in the stabilization of immigration and securing Canada's borders.

There is a substantial amount of legislation. All one needs to do is read some of the debate that was taking place at the end of 2025. They will find that the Conservative Party members then, the far-right Conservative Party members I must add, were in opposition and preventing legislation from passing. The only reason we do not have lawful access today in Canada is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commenting on a question I posed to the minister who introduced the legislation. In my question, I talked about how the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime came to Winnipeg, and we met with some interested citizens with regard to lawful access and dealing with the issue of extortion. We then met with the Winnipeg police chief and the Winnipeg Police Association, all of whom were exceptionally encouraging and very supportive of the principle of lawful access. That is what this entire piece of legislation is about, in essence. That is why I believe it is so very important that we take the opportunity to recognize the legislation for what it is, an effective tool that can be used in the tool belt for law enforcement officers and CSIS, and I am concerned with some of the responses that I received.

When I posed the question to the minister, he commented that it is not just the Winnipeg police department or the chief of police, both of whom I met with, but it is throughout Canada. Law enforcement agencies in every region of the country have seen the benefits of lawful access. If we were to canvass every member of the Liberal caucus today, we would find that there is a desire to see Bill C-22 pass.

It has been less than a year since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and he made it very clear that he wanted to establish a suite of legislative initiatives that would deal with the issue of crime. It is interesting that we now have Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14, Bill C-16 and today Bill C-22, and I will provide a brief comment on each of those. It demonstrates the degree to which we want substantive changes to our Criminal Code and other legislation so we can provide safer homes, communities and nation.

That is what Bill C-2 set out to do right from the get-go. Let us remember that Bill C-2 was introduced last June, within a couple of months after the election. The election was at the end of April, and the legislation was introduced in June. Bill C-2 incorporated lawful access. It incorporated things such as stabilizing immigration and strengthening Canada's borders. Unfortunately, the opposition made the decision to go all out in opposing Bill C-2. As a direct result, a lot of the initiatives that Bill C-2 would have supported were obstructed by the Conservative Party of Canada, and it is unfortunate. It is not the only piece of legislation that the Conservatives obstructed.

When we think of lawful access, I would encourage members opposite to talk to their local law enforcement agencies and the constituents they represent who feel concerned about the issue of extortion. When the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime was in Winnipeg, that was the issue that the group we met with wanted to talk about, the issue of extortion. Whether they had already gotten a phone call or they realized that a phone call could be made, there was a genuine concern. We talked about that for a good 45 minutes to an hour.

That was followed by a meeting with the law enforcement agency. The chief of police and the Winnipeg Police Association both talked about the need for Bill C-22, which was actually incorporated in Bill C-2, which could have been passed long ago, and how it would in fact have an impact on issues like extortion. Flash back to four, five, six months ago, when we had Conservatives standing up and talking about the issue of extortion. They were criticizing the government for not doing enough, when we had legislation before the House and the Conservatives were obstructing it from being able to pass. We witnessed that all of last year.

I make reference to Bill C-2 because that is where Bill C-22 comes out of. We also had Bill C-9, the hate legislation, and Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. Let us remember the bail reform legislation and how long we had to wait for that. I was standing in this very spot back in November, saying to the opposition, “Let us pass bail reform legislation. We could actually pass it before the end of the year.” That was at the end of 2025. However, the Conservatives were obstructing the passage of that legislation.

We also have Bill C-16 before the House today. We have no sense of where the official opposition is going to land on that legislation. Is it going to be their intent to oppose and prevent its passage? It is a legitimate question. That is the question I asked the Conservative critic today when he made his presentation on Bill C-22. Not once but twice I asked him that question. At the end of the day, Bill C-22 has been out there for the last couple of weeks in terms of the actual legislation, but the issue itself has been debated for months, and not necessarily just inside the House. It has been talked about inside and outside Ottawa, and in our communities. I think it was fair for me to ask the Conservative shadow minister if the Conservatives would be supporting the legislation. When I asked the question, not once but twice, there was no indication whatsoever that we could anticipate support from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is concerning. It should be concerning to all of us.

The Prime Minister has made it very clear that at times there is a need for us to work collectively and to put some of the partisan politics to the side to see if we can actually pass legislation.

All we need to do is take a look at what happened this morning. Bailey's law actually passed through the concurrence stage and is now in third reading. It has one more hour of debate, and then I expect it will pass. At the committee stage, the government moved a number of amendments, and fortunately the opposition was in agreement with those amendments. We were actually able to pass a substantive piece of legislation that I anticipate all members are now going to support.

I wish the same attitude and sense of co-operation that have been shown by the government on a Conservative private member's piece of legislation would also apply to government legislation.

That is why I would suggest to us that it is discouraging, in the sense that Bill C-2 was actually very clear. The Conservatives were not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever. It ultimately led to two other pieces of legislation having to come out as a direct result, Bill C-12 and now Bill C-22.

If we look at it, Bill C-12 has actually now passed through. That was to do with what the Prime Minister and this government committed to Canadians, which was to look at stabilizing the immigration file. It is going to go a long way in being able to assist with that. It also dealt with some border security issues that came out of Bill C-2.

We now go to Bill C-22, lawful access. We have law enforcement agencies from across our nation supporting the legislation and lawful access. Did members know that Canada is the only country in the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access? In fact, we are the only country in the G7 that does not have lawful access. Already today, in listening to the debate, I am concerned.

When, for example, the member from the Bloc spoke about it, he said that he does not know if it is overreach. This is what the Bloc is saying, that it could be overreach, where the government is going to be able to look into a person's bank account or read emails.

I raised the issue with the member opposite when it came time for a question. My concern is that we are going to see, with Bill C-22, the same thing we witnessed on Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 dealt with hate crimes. It actually put in protections for churches, mosques, gurdwaras and temples. Misinformation that flowed out about that legislation created a fear that many of my constituents and Canadians had, not based on fact but based on misinformation. We have to counter that.

I would hope that Bill C-22 would not be one of those pieces of legislation, once again, where we will see the Conservative Party putting its own interests ahead of good, sound public policy that is in the best interest of Canadians. For anyone to even imply, in any fashion whatsoever, that the government wants to read one's emails or know how much one has in one's bank account, I think, does a great disservice to the chamber.

I believe that the decision should be based on facts. There is absolutely no merit whatsoever to that argument. Remember, what we are talking about is a confirmation of service, finding out whether a particular individual or home has an IP service location. If the answer to that is yes, there is then a process to go through that incorporates our courts. There is no information provided other than a yes on an IP address.

I think that is an essential aspect to policing today. If members do not believe me, they should ask law enforcement agencies and many of the different stakeholders out there.

This is something that I believe is absolutely necessary. Those who would ask, “Is it really?” should ask themselves why it is that every other G7 country has lawful access, but not Canada. That has been a part of the frustration of minority governments over the last number of years.

Here we have good public policy to help equip law enforcement officers to do the types of things that they need to do in order to protect the public, but we have opposition members who will oppose in many ways for the sake of opposing.

I want to highlight that when we talk about enabling law enforcement, we are talking about Canadian Security Intelligence Service, RCMP and local law enforcement officers who will often take a look and have investigations that are ongoing. It would enable those to enforce legally obtaining certain information, such as data and communications, from an electronic service provider. That is what the bill is proposing to do. It would update critical investigation tools.

Earlier, there was reference to phone books, and I provided a comment on that. Things change over time. When I first was elected, it was pretty easy to identify who was in a house. People have made reference to phone books. There was also a thing called the “who called me” book. I loved it because it was just like a voters list and anyone could access it. One could take a street and it would have the phone number and the name of individual living there. One could probably identify up to 90% of a population, where they were living, their phone number and name. People had to specifically ask to have their number taken out of a phone book or the “who called me” book, and they had to pay for that service.

Things have changed a great deal. There is a default position that we have to protect the privacy of Canadians. This is a government that very much understands that and is focused on the protection of those rights.

It was the Liberal Party back in the 1980s that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The privacy of individuals is protected under this legislation.

The shadow minister, in criticizing the legislation, knows full well that if we allow the legislation to go to committee, the Conservatives will be afforded the opportunity to ask all forms of questions. The issues they have can be addressed in great detail.

Second reading is a debate on the substance and the principle of the legislation; it is not necessarily designed to go into the great details. Nothing prevents us from being able to allow legislation to get to committee stage, much like how we had two hours of debate on the private member's bill, it went to committee, amendments were made and then it came here.

We are going to have a lot more than two hours of debate on this legislation. It will go to committee, and people will be afforded the opportunity to have that dialogue. We are open to improving the legislation if the need is there.

I would encourage members of the Conservative Party to support Bill C-22. It is good, it is sound and it is in the public's interest.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member made me reflect on some of the debate we had on Bill C-9. One of the issues we had when dealing with the hate legislation was the fact that the official opposition, through social media and emails, providing information that was definitely misleading, which ultimately took away from the true value of Bill C-9.

When we talk about this particular bill on lawful access, Bill C-22, it is important to recognize that what we are really talking about is confirmation of service. It is not like the police can go to Rogers and say that they want to know how much money a person has in their bank account or ask for email information. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on making sure information is accurate.

Religious Freedom

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House to once again present a petition on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast who are gravely concerned with the passage of Bill C-9 through the House. Their concerns relate, in particular, to the Liberal-Bloc amendment pertaining to Bill C-9, which was passed at the justice committee, that removes the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada.

Bill C-9 would allow the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Bill C-9 would allow the state to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs the government finds offensive. The punishment for such charges is up to two years in prison.

The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. The petitioners ask that the government withdraw Bill C-9 to protect religious freedom and uphold the right to read and share and practice from their sacred text and prevent government intrusion in the practice thereof.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again today to present another petition on behalf of Canadians opposed to government Bill C-9, which they see as a threat to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. We have seen the consequences of that in other jurisdictions. The petitioners are calling upon the government to withdraw this legislation.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the other five petitions I have today are from residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. They are concerned about Bill C-9, which was passed in this House but is still going through the Senate.

They call upon the government to reject any amendments to Bill C-9 that remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, protect Canadians' constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good faith religious discourse or teaching.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition from concerned Canadians across the country on government Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which passed third reading yesterday in the House. The petitioners worry that amendments made by the government would limit religious expression, and they are concerned that the state would be interfering in the ability of faith communities to practise their faith. The petitioners fear that the changes could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. In this petition, Canadians are asking the government to provide assurance that individuals of faith will not face criminal charges simply for reading, sharing and practising their faith, which are fundamental freedoms enshrined in the charter.

Public Safety

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have been ready and willing to rise on this adjournment proceeding on behalf of the good people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

The question on which I am following up is one that has become even more timely since I asked the original question of the government in question period, although if we look at the response, we realize that question period is not an appropriate name for it. The question was dealing with the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.

One may wonder why I was asking in question period about a four-year-old decision by the government. That would be a very good question. It is because, in the interceding four years, the Liberal government has failed to accept what now two courts have determined, which is that it violated the fundamental charter rights and freedoms of Canadians.

That is so important because the Federal Court and then the Federal Court of Appeal said that not only was the usage of the Emergencies Act by the Liberal government unlawful, meaning it did not meet the tests set out in the Emergencies Act, but the measures it invoked and deployed using the Emergencies Act violated the fundamental rights of Canadians.

The right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest are things that in a free society, all Canadians should hold dear. It is especially timely at this exact moment, because moments ago the Liberal government voted for and advanced through Bill C-9, which is a bill that it has been giving very similar assurances on: that it will not violate charter rights because the charter is there to protect those rights. However, in the case of the Emergencies Act, that same pledge did not result in real protection.

Just last week, the Attorney General, the justice minister, filed for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Emergencies Act. It was on the last day by which the government could ask the Supreme Court to take on the case. It was in the last hour of the last day that the government made this move. In doing so, this so-called new government is forced to wear the decision of Justin Trudeau. The so-called new government has a new Attorney General, whom members may know from such extraordinary work as he brought to the immigration and housing files before the Prime Minister decided to put him in charge of justice. He has now had to wear the decision by David Lametti and Marco Mendicino that two courts have found to be unlawful.

This is so important because we have had a discussion in this country about how strong the charter really is and how well the charter will protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

I am a firm believer in the rights enumerated in the charter. These are rights that predated the charter. I would argue they are natural rights, things that need to live in the hearts and minds of Canadians, in the institutions of Canada, including the courts, and certainly in the hearts and minds of those who make the laws. We should never, as lawmakers, pass legislation or make decisions in the hope that the courts will save Canadians from their rights being violated. We must actively seek out ways to protect them in all terms.

In the case of the Emergencies Act, suppose that the government gets its appeal and the Supreme Court hears this case, and suppose that the Supreme Court makes the same finding that the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal did: that the government violated the charter rights of Canadians. What good would that do five years later? The infringement has already taken place.

Why will the government not accept this ruling, vow to uphold the charter and, in doing so, listen to what two courts have said?

Religious Freedom

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition regarding Bill C-9. The Canadians who have signed this petition want to remind the government that it has no authority over sacred texts or teachings of any faith community. That boundary is not negotiable. Bill C-9 would overstep the boundary, stripping away long-standing protections that have allowed Canadians to speak and live their faith in good faith.

This is what the petitioners have said. Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I also bring forward a petition addressing Bill C-9, which will be voted on later today.

The petitioning Canadian citizens wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the Liberals have proposed removing from the Criminal Code safeguards that protect good-faith expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs, including those based on religious texts like the Bible, the Quran or the Torah.

Canadians share the Liberals' desire to combat acts that propagate and normalize hate, but the proposal would not achieve that goal and would instead result in the persecution of people who hold and express in good faith sincerely held religious beliefs. Violence and threats are by definition excluded from the scope of that protection for freedom of expression and could never be expressed in good faith. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms worthy of protection and promotion, not persecution.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and oppose any similar proposals in the future, and to protect and promote the religious freedoms of all Canadians, uphold their right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into all matters of faith.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe and also on behalf of my fellow Canadians with concerns about Bill C-9. The concern is that Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today regarding Bill C-9. Canadians are concerned that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.

The state has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today, again, on Bill C-9. I may sound like a broken record here, but some truths just bear repeating.

Petitioners in my community are calling on the government to reverse course and not remove long-standing protections from the Criminal Code that protect people of faith, Canadians of faith, reading sacred texts like the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. The proposal by the Liberals and the Bloc would subject those Canadians to potential criminal prosecution for the simple fact of believing in a faith and expressing that belief publicly. Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and, secondly, to protect and promote religious freedom in Canada.

Justice

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

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—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals are getting their money's worth with their media bailout, but that does not eliminate the many concerns that Canadians have raised across this country. The Liberals say, when these civil liberties concerns are put at their feet, to just trust them that they will not violate charter rights, because the charter protects those rights. However, last week, that very Attorney General appealed the Federal Court of Appeal decision that ruled the use of the Emergencies Act unlawful and found that the government, despite the promises of Justin Trudeau, did violate the constitutional rights of Canadians. If the Liberals truly are serious about protecting these rights, why will they not drop their appeal and drop Bill C-9?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

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.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no community in this country will be protected from hate with legislation that threatens to imprison them for deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, but that is precisely what Bill C-9 would do. This is a bill the Liberals are forcing to a vote today despite the cries of millions of Canadians from multiple faiths and civil society groups that this bill would violate their civil liberties. It may appease some people, like the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who believes one needs a black highlighter to read a holy text, but most Canadians want the freedom to live out their beliefs.

Will the Liberals do the right thing, and reduce this divisive and toxic bill to the rubble bin where it belongs?

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is a false dichotomy. The Bloc Québécois just made a choice about Bill C-9. It is Parliament's responsibility to protect the rights of religious communities, such as the Jewish community here in Canada, against hate. I am puzzled: Why did the opposition member support Bill C-9, which addresses this issue?

National Prayer Breakfast

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark a very important occasion in the history of Canada and Parliament.

Sixty years ago, a prairie girl was inspired by her grade 6 teacher's lessons celebrating Canada's 100th birthday, so inspired that a seed was planted in her heart. What she was not taught, and what, I dare say, was not even known at the time, was that a special event was being planned on the Hill by parliamentarians to come together to thank God for Canada's biblical values of faith, family and freedom: the first National Prayer Breakfast of Canada.

This morning, over 1,500 followers of Christ from across every province and territory gathered for the 60th annual National Prayer Breakfast, now the longest-running parliamentary event on the Hill. It is no accident that Bill C-9 will be voted on tomorrow. Called upon by religious leaders, legal experts, civil society organizations and hundreds of thousands of people of all faiths, I will vote against Bill C-9, as it would repeal the good-faith religious speech defence in our Criminal Code.

God is here today. He will still be here tomorrow.

Religious Freedom

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a Conservative petition regarding the flawed amendments the Bloc and the Liberals are proposing to Bill C-9. If passed, it would put the religious freedoms of Canadians in jeopardy. My residents of Abbotsford—South Langley have voiced their concern regarding this development and how it may restrict their freedoms.

As our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states in sections 2(a) and 2(b), the freedoms of expression and religion must be preserved and are crucial to Canadian society. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford to table several petitions, for the very last time, on the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9, which would remove the good-faith religious exemption from the Criminal Code of Canada. This could criminalize clergy, educators or individuals for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs or for quoting sacred texts.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that would remove the good-faith exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, and to protect Canada's constitutional right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present some petitions signed by Canadians who are deeply alarmed by the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 that threaten religious freedom.

The petitioners warn that removing existing safeguards in the Criminal Code could criminalize the sharing of passages from religious texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be upheld. Therefore, they call on the government to withdraw this proposal and to protect the right of Canadians to read and share their sacred texts without the fear of criminal sanction.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge. I am still getting numerous calls and emails from hundreds of people. They are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into their faith.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to receive many phone calls, visits to my office and emails from residents in Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry concerned about Bill C-9 and the Liberals' and Bloc's attempts to attack religious freedom and attacks on freedom of expression. Despite the censorship efforts of the government in the course of this past week, in team with the Bloc Québécois, to ram this legislation through, the irony is that they are censoring their own censorship bill by ramming it through.

I wish to add the names of dozens of petitioners in my community who are speaking out against this. Whether they be Christian, Muslim or of other faiths, they remain concerned about the ability to read their own sacred texts and to be able to practise those teachings in a public or private setting.

I stand behind them and firmly oppose Bill C-9.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are opposed to Bill C-9 and the threats it poses to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and to have joined some of those Canadians on Parliament Hill yesterday rallying against the bill.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians concerned with Bill C-9, the Liberal censorship bill, including Canadians who joined us yesterday on Parliament Hill to rally against it.

The petitioners are particularly concerned that the Liberals and Bloc have passed an amendment that would remove long-standing protections for the good-faith expression of religious belief and the good-faith reading from and expression of religious texts. These changes would subject Canadians to criminal sanction for simply reading the Bible, Torah, Quran or other holy texts.

Therefore, these Canadians are requesting that the government withdraw the bill and protect freedom of religion.

Justice and Human Rights

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think we will have to ask CPAC which of the two of us more people tune in to see, because both of us, as the member well knows, tend to be very lovable and appreciated by all Canadians as we talk about the Thursday question.

I will say, in response to my hon. friend, that we will be coming back next sitting week to Bill C-9, which I know was a solemn election commitment by his party as well as mine. I know we all look forward to protecting community centres, temples, synagogues and mosques in Canada. These are obviously important things, especially as we watch the conflict in the Middle East.

We will continue the debate at third reading of Bill C‑13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

As I said, when we return from our constituency week, on Monday, March 23, priority will be given to the very important Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, and of course Bill C-8, the cybersecurity legislation, which is essential for Canada in these days of online risks.

Finally, Tuesday, March 24, shall be an allotted day.

Religious Freedom

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 expands the definition of hate in the Criminal Code while also removing the long-standing religious defence. This change is significant and raises serious concerns for Canadians of faith who could be vulnerable to criminal prosecution simply for quoting passages from their own sacred texts.

If the government can decide that parts of religious books are hateful and make it a crime to talk about them, without clear protections in law, it takes us down an extremely dangerous path. This matters because religious freedom is not a privilege granted by a government, but rather it is a right guaranteed by Canada's Constitution. It is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society.

Tens of thousands of Canadians have exercised their voices. They have written and called members of Parliament asking for Bill C-9 to be scrapped. As members of Parliament who are duly elected, we have a duty of care to listen to the voices of those constituents. All sincerely held beliefs must be protected, and Bill C-9 must be withdrawn.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to censor and control Canadians. Their Bill C-18 blocks Canadians from news on social media. Bill C-11 controls what Canadians see and say online. There is their extra “online harms bill,” yet the laws to combat these exist but are not enforced. Their energy censorship stops Canadian businesses from telling the truth about innovation and the environment. Who can forget the unconstitutional Emergencies Act?

These same Liberals are at it again with Bill C-9, which would strip the long-held religious defence from Canada's hate speech laws and criminalize passages from sacred texts like the Bible, Torah and Quran, with Canadians already in danger as global conflicts plague our streets. The Liberals are clear: Religious texts and believers should be prosecuted.

True to form, the Liberals shut down debate to censor MPs and ignored the countless Canadians who urged us to reject Bill C-9. Conservatives will always defend freedom of religion, assembly and expression because a free, democratic country does not police faith or prosecute scripture.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of residents in my community on Liberal Bill C-9, in particular the Liberal and Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 passed at the justice committee that would remove long-standing protections for the good-faith expression of religious beliefs and the citing of religious texts. That amendment would subject people who read the Bible, the Torah or other religious texts to potential criminal prosecution.

Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to do two things: one, withdraw Bill C-9; and, two, protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition brought by constituents from across Canada who are concerned about Bill C-9. They are concerned that this bill could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. They call on the Government of Canada not to pass this bill. They want to ensure that the Government of Canada protects religious freedom, upholds the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevents government overreach in this matter.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are opposed to Bill C-9. They are concerned that this broad and overreaching piece of legislation would restrict freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They call upon the government to not restrict debate on it and to withdraw the bill.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to present a petition on behalf of the folks of Elgin, St. Thomas and London, as well as people across the country, who are calling on the Liberal government to withdraw the divisive and toxic Bill C-9, which takes aim at religious freedom and freedom of expression. The petitioners continue to be concerned with comments made by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture that quoting certain scriptures should attract criminal prosecution, which is why they do not trust the Liberal government at this current juncture to stand up for these fundamental freedoms.

The petitioners call on the government to stand firmly behind religious freedom and freedom of expression, withdraw Bill C-9 and unequivocally avow to uphold the right to share, read and pray as people of faith in this country see fit.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising once again to submit petitions on behalf of Oxford residents, with a thousand more signatures, raising concerns with the Liberals' attack on faith in Bill C-9. The petitioners are very concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. Faith plays a huge part in our communities. It is the backbone of a strong, vibrant country.

The petitioners are calling on all members of the House to stop this attack on faith, to stand with faith communities, religious freedom and freedom of expression, and to stop Liberal censorship. Once again, I call on the House to stand with these faith communities.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

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.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit two of the synagogues that were attacked last week. It is deeply heartbreaking to see that their sense of security has been breached.

As a government, we are taking decisive action, including $10 million that was just announced to ensure the coordination of security efforts in places of worship as well as other community centres within the Jewish community. However, that is not enough. We also have legislation in front of the House, Bill C-9, which the Jewish community has been asking for us to pass. I urge the party opposite to pass it forthwith.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

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.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has just clarified everything he is doing precisely to ensure that we deny suspected individuals the possibility of remaining in Canada. However, I encourage my colleague to support our Bill C‑9, which is currently before the House. It was part of our election platform and, unless I am mistaken, it was part of theirs as well. We are committed to protecting faith communities, temples, synagogues and mosques in Canada. The legislation is before the House.

Will the member and his colleagues vote in favour of delivering on their election promise?

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Tonight I also bring the voices of millions of Canadians who are watching the House with a growing sense of alarm. We are debating Bill C-9, which is a piece of legislation that represents a radical assault on the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion in this country, but which the Liberal government masks in the language of safety.

The Conservative Party believes that every Canadian should be safe from violence. We believe that hate-motivated crimes are a stain on our society, but as my colleague, the member for Middlesex—London so aptly stated in this chamber, we do not need more vague, subjective laws that target the peaceful. We need the enforcement of existing laws that target the violent. Bill C-9 is not about stopping crime. It is about the Liberals deciding which thoughts are permissible and which sacred texts are hateful.

I cannot help but draw parallels between the government's approach to hate speech and how it approaches firearms. It targets legally vetted and trained firearms owners and does not address the scourge of gun violence from smuggled guns. Here, the government attacks the peaceful faith community as opposed to using existing laws. The Liberal justification for Bill C-9 is that Canada needs new tools to fight hate, but that is a myth. Our Criminal Code already contains robust protections against violent acts, threats and incitements of genocide, as well as criminal harassment. The problem is not a lack of laws. It is a lack of leadership. It is a lack of political will.

We are in this chamber today to debate the astounding desire of these Liberals to squeeze their weight of accountability as well by putting forward a programming motion that seeks to bypass the scrutiny of the House of Commons. The Liberals are seeking to bypass the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by forcing “deemed moved” status on all amendments and forbidding adjournment until the bill is disposed of. This means no more debate. Again, I cannot help but think of the parallels between firearms and how the Liberals are trying to go ahead.

We offered to split this bill into the portions that were well agreed upon in this chamber and the contentious areas that we would debate and continue to look at. That offer was rejected. I think we would all like to know why there is such a rush to silence debate in the House and at committee. As someone of faith who is active in my own church community, I know that Canadians are not asking for more vague, subjective laws that police their speech. They are asking for a government that has the courage to enforce the laws we already have. They are asking for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. They are asking for protection, not persecution, for the peaceful. Again, I think about how the Liberals are approaching firearms.

However, the reality for too many Canadians is that our streets are being ruled by repeat criminal offenders. The government's hug-a-thug bail reforms have created a revolving door where someone can be arrested for a violent assault in the morning and be back on the street by the afternoon. Instead of reversing these failed policies, the Liberals are focusing on Bill C-9, which targets the words of law-abiding citizens rather than the actions of violent criminals. Canadians want a justice system that puts the rights of victims above the rights of repeat offenders to terrorize their neighbourhoods.

This programming motion seeks to rush through a bill that would remove a critical constitutional bridge. For decades, the Criminal Code has protected those who express, and this is important, “in good faith” an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. This was not some loophole. The Supreme Court recognized that this defence is a constitutional necessity. It was the bridge that allowed our hate speech laws to coexist with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-9 seeks to dynamite that bridge. By removing this safeguard, the government is signalling that the Bible, the Torah and the Quran are no longer protected in the public square. If a pastor stands in a pulpit and reads a passage on traditional morality, or if a Rabbi speaks on the historical covenants of his people, they are now one subjective interpretation away from a criminal investigation.

We have already seen the former Liberal justice minister label portions of these texts as “clearly hateful”. When a minister of the Crown begins labelling scripture as hate and then introduces a motion to shut down debate on the very bill that would criminalize it, every person of faith of every faith should be deeply concerned.

The hypocrisy here is staggering. While the Liberals use priority House resources to rush Bill C-9, they have been utterly silent on the actual physical violence against houses of worship. This programming motion is a guillotine motion. It is actually a censorship motion on a censorship bill, as has been stated numerous times throughout the debate today.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute report shows that arson against churches has doubled. Thirty-three churches have been burned to the ground since 2021, including in indigenous communities like the Osoyoos Indian Band, where the congregation had to meet in a band council office because their church was in ashes. Over 96% of these arsons remain unsolved.

Furthermore, we see a 150% rise in hate crimes against our Jewish community. We see synagogues targeted and students harassed on campuses. Does Bill C-9 stop one brick from being thrown through a window? It does not. It does nothing to address the rise of anti-Semitism or the glorification of terror. It only empowers bureaucrats to police the speech of the peaceful. Where is the Liberal intensity for these crimes? Where is the bill to protect these sacred spaces?

The government's silence is deafening. It has no problem trying to keep faith out of the public sphere through legislation, yet it offers no protection for those same faith communities that are literally under fire. We are seeing the glorification of terror on our city streets, but instead of using the present Criminal Code, which already provides protections against violence, threats and incitement, the Liberals are focusing their resources, the House's resources, on Bill C-9. They are trying to make Canada unsafe for those who profess their faith, by removing legal protections while their hug-a-thug bail reforms allow repeat offenders to walk free. It makes no sense, unless they are actually trying to divide Canadians.

A Jewish family in Toronto or a Christian family in Ottawa should feel safe in their place of worship. Under this government, they are safe nowhere, not in the street, and soon not even in their own pews. I think of the people of my own congregation, or a member of my own staff who meets friends at a local coffee shop. They pray together, read scripture and discuss how to apply these ancient words to their lives. Under the vague definition of Bill C-9 and the removal of the good-faith religious defence, will my staff member be criminalized for a private conversation in a public space? Under this bill, and without the religious defence, a simple conversation in a public space could be interpreted as intimidating or hateful by a motivated activist. The bill does not provide safety. It provides a weapon for the state-sponsored harassment of people of faith.

What about the churches across this country, including those right here in Ottawa, that go into the streets every winter to provide food, scarves and warm clothing because their Bible tells them to take care of the least of these? This is the practice of faith in the public sphere, but if the government decides that the motivation behind that charity, the scripture itself, is hateful or intimidating, does that work become illegal? I would surely hope not.

This is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff. That is why Conservatives are fighting this programming motion, which seeks to push the justice committee to the point of not being allowed to adjourn until the bill is disposed of and to allocate only one day for report stage and one day for third reading, so the Liberal government will have accountability at the committee to not make the mistake of going over the edge of the cliff.

The Conservative Party will not stand by while the government uses procedural tricks to silence the concerns of literally millions of Canadians. We don't need Bill C-9 to tell us that violence is wrong or that hate speech is wrong. We need a government that actually punishes the violent. We need accountability for those who burn down churches and attack synagogues. We need to protect the constitutional rights of Canadians to live according to their conscience and their faith without fear of the state.

I call on the government to scrap this programming motion or to split the bill, as we have offered to do before. Let us focus on the real criminals and bring safety to our streets and freedom and safety to our places of worship. Let us unite Canadians instead of dividing them by their beliefs.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful and well-articulated words in this place regarding Bill C-9. I know there have been millions of Canadians across this country from coast to coast to coast sounding the alarm. My office has heard from a plethora of constituents who reside not only in Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake but also outside, who have shared their concerns. They do not want to see the bill passed with this Bloc-Liberal amendment.

I wonder whether the member has experienced the same within his own riding.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to actually get up to speak to Bill C-9, and here we have a closure motion to censor debate on Bill C-9, which is now going to be used to censor free speech and freedom of expression, as well as freedom of religion by actually outlawing some of our sacred texts in the Bible.

When I look at the charter, it leads off with, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”, and in clause 2, it says:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression

We are talking about actually now making parts of the Bible hate speech. That is what the Liberals have inserted into Bill C-9. We have to stop that if we believe in the Charter of Rights, in freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and if we believe in the “supremacy of God and the rule of law”. I will read from the book of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

I want to ask my colleague for Portage—Lisgar, who eloquently laid out all the dangers around what the Liberals are doing in their amendments to Bill C-9, is this actually more censorship and an attack on our freedom of religion?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating more than a procedural motion. We are debating the principle of how laws in this country are supposed to be made. What the Liberals are asking Parliament to do today is not simply to move a bill along. It is asking Parliament to cut short the process of scrutiny that exists for a reason. It is asking us to do that while amending the Criminal Code of Canada, the law that determines when speech crosses the line into criminal liability, and that matters. Once criminal law becomes regulating speech, the line between protecting Canadians and policing belief becomes dangerously thin.

Our parliamentary system was never designed to make passing legislation easy. It was in fact designed to make passing legislation difficult, and it was designed that way deliberately. The founders of our democratic system understood a simple truth that every generation, it seems, eventually has to relearn: When governments can change the laws too easily, the balance of power rarely remains with the people.

Our founders therefore built safeguards into the legislative process: multiple readings in the chamber, committee study, witness testimony, and amendments debated line by line. Members raise concerns on behalf of the people who sent them here. We ask whether we have thought this through. Have we heard the arguments? Have we tested the consequences before the law is imposed on millions of Canadians?

That process is not a flaw in democracy. It is the safeguard that protects Canadians from bad laws. That safeguard matters even more when Parliament is amending the Criminal Code and touching freedoms protected by the charter. Difficult does not mean dysfunctional. Difficult means careful. Difficult means thoughtful. Difficult means Parliament takes the time to get the law right.

However, the motion before us today would do something very different. It would instruct the justice committee to immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration and vote through the remaining clauses and amendments without any debate. It would prevent the committee from adjourning until the bill is finished. It would limit debate in the chamber to a single day at report stage and a single day at third reading. In other words, the motion would sharply compress the opportunity for Parliament to examine the consequences of what we are doing in this place.

Some members have suggested that members raising concerns are simply trying to delay the bill, but there is a difference between delay and diligence. There is a difference between obstruction and representation. Members of Parliament do not arrive in the chamber carrying only their own opinions. We carry the voices of the people who elect us to be here.

Over the past weeks, members of Parliament from every party have been contacted by Canadians via emails, letters and phone calls. There have been hundreds if not thousands of them to each of us, all expressing concern about the proposed removal of the religious good-faith clause from Bill C-9. These Canadians are asking serious questions about freedom of religion, questions about freedom of expression and questions about where the line would be drawn when sincerely held beliefs are discussed in public. Those questions deserve to be heard in Parliament. That is not obstruction; that is representation.

It should also be said that there was a constructive path forward. Conservatives proposed splitting the bill. The provisions protecting places of worship and cultural centres could have passed relatively quickly. There is broad agreement across the chamber that Canadians must be able to practice their faith without intimidation or obstruction. Those changes could have become law quickly.

The remaining provisions affecting freedom of expression and the removal of the religious defence could then have been studied separately with the care that they deserve. That approach would have protected religious communities immediately, while still allowing Parliament to carefully examine changes to the Criminal Code. The government, shockingly, rejected this compromise. Instead of co-operation, it chose speed. Instead of scrutiny, it chose closure. Instead of debate, it chose control.

Part of what has raised these concerns is a decision made during committee. The government supported a Bloc Québécois amendment to remove the religious expression defence that has existed in the Criminal Code for more than 50 years. That safeguard was not inserted casually. When Parliament created Canada's modern hate propaganda laws in 1970, lawmakers understood a fundamental truth that the power to criminalize speech is one of the most serious powers that a state can exercise.

They built safeguards directly into the law. Truth was written into the Criminal Code as a legal defence. Public interest discussion was protected. Good-faith religious expression, grounded in sacred texts, was protected. Those protections were not merely afterthoughts. They were part of the balance that Parliament deliberately created.

The problem is not only with what the law could punish but also with what people began to fear saying at all. When criminal law moves into questions of belief, interpretation and moral conviction, the chilling effect spreads far beyond the courtroom. Faith leaders begin to wonder what can be safely said. A pastor quoting scripture at a sermon or a priest answering a theological question should not carry the shadow of a potentially criminal liability simply because someone disagrees with the belief being expressed.

For more than 50 years, Canadian law has tried to preserve that balance. Removing that safeguard is not merely a minor technical adjustment. It is a significant shift in how the law interacts with freedom of conscience and expression. When Parliament removes a protection that has existed in criminal law for more than half a century, the burden of proof should be clear. The government should be able to show Canadians exactly why such a change is necessary, yet the amendment was not part of the government's original bill. It appeared late in the committee stage.

Parliament is now being asked to accelerate the legislative process before Canadians have had the chance to fully understand the implications. What is striking in this debate is that the government has not provided a single concrete example explaining why this change is necessary. After weeks of discussion, no one has pointed to a prosecution that failed because of this clause. There is not one case, not one failed prosecution, not one real-world example.

When Parliament removes a safeguard that has existed in the Criminal Code for more than half a century, Canadians rightfully deserve to know why. They deserve to see the problem the government is supposedly trying to fix. That explanation has so far not been provided. Some will say that other protections remain. They will say that the charter still protects freedom of religion and freedom of expression, but that misses the point. When Parliament removes an explicit safeguard from the Criminal Code, it narrows the zone of certainty for Canadians. It sends a signal that a protection once considered essential is now considered unnecessary. This is not a decision Parliament should make lightly.

Across the country, religious leaders, civil society organizations and all sorts of diverse groups are raising concerns. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and those not of faith are saying the same thing, which is to slow down, listen and get it right. These are not radical voices. These are community leaders who care deeply about the freedom of Canadians to live according to their own conscience, to their own values. When so many Canadians from so many different backgrounds raise the same concern, Parliament should take the time to listen. Instead, the government is choosing to move faster.

Strong laws should not and do not fear debate. Good ideas grow stronger when they are tested. When a government limits debate and accelerates legislation, Canadians inevitably begin to ask the simple question, why the rush? They ask this question especially when there are no real examples of why this change is necessary.

Parliament is not a rubber stamp. It is the place where the voices of Canadians are heard. It is the place where our laws are tested before they are imposed. It is the place where freedom is protected, not only by the words of legislation but by the care with which they are written. The question before us today is not simply whether a bill moves forward faster. The question is this: Do we still believe in the purpose of Parliament?

The duty of Parliament is not simply to pass laws. It is to guard the freedom of the people who live under them. It is to restrain power, and when those laws touch belief, conscience and expression, that duty becomes even greater. Let us take the time to get this right, because history teaches us a hard truth. Freedom is rarely taken all at once. It disappears gradually, one safeguard at a—

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last week has been supremely difficult with the shootings that we have seen at synagogues in our beautiful city. It is imperative that we pass this bill with speed. We often talk about how the hate around us, the hate we see online and the hate we see on our streets normalizes hate for everyone. It empowers people who want to incite and spew hate.

Part of Bill C-9 is saying to all Canadians, “This is where we draw the line. This behaviour is not acceptable, and we are going to empower our law enforcement with the tools to be able to do something about it.” That is the core idea that we are trying to address with this bill and why I believe this is one of the most important commitments we are making to communities of different faiths, cultural backgrounds and sexual orientations right across the country. This is not unique to a single community. It actually touches all of us as Canadians.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her hard work on this and for her community. Temple Emanu-El in my riding was targeted last week in the spate of violence towards synagogues, and these were clear acts of intimidation towards the Jewish community. I just want to ask the member to speak to the importance of the speedy passage of Bill C-9 and also to the importance of coming together to work towards peace and security.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

I rise today to speak to the motion before the House regarding the programming debate on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. I do so at a moment when the urgency of this legislation could not be higher.

Over the past week, Canadians have, once again, been confronted with the disturbing reality of hate-motivated violence in our country. In Toronto, we have had gunfire at three synagogues over the past week. There are bullet holes in the buildings where members of the Jewish community, families and children, gather to pray and come together. I went to the Shaarei Shomayim synagogue and saw where the rounds cut through three layers of doors into the inner halls of the building. This is serious. This is criminal. This is a despicable act of anti-Semitic hate and intimidation.

When a synagogue is shot at in the middle of the night, the message is clear. It is an act meant to intimidate, to create fear and to send a signal to Jewish Canadians that they are not safe in their own communities.

In Toronto—St. Paul's, I have heard from families consistently over the past two-plus years about the rising sense of fear in our city. I have heard of protests in Jewish neighbourhoods that seek to hold a community responsible for events overseas, deliberately failing to distinguish between a diverse cultural and faith community here in Canada and the actions of a government abroad. As I have said before in the House, it is unacceptable for any Canadian to have to endure a torrent of hate to go to worship, to take their kids to school or to just go to work on any given day.

Stopping the fear and intimidation outside of places people can reasonably expect to gather or access services was a commitment that we campaigned on as a Liberal caucus last spring. When the Minister of Justice introduced this legislation earlier in this Parliament, we stepped up to fulfill this commitment. He spoke about the responsibility we have as legislators to ensure that Canada's legal framework keeps pace with the realities that our communities face. He spoke about the need to respond to law enforcement, who have asked for clarity in law.

This bill would strengthen the Criminal Code's response to hate-motivated conduct, including intimidation and the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. These provisions are designed to protect Canadians in the most fundamental sense by protecting their right to gather, to worship and to participate in a society free from intimidation and fear. It would also prohibit the public display of symbols associated with listed terrorist groups in Canada. These are important gaps to clarify in our laws, and they are consistent with the Canadian approach to freedom of expression and to the prohibition of hate speech that has been a feature of Canadian law for over 60 years.

The government introduced this bill in the first week that the House returned in September, and here we are more than six months later. The time for filibusters and for delay has come to an end. If members of the House, and the opposition in particular, acknowledge that the attacks that we have been seeing are unacceptable, and if they acknowledge that anti-Semitism and other forms of hate are rising in Canada, then now is the time to move this legislation forward.

It is one thing to condemn hate in a statement or social media post. It is another thing to support concrete legislative changes to the Criminal Code that would protect Canadians from that hate. This is why this motion before the House today matters.

This is not about cutting off debate, as members opposite are claiming. The bill has been debated in committee since October of last year. This is about ensuring that the debate actually leads somewhere, that the committee completes its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, that amendments are voted on and that Parliament can move forward in addressing a very real challenge in our country.

Opposition to this bill is rooted in misinformation. Canadians have a charter-protected right to freedom of expression. That right is vital to any well-functioning democracy. However, as Canadian courts have ruled repeatedly, this right is limited when an individual's actions infringe on the rights of others or cause harm to them.

Prohibiting hate speech is, and has always been, a reasonable limit on free expression. Prohibiting protests that impede access to community centres, schools or places of worship is a reasonable limit on free expression. Prohibiting the public display of hate symbols and symbols of registered terrorist groups is a reasonable limit on free expression. This balance is at the beating heart of the rights and obligations we have to one another as citizens protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For the members opposite who see Bill C-9 as an unwarranted restriction on free expression or, worse, who twist and misrepresent the provisions of this bill to incite opposition on false grounds, it is time to stop. Jewish Canadians should not have to wonder whether Parliament will act when synagogues are targeted. Muslim Canadians should not have to question whether their mosques are safe. Members of racialized or LGBTQ communities should not have to fear that hate directed toward them will go unanswered. Every Canadian deserves to know that their Parliament stands firmly against hate in all of its forms. Bill C-9 delivers that commitment in line with the charter and with respect for the freedom of conscience and religion.

I have heard concerns and had discussions with faith communities in my own riding about the protection to read scripture and sacred texts. At committee, these were taken seriously. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice introduced a “for greater certainty” clause to make clear that legitimate religious expression and the quoting of sacred texts in good faith are not and will not be criminalized. Above all, the charter protects this right.

Let us agree that the status quo is not an acceptable option. Police forces have asked for clarity. Jewish Canadians have asked for protections. We want to see terror symbols off our streets. We expect fear and intimidation in our communities and neighbourhoods to stop. We want accountability for violent and hateful acts, and we want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When synagogues are targeted by gunfire, when communities are living with fear and when hate crimes are rising across the country, Canadians expect their elected representatives to act responsibly and decisively. They expect us to work together. They expect us to move beyond procedural stall tactics in the House and in committee, and to focus on the safety and well-being of the people we serve.

That is what the motion allows us to do. It ensures that Parliament can complete its work on legislation that seeks to protect Canadians from hate and violence. Hatred thrives when institutions fail to respond, but Canada has always been strongest when we stand together, across faiths, across communities and across political lines, to defend the values that define this country. Those values include freedom, dignity and safety for every Canadian.

That is why this legislation matters. That is why I am going to be supporting the motion before us today.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the increase in the number of hate crimes. I believe it has gone up 85% since 2016. It all started with this division, inequality and exclusion. It divided Canadians. It seems like it was done intentionally.

Over the last 10-plus years, does the member think that perhaps the government was intentionally trying to divide Canadians, foment hatred, so it could bring in Bill C-9 and use it to muzzle us?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-9, in particular Liberal efforts to shut down debate on Bill C-9, to prevent any further debate at committee, in particular to shut down consideration of a Liberal-Bloc proposal to remove the religious defence. If successfully passed, this bill would allow the prosecution of individuals under so-called hate speech if they read religious texts in what the government deems to be the wrong way and the wrong situation. Those provisions, combined with the words of the heritage minister, who has said that reading from certain books of the Bible should be considered hate speech, have caused great alarm and the unanimous opposition, or close to unanimous opposition, of faith leaders across this country.

In the process, the Liberals have said that we should shut down debate because we have discussed this enough. They think we have discussed this enough. The religious exemption was not even studied at committee. No witnesses were called on the religious exemption at committee at all. Some members of the House have said, “Well, yes, but informally, members brought it up in discussion at other points in the committee.” That is true, but there were no witnesses who were called, invited to testify or heard from on the issue of the religious exemption. It was merely something that the Bloc member brought up from time to time. This is something that has had no study at committee. To suggest that enough debate has occurred on the religious defence, when it has not even been studied at committee, is truly outrageous. The committee should be able to hear from witnesses on the removal of the religious defence, and it is not being allowed to.

Liberals have falsely claimed today that they have made changes and compromises to accommodate the concerns of religious communities. They have suggested that it is just Conservatives who have been recalcitrant in our opposition. The facts objectively show that all of the religious organizations and individuals who had concerns when the removal of the religious defence was initially proposed continue to have those concerns, in spite of the false claim that the government has somehow fixed the problem or clarified the language. Over 350 Muslim organizations signed the joint letter. The Toronto rabbinical council, various Christian organizations, and a broad range of faith leaders have highlighted their ongoing concerns, and I trust them. I listen to them to speak on behalf of their communities.

Liberals have said not to worry, because religious freedom is protected in the charter. We know that just because something is protected in the charter, that does not mean the government cannot move against it. It simply means there is a remedy in case the government does. Yes, in a case where the government violates someone's charter rights, that individual can raise the money required, take the issue through the various levels of court and maybe, hopefully, get a remedy at the end of that long process. In the meantime, they are constrained. There is a chilling effect, and they must go through this extensive process. We are better off not violating charter rights than violating them and then forcing individuals to go through this extensive process.

Finally, members of the government have, quite rightly, pointed out that there has been a massive spike in hate crimes in this country. In the last 10 years, while Liberals have been in power, there has been a significant increase in hate crimes, in particular targeting faith communities. Let us talk about the causes of that. One possible cause might be that the principal secretary of the previous Liberal prime minister, Gerald Butts, tweeted, at a time when churches were being spray-painted and burned, that these actions were “understandable”. In fact, the government at no point condemned these attacks on churches, and still has not.

Maybe if the Liberals are concerned about hate crimes, one natural step would be to be clear and precise in condemning acts of violence against faith communities. Maybe the government needs to reflect on how it has not effectively engaged with faith communities and listened to their proposed solutions, because when it comes forward with a bill that it says is going to address hate crimes against religious communities and every single religious community is against it, maybe we have a problem. Maybe it should listen to and engage with faith leaders when it is proposing legislation that is supposed to address hate crimes against faith communities. The government is so out of touch with the realities of these communities and with the problems it claims to solve, and the members have been so dishonest in today's debate, but we stand with all faith communities across this country in opposing this terrible bill.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from her seat, the member says I am not debating Bill C-9. We are not talking about Bill C-9. We are talking about a private member's bill. It is completely relevant. It is hypocrisy when we have the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party today talking about politicization, whereas when he was in government around the cabinet table, he did nothing of the sort in regard to a transfer.

At the end of the day, I think that the constituents we represent understand and appreciate the fact that it is important to recognize the independence of our entire judicial system. They have a system that is in place to protect Canadians, and we need to respect that.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question the relevance of this little filibuster and would like to get back to the subject of the hate bill, Bill C-9.

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate today on Bill C-9, I have to call out the profound dishonesty of so much of the argumentation that we have heard from the government. We see many of their speeches relying on personal attacks, ignoring the substance of the legislation, not engaging with what is actually in the bill, and trying to make it all about claims about their motivations and false imputations of motives on the other side.

Let us talk about the actual substance of the provisions. Bill C-9 includes a variety of provisions, but most controversially, it includes the removal of the religious defence, which means that a person could be prosecuted for a good-faith reading of a religious text or making a religious argument. I think what has alarmed so many people is not just those provisions, but those provisions in combination with the words of the Minister of Heritage at committee. When he served as chair of the justice committee, he spoke explicitly about how reading certain passages of the Bible would necessarily be seen as hateful and could not be interpreted as being in good faith. Those were the words of the then chair of the justice committee, who was promptly promoted by the Prime Minister to, imagine that, being our Minister of Heritage.

There is, as a result of these provisions and the comments of that minister, profound concern that what the Minister of Heritage talked about would actually come to pass, namely that people would be prosecuted for hate speech simply for reading scripture. As a result of that, there has been profound concern expressed by members of all faith communities in this country. Leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community, over 350 Muslim organizations that put out a letter today, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Christian organizations across the denominational spectrum have all expressed profound concerns.

The Liberals are trying to claim that all of these different faith groups have been captured by the Conservative Party information machine. What nonsense. These religious organizations can speak for themselves. They can lead based on the concerns they have and the concerns of their own community. If the Conservative Party could actually control the opinions of all religious organizations at once in this country, I think it is fair to say that we would have won a few more elections. Let us dispense with this nonsense and let us show more respect for faith communities in this country to actually listen to what they are saying.

Liberals tell us, “Don't worry, because removing the religious defence doesn't really have any effect. Don't worry; it's not going to have the effect you say it has.” If that is true, then why are they doing it? We hear Liberals make false claims about what removing the religious defence would not do, but we never hear them say what it would actually do. Let us cut through this nonsense and say that if they supported an amendment to remove the religious defence, they must have had some reason for doing that. It was not just a matter of insubstantial legislative housekeeping. They made a choice to remove this long-standing religious defence. They must have had a reason for doing it. Many faith communities are concerned, and we are concerned, that the reason they decided to do it is the same reason that was said out loud by the Minister of Heritage at committee, namely, their view that the reading of certain passages of scripture would or could or should be deemed hate speech. We are opposed to that.

The member who just spoke said that some people are trying to create the impression that Liberals do not respect conscience or religious freedom. My goodness, how could anyone have come to that conclusion? Well, in the last 10 years, they shut down the Office of Religious Freedom. They imposed a values test in association with the Canada summer jobs program. Also, the last report from the Liberal-dominated finance committee on budget consultations called for the removal of charitable status from houses of worship. The Liberal-dominated finance committee called for the stripping of charitable status from religious organizations. Now, members across the way are shocked that many religious people in this country are a little suspicious of the agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada.

When all of these things have happened over the last 10 years, and when the Minister of Heritage gets up and says that people should be prosecuted for reading religious scripture, members across the way are surprised: How come people are suspicious? This is not a conspiracy. Religious people are concerned because they have read the text of the bill, unlike many members opposite, and they are worried about it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at Bill C-9, it is important to recognize that there is nothing within the bill that actually threatens freedom of religion. In fact, the Charter of Rights guarantees it. It was a Liberal government, back in the 1970s, that brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is happening today in our mosques, gurdwaras, churches and temples is going to continue to happen. There is no change.

My question for the member is this: What does the member believe, from his personal perspective, about individuals or groups that would promote misinformation on this particular important piece of legislation?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, I myself took a telephone call at my office here on the Hill from a person who was calling to say that I should vote against Bill C‑9. At the end of the conversation, the person said that they hoped that I would find it in my heart to change my mind. I replied that I hoped that they would use their intellect to read the bill, because they had been infected with Conservative misinformation. They had never read the bill in any form.

According to the misinformation that is being spread by the Conservatives, no witnesses came to talk about the religious exemption. I watched meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, and the member for Rivière-du-Nord asked each witness questions about the religious exemption. Some were for it and some were against it. There were opinions on both sides. That is what Parliament is for. That is how it should work.

Here is the question I want to ask my colleague. Why does he think the Conservatives are continuing to spread disinformation? Does he think they might be using this as a way to obtain election financing?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal committee members called no evidence whatsoever when witnesses were called to committee to study Bill C-9.

What evidentiary basis does my colleague think the government is relying on to support its justification for the removal of a 50-year-old defence?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are going to vote on today is another example of the government's overreach and tyranny and of how it always wants to shut down debate, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

All day long, I have sat here and listened to the government members say, “We are the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” The government is what its record says it is, and the government violated the mobility rights of millions of Canadians during the pandemic. It violated free expression under previous bills, like Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-63, and now Bill C-9.

The emergency measures act that the Liberals put in place was illegal. They froze people's bank accounts, another violation, and authorized unlawful search and seizure. The Canadian summer jobs attestation, where if someone did not agree with the Liberals and agree to sign off on their attestation, they could not get any funding. There were threats to the charitable status of faith organizations and pro-life organizations. All of these things show the Liberals' record is one of overreach and shutting down people's charter rights and freedoms. It is no wonder we are concerned that the Liberals want to shut down debate on the bill.

There was no need for them to align with the Bloc to remove the religious exemption from the hate speech law. It has been in place for 50 years. There was no controversy about it. It was not in the original text of the bill. There was no reason for them to align with the Bloc and cause this political hot potato.

Everybody recognizes that we have a problem with hate crimes in Canada. In the last few years, hate crimes have increased hugely. We see, in the Jewish community, synagogues being shot up, businesses being vandalized and “death to Jews” being called in the streets, with no enforcement of existing laws. We have seen over a hundred Christian churches torched and not a word from the government. We have seen mosques desecrated. We have seen Hindus intimidated and harassed.

We know there is a problem. There is no argument in the House that there is a problem with hate crimes in this country. The problem is not that we need Bill C-9. The problem is that we are not enforcing existing laws. It is already illegal to shoot up a synagogue. It is already illegal to vandalize a business. It is already illegal to utter death threats to people. There is no enforcement.

All day long, I have heard the government say, “Well, that's not our responsibility federally. That's provincial. There is nothing we can do about it.” That is absolutely not true. The federal government, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice have a responsibility to ensure that the rule of law in Canada is enforced. If the provinces and territories do not have the resources to do it, the government is perfectly able to add to it with the RCMP or with the military, to take the measures necessary to keep Canadians safe, but the Liberals have done nothing. There has been nothing but empty words, thoughts and prayers, and condolences. None of that does anything to help the communities that are under attack.

There is a misconception. The Liberals are saying we cannot have this religious exemption because then people would incite violence with their hate speech. No. In the law, there is currently no religious exemption for hate speech leading to and inciting violence. There is not one. The fact that that exists already in the Criminal Code should be enough.

It is really concerning to me that the Liberals continue to argue that nobody is going to be imprisoned for quoting from scriptures. That is what they have been saying, but that is not what the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said. He said people who quote certain scriptures from the Bible should be imprisoned. He did not walk that back. I talked to him about it, and he doubled down and agreed that was it.

He is not the only one. Multiple Liberal members serving in this Parliament have told me that they think I should be imprisoned for what I did as a youth leader in the Baptist church. Kids talked to me all the time. They wanted to know what the Bible said about sexuality. I told them. Multiple Liberals in this House have said I should have been imprisoned for that. Members will forgive me if I do not believe the Liberals when they say they are going to uphold our charter rights and freedoms and that I would not go to prison. I do not believe that for a moment.

The second thing is that often in this country, we see persecution and the use of the justice system to ultimately punish people. If someone were to be charged under this hate speech law because there was no religious exemption and they quoted a scripture that offended somebody, they would have to get a lawyer. They would have to go through years in the justice system, with appeal on appeal, until finally it would get to the Supreme Court, which would say, “You're right. This violated your charter rights. And it destroyed your life, and you're bankrupt.” That would be totally unacceptable.

We know that the government is not going to protect the charter rights of Canadians, and we know it for a number of reasons. We know it because we already said we would take the Liberals at their word and bring forward an amendment. This is the amendment the Conservatives brought forward: “Nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with the freedom of expression or the freedom of religion.” The Liberals voted against that because they do intend to violate people's expression rights and religious rights.

I am not just standing here talking about myself going to prison; certainly, I do not think I belong in prison. There are 30 million people of faith in this country. We have seen a whole list opposed to this religious exemption being removed: the Anglican Church of Canada, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Muslim Healthcare Network, the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine and Israel, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Canadian Council of Imams, the rabbinical council of Toronto, the Hikma Public Affairs Council, the Seventh-day Adventist church, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, ARPA Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

I have no idea why 30 million people who are represented by faiths across the country say they do not trust the government and believe that what it is going to do is allow people to imprison folks who quote scriptures or express views that are offensive to people. We know that because Bill C-9 would dilute the definition of hate. Why would the government change the definition to make it less? That is a question that bears speaking about.

People have fought in frozen trenches for years in war for the freedoms that are in our charter, and those people would be turning in their graves right now to see the government continually violating the charter rights that they gave their lives fighting for, continually eroding religious freedom and freedom of expression in the country and allowing the kinds of activities we are seeing in our country.

Ultimately, I think we are going to have to have more debate on this, and if we do not have it now, then it will be part of this justice system punishment on the first person who goes to prison, and I hope it is not me. A guy in B.C. was just charged $750,000 for saying there are two genders. He has every right to express his opinion, and probably when it is appealed, after years and years, they will say that yes, absolutely, he does have that right, but the punishment and the financial penalties will chill free speech and freedom of religion in this country.

Finally, in summary, the Conservatives are willing to work across the aisle. We said we would split the bill and put forward the parts that we all agree on to try to get some extra protection and some extra tools for the police.

On this hill, I will absolutely be prepared to die to protect religious freedom and freedom of expression in Canada.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen that this motion brought forward by the Liberals on Bill C-9 effectively limits debate, forces the House to rush legislation and raises serious concerns for many faith communities. We know synagogues and other places of worship are being attacked across Canada. Laws already exist to punish hate and violence, yet the government is failing to enforce them. Instead, it is pushing Bill C-9 and removing religious protection.

Why is the government targeting religious freedom instead of protecting faith communities?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

I want to start my speech by taking a moment to address the horrific events that took place in Toronto and in Thornhill last weekend. The doors of houses of worship were pierced by a gunman's bullets in the middle of the night. There is nothing more cowardly, more shameful and more un-Canadian than targeting a sacred place under the cover of darkness. It is meant to strike fear in the hearts of those who use that place, in this case the Jewish community in their central place of worship, and intimidate an entire community on the Sabbath, the most sacred day of the week. The Prime Minister and his ministers are quick to run to the podium after events like this to offer things like thoughts, prayers and condemnation, but it always stops after those kind words and it never gets to decisive action.

The government will claim that this is not who we are, but it is exactly who we have become in this country. It is terrorism meant to terrorize a community. With two synagogues being shot on Saturday, one being shot last Monday and businesses being vandalized every week, we see there is a tide of anti-Semitism and hatred that the Liberals have allowed to crest over the last two and a half years. We have to admit that this is very much who we are now. This has become a fact of everyday life in Canada. We are number one in the world when it comes to violence against Jewish institutions.

The Liberal government, unfortunately, wants Canadians to believe that this bill before us, Bill C-9, is the silver bullet that will fix all of this. It is not. It is a cynical sales pitch in the face of what is a crisis in this country. Nothing in this bill would have prevented these shootings or the violence that we have watched unfold in our streets for the better part of the last two and a half years.

Do not be fooled by the legislative theatre or the answers to the questions that we hear in this place. First and foremost, nothing, absolutely nothing has changed a week after those shootings. There has not been a single dollar of more security funding and not one more deportation of the terrorists that we have in our country. Nothing has changed. More importantly, the solution that they have peddled shamelessly is one that will, no doubt, be weaponized against the very community that it purports to protect. It also would not have prevented the burning of churches, the targeting of temples, the desecration of mosques or any of the atrocities that we have seen under the watch of the Liberal government and through the callousness of its divisive politics over the last number of years.

Shooting a bullet into a synagogue is already illegal. Spray-painting a swastika onto a school is already illegal. Covering one's face and chanting genocidal slogans in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood is already illegal. What is missing is the enforcement of those laws. Our government, our leaders and many of the institutions are frankly missing in action. We do not need more nice-sounding laws with snappy names that will not be enforced to go collect dust on a shelf somewhere. We do not need another news release, another press conference or more platitudes from a government that certainly stopped caring about this long ago.

What we do need is our leaders to grow a spine and stand up to the communities that they swore an oath to protect. They need to actually do their jobs and stop the madness that is unfolding. They can start by coordinating the activities of our law enforcement agencies to prevent attacks, disrupt threats and prosecute offenders. They can make sure that the funding that they promise to these institutions actually flows without the red tape, and they can double that funding today. They can establish the foreign influence registry that they promised years ago. They can round up the terrorists that we know are living on our streets and send them home, such as the 700 identified IRGC terrorists, who dine in posh steakhouses and intimidate our communities. They can hunt down the people who commit these heinous crimes and put them in jail. They have the power to do all of those things right now, but they choose not to. Instead, they pretend the solution is a bill that nobody has asked for, and nearly every faith community agrees is harmful and counterproductive to its goals.

We cannot legislate ourselves out of a crisis. I am going to say on the floor what we, oftentimes, do not say enough: We do not need new laws. We need the enforcement of existing laws. We need action from politicians and we need a recognition in this country that this is actually a crisis.

We do not go out of our way to censor opponents by limiting the free speech of those we might disagree with. That is not how we fix things in this country. In fact, the Liberal government is censoring this very debate in Parliament on whether to enact a new censorship law. It would go after free expression instead of going after people who shoot up synagogues and Jewish schools, who burn down churches or who vandalize mosques, gurdwaras or temples. It would prosecute faith leaders from all stripes instead of prosecuting the very people perpetuating terrorism in our streets. It would chill the religious discourse instead of chilling the activities of the terrorists and foreign agents roaming free in this country with complete impunity.

Let me be very clear. It is already illegal to spew hate speech and foment violence against groups. That is not what Bill C-9 is about. Instead, it is about a government that chooses overreach every time it could choose leadership or action. It chooses ambiguity and infringement to hide from the very real consequences that its lack of action has brought on Canadians in their own cities. The Liberals will tell us that the Jewish community supports this. I will state clearly for everyone that this is one of the most divisive issues in that community, and worse, the Liberals did not even bother to ask clergy.

The rabbinical council of Toronto, the very people who represent the synagogues that were shot at this week, said that the contemplated changes to Bill C-9 threaten and would irreversibly erode the charter-protected rights of Canadians to worship freely and transmit the sacred teachings and principles that have guided and uplifted faith communities for thousands of years. These are the words of the senior rabbis in our own community, the ones who the Minister of Public Safety and other ministers stood at a podium with this weekend after their temples were shot at. They understand what is at stake and that the government left them on their own a long time ago. The government stood alongside them, could not be bothered to ask them what they thought about Bill C-9 and, instead, spewed into a microphone the bill as a way to stop events like what happened this weekend in Toronto.

The Liberals do not have the support of pastors, priests, imams, teachers or Canadians from faith backgrounds. They could have very well split the bill, and they chose not to. They chose to ram it through with something that was not introduced in the original version of the bill, and that is why we have a problem with it.

We are all on the same page with faith communities, and the only people who are not are those in the Liberal government who have succumbed to a demand from the Bloc on this issue to ram through debate on a bill that we all know is fundamentally flawed. We could have very well taken this out of the bill, had the debate on this specific issue and passed the protections for the communities, but the Liberals chose not to. At every turn, they choose not to act.

I will wrap up by saying that the day we dispose with sideshows like Bill C-9 is the day that we can finally get down to business and actually protect our communities. There are those who think they can control what happens on the other side of the world, which they cannot, but we absolutely have control of what we can do on our own soil. We can get the authorities working together. We can enforce the law in this country. We can throw the terrorists out. We can introduce a foreign agent registry. We can do all of those things today instead of doing nothing.

I hope, for our community, that happens sooner rather than later, because I think the exhaustion is there. The days of watching ministers and the Prime Minister give condolences and thoughts and prayers over and over again are over, and there are better days ahead for a resilient community that I know deserves a whole lot better than the government they got.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I referenced in my speech a number of times, we are so fortunate to live in this country, with its strong parliamentary system rooted in the democratic principles that allow us to have these conversations. We have had them and we are obviously continuing to have them, and I do not think this discussion will end even with the passage of Bill C-9, which is quite important. Ongoing conversation and reflection about the impact that laws have in the country is critical to the health of our democracy, and I look forward to continuing this debate while it is in this chamber.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if we are to talk about the motion before us today that is being debated, the fact is that we have been debating Bill C-9 for many months now. It has been at committee for endless hours. I think it is over 30 hours now. We have a majority of members of Parliament who ultimately want to see the advancement of the legislation.

I understand the Conservative Party members do not want to see the legislation pass. They could talk indefinitely, which would guarantee it would never pass. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we respect the majority of the members of Parliament.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always proud to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre. Today I rise as a Jew, as a member of Parliament and, perhaps most important, as a Canadian, to speak to Bill C-9.

I have enough humility, I hope, to recognize that it is members not just of one party but of all parties who have allowed at times the conversation in this debate to be filled with perhaps a bit more hot air than is productive for the discussion that Canadians would like us to have. I hope today in my remarks to reflect honestly and transparently about what I have heard from the community I represent.

My great-grandparents came to Canada in the early 20th century, escaping the pogroms of Russia. They did so because they were victimized as Jews and were searching for a better life. This is a story that has played out across countless communities and is an experience that individuals who have called Canada home for some time hold as the foundation of why this place is so dear and special to them.

Unfortunately, today, much of what my ancestors experienced and people who have come from other communities are experiencing in this country is a similar type of victimization. I think of the Jewish community that I come from in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre, the synagogue I attend and attended as a kid and the high school I went to and taught at in Winnipeg, which had swastikas spray-painted on its windows just a few weeks ago. I stood with Jewish community members in the GTA just a few days ago and saw bullet holes ripped through front doors, reminiscent of a very dark period in our time that none of us want to see relived.

The Muslim community across the country, but particularly in my hometown of Winnipeg, has faced its fair share of discrimination. Recently the owner of Habibiz Café, a shawarma shop, of which there are so many across our country, woke up to a message of hate. Christians in this country, as well as members of other faith-based communities have been the victims of discrimination based on their beliefs. Bill C-9 would allow us to accomplish a pathway, through the strengthening of laws, to allowing us to reduce some of the severity by ensuring that we increase the structure of our laws.

Having said all this, I have a great degree of respect for many of my colleagues across the way and many from other parties and in my own party who come from places of faith. I deeply appreciate it, notwithstanding the fact that I am not particularly religious. I very much see how so many people in this country, whatever religion their faith rests in, have it as a core part of their identity and that it serves a critical purpose in who they are as individuals.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for that, which is why I understand the elevation of the discourse around the religious exemption that has been debated in particular. This is part of the reason I asked my colleague a few moments ago if he would support this piece of legislation should it be amended.

As my colleague who spoke before me noted, there are already a number of different ways in which we see protections for people that are embedded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in current Canadian law. I could never in good conscience support a piece of legislation that I felt would hinder the ability for my colleagues, my constituents, my friends, my family members and Canadians across the country to practise their faith.

The degree to which we are talking about somebody having to be prosecuted by the arm of the law for using a text for hate is significant. Nonetheless, I do appreciate that we have the opportunity in this beautiful country of ours to have this conversation. It is so representative of the strength of Canadian parliamentary democracy.

However, although coming from conversations and experiences I had with Canadians across the country as I had the opportunity to travel in a variety of capacities, my support for Bill C-9 comes primarily from the conversations I had with my own community in Winnipeg South Centre.

I am fortunate to represent the largest Jewish population in western Canada, and after October 7, for reasons I am sure many have opinions on and would be a debate that we could have unto itself, there has been a significant rise in anti-Semitism. One of the first things my constituents, particularly from the Jewish community but not only them, have said they need is a strengthening of laws. Here are some examples.

There is something called Folklorama, which is a wonderful event that happens in Winnipeg every year. I encourage all members to come pay us a visit. It is where people from countries around the world have an opportunity to come and learn about the culture, language, dance, food, different goods that are sold and stories that are told about where people come from.

Last year at the Israeli pavilion, children, whether they were Jews or not, who walked into that space to learn about a different culture, were told by protesters that Hamas was coming for them. They were told to go back to Europe and were spit on. They were told they were child murderers. This happened as they walked into the celebratory space, and some were as young as my niece, who is five years old.

I am also thinking about the University of Winnipeg students who, after October 7, had to walk onto a campus that had Hamas flags flying. They had to walk into spaces that are meant to be safe but were not able to do so, or certainly did not feel comfortable doing so, quite understandably, by virtue of the fact that there was a permissive ability under law for some of this to take place.

With this feedback, we went to the drawing board and had a conversation about what we could do to ensure that we strengthen protections. One of the things I find so critically important about Bill C-9 is that it would take some concrete action to help prevent these things. Hate symbols are not something that ought to be able to fly proudly in our streets. It is time, I believe, that we take action in making it something that would be in breach of the law. In addition, going back to the example I used of Folklorama in Winnipeg, nobody should be intimidated going into a space when they are there to worship, to celebrate their faith or to honour their identity or the roots of their community.

One of the things the community has asked me to relay during the course of my remarks here in Ottawa, not just today but also in the days that have passed, is that the legislation is something they believe they need in order to be safer. Given what we have seen over the course of the past couple of weeks in particular, I think it is quite an appropriate time to move forward with this piece of legislation.

One of the things that has happened from time to time in the House, particularly in the context of this debate, is that we often speak broadly about what one community wants versus what another wants. I say with humility that it is important to recognize that none of us, myself included, has a monopoly on the way a particular community feels. There are Jews in this country who support the bill. There are Jews in this country who have some questions about it. There are Muslims in this country who support the bill. There are Muslims in this country who have some questions about it. There are some Christians in this country about whom I would say the same thing, and the list would go on and on.

I have very much appreciated the opportunity in the hallowed halls of the chamber to have a respectful and peaceful conversation about what is in the best interests of our country. However, it is my belief, quite firmly, that Bill C-9 is an opportunity for us, at a time of great division, danger, fear and anxiety in our society, to protect the communities that need protection the most.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is the chair of the justice committee, for his speech, although I note that when he talks about the hours of debate on Bill C-9, he misses the fact that we have had no opportunity to hear witnesses on the removal of the religious defence, because it was snuck in as an amendment thanks to an agreement between the Liberal and Bloc members.

Once again, we have a Liberal saying that people should not worry, that their religious freedoms would not be touched because the charter protects religious freedoms.

Let me ask this very pointedly. The member's predecessor as committee chair was promoted to cabinet a couple of weeks after he said that it would be, in his view, justifiable for prosecutors to charge people for quoting certain verses of scripture. Does he denounce that comment?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

First let me say that, as always, it is a privilege to stand in the House and represent the great people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, whom I have the honour of representing. I rise today to speak in support of the motion before the House. This debate is about more than procedure. It is about how Parliament chooses to do its work. It is about whether we allow legislation to move forward after thorough study, or whether we allow it to be stalled indefinitely through procedural obstruction.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced in the House of Commons on September 19, 2025. It is now March. It received second reading debate. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where witnesses appeared, experts testified, communities shared their experiences, amendments were proposed and clauses were debated. In total, Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation. That is not rushed consideration but serious parliamentary scrutiny. This is exactly how our legislative process is supposed to work, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to decision.

Parliament cannot function if debate never leads to a vote. Opposition parties play a critical role in our democracy. Their responsibility is to challenge legislation, question its provisions and propose improvements. That is healthy, and it is necessary. That is how good legislation becomes better legislation, but there is a difference between debate and obstruction. Debate is when members raise arguments, propose amendments and explain their position to Canadians.

Obstruction is something very different. Obstruction is when procedural tactics are used to prevent Parliament from doing its job. Obstruction is when hours are consumed not discussing the bill itself but discussing procedural manoeuvres. Obstruction is when legislation cannot move forward, even after extensive study. This is what we have seen repeatedly during the study of Bill C-9. The opposition parties have prolonged debate in ways to prevent clause-by-clause review from progressing. Every hour spent on procedural delay is an hour in which Parliament is prevented from completing its work. This is the simple reality.

Members of the House are free to disagree with legislation. They are free to oppose it and to vote against it. That is their right. That is democracy. If a member believes a clause should not be adopted, they can vote against that clause. If a member believes an amendment should be rejected, they can vote against the amendment. If a member believes the entire bill should fail, they can vote against the bill. This is how the legislature functions. Members make their arguments and cast their vote, and Parliament reaches a decision.

What is not responsible is attempting to delay the legislative process indefinitely through procedural tactics. That does not strengthen legislation, it does not improve legislation and it does not serve Canadians.

The legislation before us addresses an issue that communities across Canada have been raising for years. Hate-motivated intimidation and harassment have become increasingly visible in our communities. We have seen individuals threatened as they approach their places of worship. We have seen hateful symbols displayed outside schools and community centres. We have seen people intimidated simply for being part of a particular religious, cultural or identity group.

These are not theoretical concerns. These are real experiences reported by Canadians across the country. Jewish communities have spoken about threats directed at their synagogues. We have only to look at this past weekend in my city of Toronto. Muslim communities have reported intimidation outside mosques, Black Canadians have spoken about racist harassment, Asian Canadians have faced hostility fuelled by misinformation and prejudice, and LGBTQ Canadians have experienced intimidation in spaces meant to provide safety and support.

These incidents undermine the sense of safety that Canadians expect in their daily lives, and Bill C-9 responds to those concerns. It strengthens the Criminal Code to address intimidation and obstruction directed at spaces primarily used by identifiable groups. It creates clearer tools for law enforcement when crimes are motivated by hatred toward a person's identity. It addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities. These measures respond directly to what community organizations, law enforcement agencies and human rights groups have been asking Parliament to address.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined these issues in depth. In December 2024, the committee released its report on heightened anti-Semitism in Canada and how to confront it. The report contained recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada's response to hate-motivated crimes and intimidation. Many of those recommendations are reflected in Bill C-9. In other words, the legislation before us today is not the product of a sudden idea. It reflects a parliamentary study, expert testimony and the voices of communities who have asked Parliament to act.

Some of the debate surrounding this bill has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us address that clearly. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental and is not changing. Courts in Canada have consistently confirmed that hate propaganda offences require a very high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected under the charter.

Nevertheless, concerns were raised by some faith communities about how the legislation might be interpreted. When these concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression is not captured by the legislation. That is how legislative collaboration should work. Concerns were raised, members worked together, clarifications were introduced and legislation was strengthened. Collaboration requires participation from all sides. It requires members to bring forward amendments, to debate provisions and to vote, but collaboration does not mean using procedural tactics to prevent Parliament from completing its work.

There is another important point that must be understood. When legislation is stalled, the consequences extend beyond a single bill. Parliament has a significant legislative agenda. There are bills that address public policy, justice reform, economic policy and issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When one bill is repeatedly delayed through obstruction, it consumes time that could otherwise be used to advance other legislation. It slows the entire legislative process, which affects Parliament's ability to respond to the needs of Canadians.

The motion before us today is not extraordinary but simply ensures that the committee can complete its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 and that the House can proceed to a vote. Debate has taken place. Studies have taken place. Witnesses have been heard. Amendments have been proposed. The next step in the legislative process is decision. That is what this motion allows Parliament to do. Members of the House will have the opportunity to vote. They will have the opportunity to support the legislation or oppose it, but Canadians deserve to see Parliament reach a decision.

The issue before us ultimately comes down to responsibility. As legislators, we have a responsibility to debate legislation thoroughly, to listen to witnesses and to examine the amendments, but we also have a responsibility to complete our work. Communities across the country are asking for stronger protections against hate and intimidation. They are asking Parliament to respond. They are asking Parliament to act. After months of study and debate, it is time for Parliament to fulfill that responsibility. It is time to move forward. It is time to vote.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate being called delusional by the individual across the way. I actually think this is a form of gaslighting. I had the good fortune to meet with a member who fights for the Cuban diaspora yesterday. This is really how all democracies start to fail, by a government questioning people when they know their truth and they know what they stand for. This is what the government does consistently, both in Bill C-9 and in this chamber here today. It is disgraceful.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this incredible House on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore. I cannot believe that this spring it is nine years that I have been in this chamber. I want to thank you so much for your support, Mr. Speaker, as I began this journey so long ago.

I have to say that it has been several years of wonder being here every day and not being able to believe that I am in this great House where so many incredible people have come before me. I am surrounded by outstanding individuals, and I am so excited about the future parliamentarians who will come after me.

However, within that time, as well as wonder, there has been some disappointment. Here today is a piece of that disappointment, because we are discussing closure. Closure is always disturbing and disappointing because it means that my voice is being silenced in speaking on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Midnapore. It also means that there are other members in the House who will not have the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents.

I have had many citizens reach out to me on Bill C-9 with their most grave concerns. It is quite sad that these expressions will not get the opportunity to come to light and to be expressed fully in the House. Unfortunately, this is a trend with the current government.

Another trend that I see with the government is that it can never seem to present a good piece of legislation without a poison pill.

The crux of Bill C-9 is that we are talking about obstructing access to religious institutions. Who could be opposed to the safety, welfare and well-being of those who want to practise their religious freedom at this time? There is a 67% increase in crimes targeting religion in 2023 compared to 2022. In 2024, 1,342 police-reported incidents were motivated by religion, which included 900 incidents against the Jewish population and 211 incidents against the Muslim population, and over 100 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized since 2021.

Bill C-9 was a piece of legislation that we could support and get behind, but the Liberal government did what it does. It played politics. It put in the poison pill of removing religious defence from the Criminal Code. Why would the Liberals do that? Why would they remove freedom of expression of the most deepest and dearest sentiments of humans in existence?

They would do it for politics. They do not want this bill to pass unanimously. They do not want to see us working with them for Canadians and for the common good of Canada. This is a farce, and it does not elude them. It was planned intentionally for their hopeful political gain. They cannot put forward good legislation for the purpose of us all supporting good legislation. There must always be a poison pill.

My grandfather was from Bucha, Ukraine, which is where they found the mass graves. Ukrainian heritage has been a key part of my life since I was a little girl, whether my mum was making pedaheh and kubasa, or we were admiring the paska at family weddings in the beautiful shape of doves.

War came to Ukraine with tragedy and sadness. After contributing to Putin's war effort in supplying the turbine to export oil, the Liberal government had the good idea of a trade agreement, which was wonderful. It was an opportunity to show our support in the most tangible way possible: the economy. As Conservatives, we became excited at the prospect of supporting the bill. All of us would be working together for peace and democracy against one of the greatest dictators of our time. However, the Liberals placed a carbon tax in the bill, which their own government claimed to reverse, at least in principle, but at the time it was another poison pill. It was another measure deliberately placed by the Liberal government to give us, the Conservative Party of Canada, hesitation in supporting the legislation.

Again, the Liberals say they want us to work together. They claim we are obstructionist, but it is always deliberate and by their design, as I am explaining. They can never just present legislation that is good in its entirety for Canadians. They always have to have a poison pill because they want to play politics and they want to divide.

The Building Canada Act provides powers to get major projects approved in Canada, but it does not repeal Bill C-69 or Bill C-48, which would make it palatable to investors. That would have made it even easier for us as Conservatives to support it, even though we did. We gave them every opportunity to create prosperity in this great nation. In Bill C-8, they say they want to protect Canadians from cyber-threats, but their legislation would ultimately give the government the power to secretly cancel Canadians' Internet accounts. Again, they claim they are doing good, but there is always that poison pill.

In Bill C-2, they tried to give Canada Post sweeping powers to open any piece of mail, any piece of mail in the land, an incredible invasion of privacy, an incredible invasion of communicator to receiver. They tried to do this and to ban cash payments of over $10,000. It is cash, a way in which business has been done in this nation, a way in which commerce has been conducted, for forever. Conservatives forced the government into splitting the bill into two pieces to take out the poison pills.

It is these games that hurt Canadians, in delayed legislation, in amendments, in going back and forth to committees, in discussing these things and, therefore, in delayed outcomes for Canadians on things that would improve, fundamentally, the lives of Canadians. It is all a result of putting these poison pills in pieces of legislation. They really do not want us coming together for the good of Canadians. They want to divide and Bill C-9 is just another example of this. It is intentional.

It is never about 95% of the bill. There are always the good clauses, the positive clauses. We can point to good things being done for Canadians. Rather, it is always about that 5%, that one little hitch, that little poison pill that we simply cannot pass. It is like we are eating a hot dog, and then, all of a sudden, we hit that hard piece, and it just ruins the hot dog, or we are eating an olive and, all of a sudden, we hit that little piece of pit, which just ruins the experience, the item, in its entirety. Most of it is good. It was a really good hot dog or a really good olive. It is that small piece that ruins the item in its entirety. It is the same with Liberal legislation.

Liberals say it is for the good of Canadians. They say they want us to work together. It is not true. There is always, with the Liberal government, a poison pill. We see this as well within Bill C-9. We can support Canadians being safe in their places of worship. We want Canadians to be free to go to their places of worship, to be able to worship who they want, how they want and when they want. We absolutely support that within Bill C-9.

We cannot support the criminalization of merely offensive speech. We cannot leave up for interpretation what is motivated by hatred. We cannot condemn Canadians for speaking their utmost and sacred truths. Apparently, we, the elected representatives, can be silenced for attempting to stand up for and defend those who agree with us in these sentiments. That is shameful.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not get the cookies from his mom yet, but I am waiting.

Given my colleague's long-standing work on issues of government accountability and protecting Canadian values, can he share his perspective on Bill C-9 and what we should do to confront real hate while safeguarding the freedoms and the ability of people to express themselves in a thoughtful way without compromising their values.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member has to say, and I am sure my mom probably sent him friendship cookies to get him to say things like that publicly. I cannot see many other Liberal members saying that about me. The respect is mutual.

What I would simply say is that I have fundamental differences on Bill C-9. For example, the current law has it so that the Attorney General of Canada must give approval. That sets a very high bar. Unfortunately, as I said, there is divisiveness. In my province of British Columbia, there have been many divisive statements said by different ministers from the provincial government. We have seen where a former minister, a Jewish woman, was basically cast out of that caucus and cabinet for her viewpoints. Bringing it down to the attorney general level at the provincial level takes away a valuable safeguard. That is one of the principal reasons.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I am also pleased to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

I have been fortunate to have spent enough time in this place to have sat on both sides of the House, which I consider a great honour. Over my time in this place, I have witnessed a great many bills come and go. Some of them make it to royal assent and others do not, for a variety of different reasons. Sometimes there will be consensus on a bill, when a majority of members of this place support a bill to move forward. However, more often than not, there will be disagreement.

Usually, that disagreement might be based on ideology. However, from time to time there are also bills that come forward that are so controversial that they may draw serious concerns from all sides of the political spectrum. Bill C-9 is one of those bills.

As we were reminded yesterday in this place, in the speech from the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Bill C-9 has raised serious concerns from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Egale Canada. I am sure all members would agree that this is a very diverse set of different organizations. That one single bill could unite so many of these different groups and organizations to raise very serious concerns should be an alarm bell for every member of this place, and even more so as some of these groups and organizations are intended to be better protected by the bill.

They are also sending a strong message to all of us, and members do not have to take my word for it. I am certain that every member in this place has similar concerns shared to them by their constituents. In fact, if there is one thing I can say, it is that of all those I have heard from in emails or phone calls, or with whom I've met in person, not one single person has ever said, “Bill C-9 gets it right. Please support it and pass it.” Not one single person in my riding has said that to me. The only place I hear that is from Liberal MPs in this place, and that is really saying something. When some of the groups this bill seeks to protect say there are serious problems with the bill itself, I submit that we should all be listening.

However, the Liberals have now decided that they do not want to do that. They have decided that these groups and individuals do not deserve to be heard. We all know that is wrong, yet here we are again. I say “again” because, of course, that is how things would often work under the former Liberal government. With the help of the NDP, the Liberals would ignore the concerns of everyday Canadians and say, “Trust us,” and, “We know what is best for you,” while they imposed one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-enforced solutions. We know how that approach worked out for the former Liberal prime minister and the former NDP leader, but this is not meant to be a history lesson. This is a bill that the Liberals like to tell us is from the new Liberal government, even though it is beginning to act and sound, quite frankly, a lot like the previous Liberal government.

Let us pause for a moment here. It is not a secret that we already have existing laws that can deal with hate and that are completely and totally ignored right now. There are laws that are in force. When those groups, and lately it is often Jewish Canadians, look to government for leadership, they are not getting answers, accountability or action. Instead, they are getting Bill C-9, which is a classic way for the government to attempt to say, “We are doing something, and this is what we are doing.” It is a process, but there is nothing concrete.

As we all know, one of the most controversial parts of Bill C-9 is the proposal to remove the religious exemption clause. I think we can all agree on that. However, exemptions for “a legitimate purpose”, such as an educational, artistic or journalistic purpose, would not be captured by this offence.

In other words, there is a recognition in this proposed legislation for exemptions, just no longer for religious reasons, despite charter protections to the contrary. I know Liberals will say, “That is not who we mean to target by targeting the religious exemption for elimination.” For the purpose of this debate, suppose we were to give those Liberals the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that what the Liberals intend to happen in this proposed bill may not be what would end up happening once it becomes law.

When the Liberals changed the Criminal Code in provisions around bail, I am certain they did not intend those changes to result in a massive increase in serious crimes, yet that is precisely what occurred, as prolific offenders get the benefit of the doubt and are back on the street again on bail instead of being in jail. The principle of restraint is a principle that has created a big problem. We in the official opposition did warn the Liberals about changing that. We all know what happened. They simply discounted and ignored, arrogantly saying, “Everything you are saying is wrong and we are right,” a typical Liberal response in regard to these kinds of concerns.

In many ways, we are here again, like it is Groundhog Day, where it is not just the official opposition Conservatives who are warning the Liberals about this bill. It is a huge group of different organizations, all saying the same thing, because the Liberals continue to refuse to listen. They continue to push this into law, and then it is out of our hands as members of Parliament. Once that happens, it is in our communities and, again, it could be weaponized against the very people it is said to protect. More often than not, we are seeing that enforcement and public safety have become increasingly selective based on what group yells the loudest. That is not to mention judicial activism, where some rulings are raising serious concerns.

This is our current environment when it comes to enforcement, prosecution and sentencing. This is creating more division and, I would submit, a less tolerant attitude among many Canadians. Targeting faith, even though the stated intent is not to do so, would carry serious consequences and repercussions. Keep in mind that it is the very groups and organizations this bill is supposed to be trying to protect that are sounding the alarm bell on this. Why would we not want to listen?

In conclusion, while I would agree that the intent here is not nefarious but meant to be well-meaning, I submit that we need to take a step back and listen to those who are raising concerns. We need to address those concerns in a meaningful way. We cannot risk getting this bill wrong solely due to Liberal arrogance. We do not need more polarization, more weaponization or more divisiveness, all the things this bill could create more of if we do not get it right.

I met with a local pastoral association in my area of West Kelowna. The members of the association felt particularly targeted by this good-faith exemption being drawn out just for religious worship. They said, “It says 'academic', so a professor could say the same thing from the same holy book and receive a good-faith exemption. Someone could put on a play or put the same scripture on a painting and receive the exemption, but those people who are in a church in front of people of faith in pews, rather than students at a local university, could not.” They feel targeted.

That is precisely why I will be voting against this bill, as every single constituent I have heard from has asked me to do. I would encourage the members of the government to listen to the concerns of their constituents as well and do likewise. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who has listened today and taken my comments into account. I hope that those comments track with their own experience and that they will have a similar response to my own.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I was surprised by the amount of disinformation, or distortion of the facts, which I think is probably a better term, that came forward from my riding and that has circulated in our community and in our country.

For me, the real issue is that communities across Canada are experiencing hate incidents, and they are asking Parliament to act, which I think is our job. We need to remember that Bill C-9 would strengthen protections for Canadians, and it is respecting the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is truly striking an incredible balance.

I encourage everyone to support Bill C-9.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's previous question is a good example of what we have been experiencing with Bill C‑9. I would describe it as blatant misinformation. I have received calls at my office from people who have a very narrow view of the purpose of the bill.

Hate speech is hate speech. We need to make that clear to people. We are not taking away anyone's right to practise their faith. We are not taking away anyone's right to demonstrate their faith. We are asking people not to use their faith to justify hate speech based on very specific guidelines.

Why would any politician think it is a good idea to spread misinformation to the public and create concerns. I cannot understand it. Perhaps my colleague could explain it to us.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to follow in the footsteps of my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, and on the notice given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this morning. I would like to start by addressing specific concerns with Bill C-9 that have been raised in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. I would then like to explain why I am supporting Bill C-9 and why it is important for the bill to come before the House of Commons at this time.

In recent months, many citizens from my riding have contacted my office with letters, telephone calls and emails claiming that reading, teaching or discussing religious texts or beliefs would become hate speech under Bill C-9. They even claimed that pastors would no longer be able to read certain sections of the Bible out loud and that religious images would not be allowed in the schools their children attend. I would like to thank the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming for reaching out and expressing themselves. I would also like to thank those who took the time to meet with me to explain their views.

Fortunately for all concerned, Bill C-9 is not about limiting our ability to peacefully pray, preach, interpret scripture or gather in the community to express our religious beliefs. It is not about preventing a pastor from reading out certain sections of the Bible. In fact, following the passage of Bill C-9, religious services and ceremonies in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming would continue just as they are proceeding now. That is because the right to express our faith is fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under our charter, the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs will never be a crime.

What I think has made religious leaders and people in our communities a bit nervous is that there is a clause, the good-faith clause, present in the Criminal Code that would be removed as part of the amendments proposed to the bill. The clause was enacted in 1974, and in the 55 years it has been active, it has never been successfully used because courts have said the defence is redundant.

Sincerely held religious beliefs communicated accurately and in good faith will never constitute the promotion of hate. This good-faith clause was further rendered unnecessary, or as I say, obsolete, when in 1982, Canada approved the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why the good-faith clause would be removed as part of a revision process for the Criminal Code.

It is in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that our freedom of conscience and religion is guaranteed. It protects our right to hold, openly declare and manifest beliefs through worship, practice and teaching. The Supreme Court of Canada, in its interpretation of the charter, has long made clear that expressing sincerely held religious beliefs, even when those beliefs are very controversial, does not constitute the promotion of hatred.

Nonetheless, people are worried, and it is important to know that. That is why I thank the many residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming who have expressed their concerns, and in turn, I am very happy to advise that they have been heard.

After listening to feedback from religious leaders and parishioners, people from across Canada, an amendment has been proposed to the legislation that adds a certainty clause clarifying that peaceful religious expression is not captured by the legislation. This amendment would further reassure people what Canadian courts have consistently recognized, which is that peaceful practice and expression of religion are fully protected under the charter.

This is what good governance is all about. It is about listening to citizens, consultations and improved legislation. That is why I fully support Bill C-9. In a nutshell, for me, it is all about tackling that ugly, hate-motivated intimidation or unacceptable, hate-motivated violence that we are seeing in certain Canadian communities. To do that, the legislation would introduce three measures.

First, the legislation would create a new hate crime offence to be added to existing criminal acts when an act has been committed because of hatred. Moving forward, when a criminal act, such as an assault or vandalism, is committed, it would allow further prosecution if it was done because of hatred. It would also make the offence more serious. I should point out that, as my colleague has said, hatred has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is being codified in the proposed Criminal Code amendment.

The second aspect of the legislation is that it targets the deliberate promotion of hatred through extremist symbols that are used to spread violence and violent ideas. At the same time, it includes clear exceptions for legitimate use, such as education or historical discussion. The intention is not to censor discussion, but to prevent the deliberate promotion of hatred.

Third, it would strengthen protections for places of worship, churches, schools and community centres by making it a criminal offence to intimidate or obstruct people from entering those places. Finally, as mentioned, it would add a “greater certainty” clause that would clarify that peaceful religious expression is not captured by the legislation.

For me, this is good legislation that is required, and I will say why. In recent years, hate crimes have more than doubled across Canada. Police services across our country are sounding the alarm, but police departments alone cannot solve the problem. They need a Criminal Code that has their back, a Criminal Code that provides clarity about what a hate crime is, a Criminal Code that would enable them to pursue charges and ensure that it would lead to prosecution. In my province of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police is calling for clarity and consistency in how hate crimes are defined and classified. In other words, they want Bill C-9, as do legal experts and prosecutors.

That is why I tell my colleagues that as a government, we have an obligation to give the professionals who are protecting our communities the tools they need to do their job, but more so, as a government, we have an obligation to ensure that Canadians right across the land are protected from intimidation and violence because of their religious beliefs, ethnicity, sexual orientation or simply who they are.

While I realize this is a sensitive piece of legislation, at the same time, I think it is a grave error to be obstructing this legislation or distorting the facts about Bill C-9. That is why I supported this very important motion this morning. This will provide further opportunities for us, as a government, to examine the legislation, propose amendments and, hopefully, see it go to the Senate where it will again be further examined and debated.

I will close by thanking the 30 expert witnesses who came before the justice committee and provided expert opinions. I also thank the priests, parishioners and the citizens of Nipissing—Timiskaming who provided their comments. I stated that I will be voting in favour of the bill because I believe it would ensure the very thing that Nipissing—Timiskaming residents want, which is to live, worship, learn and gather in our communities, as they are doing now and can continue to do, free of fear, intimidation and violence motivated by hate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is a very serious piece of legislation that deals with combatting hate. The Conservative misinformation that gets pumped out through social media is very harmful.

Today, whether it is with respect to a church, a mosque, a gurdwara or a synagogue, nothing that is taking place today would be prevented in any fashion whatsoever with the passage of Bill C-9. That is an absolute truth. The Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedoms.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the damage caused by the misleading information that is coming out of the Conservative caucus.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just like the member opposite, I have been meeting with many faith groups, and I have shared with them the same information I will share now.

We have something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Religious rights are protected within the charter. I think that relying on some sort of an exemption, which may have been created before the charter existed, is really misleading folks. What we need to focus on is that the charter has very robust protections when it comes to freedom of religion. Bill C-9 would not infringe upon that right whatsoever.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say perfectly clearly what Conservatives have said since the very beginning of the Bill C-9 discussion, which is that we stand united against hate. However, we cannot protect any community from hate with legislation that infringes on their rights. That is why Bill C-9 has been denounced in whole or in part by 350 Muslim organizations this morning, by the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, by the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, by the United Church and by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Why does the member think that these concerns are unwarranted, when representatives of virtually every faith community in Canada have said that Bill C-9 will infringe on their religious liberties?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and giving me an opportunity to speak on this motion. I know my colleagues are still working their way out of the chamber as we end question period, so I am just going to make sure that you are seated and that there is some time and space in the House so that I can speak.

Before I get into my comments, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. She will be speaking for the latter 10 minutes.

The motion deals with Bill C-9, which is a very important piece of legislation that I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to. It is something I am really hopeful will pass through the House as soon as possible. In my role as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, I have some history of working on the various provisions of Bill C-9, which are very much aimed at ensuring that we rid hate from our society and that we take all important necessary steps to ensure that people of all backgrounds and religions, including people who belong to the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith, the Christian faith and any other faiths, feel safe in practising their faith, in living according to their faith and in being able to visit places of worship. Bill C-9 tries to do this.

As many have spoken about in the House, the incidence of hate crimes is rising in Canada. The issues around anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hatred are significant. It is incumbent on all of us to work together, not in a partisan fashion but as Canadians and as parliamentarians, to exercise our responsibility and duty to pass laws that would allow for the safety of our community and that would allow for our Jewish neighbours, our Muslim neighbours and our neighbours from other backgrounds to be able to live peacefully, as we are all supposed to do and as Canada was founded upon. Bill C-9 captures this.

This bill, as many members would know, proposes to do four important things. First, it would create two offences for obstruction and intimidation intended to prevent someone from accessing a place used by an identifiable group. I will speak to that particular provision in detail a little later, because it is something that I have been working on. Second, it would create a new stand-alone hate-motivated offence. Third, it would create an offence for wilfully promoting hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols. Last, it would codify the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” in the Criminal Code.

The most important part of this legislation is around making sure that people are not obstructed or intimidated when trying to access their place of worship, for example, somebody who wants to go to their synagogue on the Sabbath or somebody who wants to go to their mosque for jummah prayers. These are very important rights that we have as Canadians to practise our faith freely without any fear of harassment or intimidation.

This legislation would create a criminal offence around anybody trying to take away that particular freedom. There have been instances in my community here in Ottawa with various important institutions where members of the Jewish community regularly congregate or meet as a social space or even at a long-term care home. The Hillel Lodge, for example, where seniors who are mostly of Jewish faith live, was subject to a protest. Of course, that was extremely traumatizing and troubling for the members of the community.

I have been working very closely with our Jewish community here in Ottawa, for instance, with the Jewish Federation of Ottawa. I want to thank friends like Danya Vered and Adam Silver, who have championed and advocated for this legislation on behalf of the community to ensure that we create provisions and laws in our criminal courts that would not allow something like that to take place and that people can peacefully live their Jewish way of life and be able to practise their faith. Of course, this legislation is not just limited to the Jewish community. It applies to all faith communities.

There has been precedent to do this. This is not something unique. In my former role as the attorney general of Ontario, we brought in similar legislation at the provincial level to protect women accessing abortion clinics or sexual health clinics, so that they would not be harassed or intimidated from accessing the very vital right of access to medical care. We were able to do that through a piece of legislation, a safe access law, that has been held as being charter-compliant.

A similar principle, in my view, has been applied to this legislation, albeit federally, which will apply across the country. Of course, this is not a provincial offence but a criminal offence. However, the aim and the purpose is the same, which is to create safety around specific important places of worship, such as synagogues, mosques, churches, gurdwaras and mandirs. Also, most importantly, it would give an opportunity to individuals to access those places of worship or other important institutions. This is about individual rights.

Another example I will give that I have been quite concerned about in my community has to do with schools. We have had multiple instances in Ottawa Centre, in my community, where an elementary school has been used as a site for people to protest around gender identity. They felt that somehow kids were being brainwashed, that they should not be taught about gender identity and that they should not get an education around health and sexual well-being. They have been using an elementary school as a site of protest, which is highly inappropriate. If people want to protest a curriculum, they should go to the ministry of education or go to the school board's office to protest.

This is an important piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that my constituents have been asking for, for some time. In fact, I started working with them prior to the last federal election. I worked extremely hard to make sure that it would be in the platform of my party, the Liberal Party of Canada. I spoke about it during the election many times. I was really happy to see that it would be a part of Bill C-9, one of the earliest pieces of legislation that the government tabled.

However, in my view, the bill has been dragged all this time by unnecessary filibustering by the opposition. It is highly unacceptable. In fact, it is perpetuating an unsafe environment. We need to make sure that we pass laws like Bill C-9 as quickly as possible, because this is not a partisan issue. This is a matter of making sure that together we are protecting our communities.

I urge all members of the House, particularly my Conservative colleagues who talk a lot about hate crimes, and rightly so, to support Bill C-9 and support this motion, so that we can help build safer communities for everyone in our country.

Public Safety

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we want to protect synagogues, we want to protect community centres and we want to protect places of worship, which is why Bill C-9 is before the House today.

I challenge the member opposite to put his votes behind his words to protect the Jewish community and to protect communities of faith across this country.

Consideration of Government Business No.6

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with something that unites every member of the House: Hatred is corrosive, hatred is destructive and hatred has no place in Canada.

Anyone who has served in uniform, as I did for nearly three decades, has seen the damage hatred can inflict on families, on neighbourhoods and on entire communities. Hatred tears at the social fabric. It replaces trust with suspicion. It turns neighbour against neighbour. We cannot afford that in our country, because from the very beginning, our country has tried to stand for something better.

Canada has often been described as the peaceful kingdom, not because we are naive about the world but because we believe in something profound, which is that people of different cultures, different faiths and different traditions can live together in peace. That belief is part of the Canadian character. It is who we are, and it is something worth protecting.

Throughout our history, Canada has tried to stand against bigotry and hatred. We welcomed people fleeing persecution. We opened doors to those seeking freedom and opportunity. Generation after generation of newcomers arrived here with hope in their hearts. They came to work. They came to build. They came to raise families and contribute to this country. They built our railways. They worked our farms. They built our factories and our cities. They opened businesses and strengthened our neighbourhoods, and they brought with them traditions, languages, cultures, faiths and values that added rich and vibrant colours to our Canadian story.

Canada has become stronger because of them, but Canada has also given something precious in return: a fair chance. It offered a fair chance to work and be rewarded, a fair chance to build a life and a fair chance to belong. In return, Canada expected and we demanded something simple from folks: that those who come here respect the laws of this country, contribute to its success and strengthen the communities they join. That balance of opportunity paired with responsibility has always been at the heart of the Canadian promise. When that balance is respected, communities flourish.

Hatred has never had a rightful place in that story. There must be zero tolerance for hatred in Canada. However, here is the part that does not always fit neatly in a press release or a media scrum: We cannot fight hatred with slogans. We fight it with clear laws, enforceable rules and the courage to apply those laws fairly and consistently, which is where Bill C-9 raises serious concerns.

I speak today not only as a member of Parliament, but as someone who spent nearly three decades serving as a police officer. When Parliament passes laws, it is not politicians who enforce them. It is the officer responding to the call at 2 a.m. in the morning. It is the constable standing in a tense situation, surrounded on all sides, trying to keep the peace while protecting the rights of everyone involved. The men and women doing that job every day understand something very clearly: The laws have to be clear, they have to be practical, and they have to be something that can be applied in confidence in real time.

When legislation becomes vague or uncertain, hesitation sets in. Hesitation is the worst operational environment we can create for a police officer, because when officers hesitate, situations can and do get out of control. Communities lose confidence, and the law itself loses credibility.

After nearly three decades in policing, I learned something very simple about hatred. Most of the time, it does not begin with an act of violence. It begins with something much smaller: a careless word, a rumour, a moment when people stop seeing each other as neighbours. If those moments are not addressed with wisdom and leadership, they grow. That is why this issue demands more than legislation. It demands judgment. It demands restraint. Above all, it demands that we remember the kind of country we are trying to protect.

At this point in the debate, I think it is useful to ask a larger question, not just about the bill but about the kind of country we want to remain. Are we a country that responds to every social tension with another piece of legislation, or are we a country that strengthens the institutions that already protect our freedoms, our laws, our courts, our police services and the shared values that hold our society together?

Hatred is not simply a legal problem. It is often a social problem, a cultural problem and sometimes an economic problem. While the law has an important role to play, legislation alone cannot rebuild trust between citizens. That work requires leadership. It requires responsibility. It requires policies that strengthen communities rather than divide them.

Canadians are very practical people. They believe in fairness. They believe in responsibility, and they believe in common sense. They expect their Parliament to pass laws that are clear, enforceable and respectful of the freedoms that define the country, and so do police officers. They expect leadership that addresses the real causes of division in our society, not legislation that sounds good in a press release but leaves the deeper problems untouched. Strong communities are not built by government legislation. They are built by strong families, responsible leadership and laws that are applied fairly and consistently to everyone.

We must also be honest about something else. Hatred does not grow in a vacuum. It grows when people feel the system around them is no longer working for them. Over the past number of years, many Canadians have felt the pressures on housing, jobs and public services. These pressures have increased dramatically. They see rents rising. They see young people struggling to find entry-level work. They see communities changing faster than the infrastructure around them can support them. In that environment, frustration grows.

Let us be clear about something. The newcomer who arrives in Canada is not the problem. They came here because Canada invited them. They believed in the promise that the country had to offer. As my mother used to say, every person that comes here has a stomach attached to them. They need to work. They need to eat. They are trying to build a better life for their family.

Over the past decade, immigration levels and international students have expanded dramatically, often without proper planning for housing, infrastructure or labour market needs. In some cases, we have seen institutions treating international students less like students and more like a revenue stream or an ATM machine. When policies are disconnected from realities on the ground, resentment and discontent grows, and the pressure builds. That grievance is often exploited by those who thrive on division. If we are serious about confronting hatred, we must also be serious about addressing the real policy failures that created the conditions in which that hatred grew. It is the consequences of this growth of hatred that are showing up in our communities and eventually on police officers' desks.

Canada has always been a country where different faiths and cultures live side by side. Diversity of belief is not weakness. It is one of our greatest strengths, but diversity only thrives when it rests on shared values, values like respect, responsibility, fairness and love of country. For many Canadians, love of country is part of their faith. Sir John A. Macdonald once reminded us, “Let us be English or let us be French, but...let us be Canadians” first.

That wisdom still speaks to us today. Just yesterday evening, I had the privilege of attending iftar dinner with the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. Their message was simple: love for all and hatred for none. That message reflects the very best of Canada. Coexisting peacefully is part of the Canadian creed. Standing together is how we protect it. We are a country where different people and different traditions can live together, a country where freedom of conscience is protected. That is the Canada I believe in.

My prayer is for peace in our country. I am proud to be a Canadian, and it is an honour to stand in the House on behalf of the good people of Windsor West. They are magnificent Canadians who work hard, who show resilience and courage, and who continue forward no matter the challenges they face. I am truly grateful to represent them.

More importantly, the people of Windsor and people across this country want us to work together to ensure Canada remains what it has always aspired to be: a country where people live side by side in peace, respect and dignity. In the end, hatred has no place in Canada. Respect does.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just last week almost 300 people came out to a Bill C-9 religious freedoms town hall, and in the last half an hour, I have had a flood of emails. Shutting down debate in committee goes against everything that these people want from their members of Parliament. I would like to ask a question of my fellow member. We hear a lot of talk from the other side that we are obstructionists and that we are doing this and doing that. They have done today exactly what they said we are doing.

In my mind, the opposition is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and I would like the member to comment on the actions taken today. Are they demonstrating a healthy democracy?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member opposite listened to the religious leaders, stakeholders, associations or even his own Minister of Justice. He also mentioned he wants to talk to residents regarding Bill C-9. Religious leaders, faith associations and stakeholders across Canada have expressed concern about the lack of clear protection of the religious defence. They want assurance that Canadians of faith can continue to live, teach and defend their beliefs freely under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the residents of Brampton West to oppose the Liberal government's plan to shut down debate on Bill C-9.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

Let us be clear about what this motion would do: It would limit debate, it would limit scrutiny, and it would rush legislation through Parliament. This motion is not about efficiency; it is about control. The government wants to move this bill forward quickly before Canadians fully understand its consequences. That is not collaboration. That is not transparency, and that certainly is not respect for Parliament. This has become the governing style of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada. When concerns are raised, they shorten debate. When stakeholders speak up, they limit committee study. When Parliament asks questions, they impose programming motions. That is not confidence in the legislation. That is fear of scrutiny.

This chamber exists for a reason. Parliament is not meant to be a rubber stamp for the executive branch. It is meant to be a place where legislation is tested, improved, challenged and sometimes even stopped if it is flawed. Members of the Conservative Party of Canada believe Parliament exists to test legislation, not rubber-stamp it. We believe members of Parliament must have time to debate, committees must hear witnesses, stakeholders must be heard and Canadians must know that their fundamental rights are protected before laws are passed. That is why this motion is so troubling. Serious concerns have already been raised about the impacts of Bill C-9, especially when it comes to religious freedom and the ability of faith communities to defend their beliefs.

This is not speculation. Across Canada, religious leaders, faith associations and community stakeholders have spoken up. They have asked for clarity. They have asked for protection. They have asked for assurance that the rights of faith communities will not be weakened. Christian leaders have spoken. Jewish organizations have raised concerns. Muslim scholars have expressed caution. Sikh and Hindu associations have asked questions. These communities are not asking for privilege. They are asking for protection. They want to know that people of faith in Canada will still have the right to live according to their beliefs and to defend those beliefs without fear.

I am incredibly proud to represent Brampton West. Brampton is an incredibly diverse city, both culturally and religiously. Brampton is part of the greater Toronto area, which is often referred to as the most culturally diverse area in the world. I am sure other members from the GTA will agree with that title too. In the GTA, it has been said that there are immigrants who come from every single nation on this planet.

My community of Brampton is a great example of Canada's multi-faith mosaic. Every year, thousands of new Canadians immigrating from other countries around the world move to the GTA and to Brampton. They bring with them their unique cultural and religious practices. Canada's multi-faith nature is part of our heritage. In my community, people from all walks of life go to pray at gurdwaras, churches, mosques, mandirs and synagogues. They exist as neighbours and friends. That is Canada and Brampton at their best.

Religious leaders in my community do not seek to advance hate. They seek to advance the value of inclusion, collective responsibility and service to one another as stated by all faiths. For religious leaders, religion is about love, not hate. The right to advance one's belief is not a political preference. It is a constitutional right. It is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2 of the charter guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. That means Canadians have the right to practice their faith, the right to teach their beliefs, the right to organized institutions based on those beliefs and the right to defend those beliefs publicly and legally.

Those protections are fundamental to our democracy. When legislation potentially affects those freedoms, Parliament has a duty to proceed carefully. That means more debate, more witnesses and more scrutiny, not less, yet this programming motion does exactly the opposite. It cuts off debate. It limits testimony, and it weakens Parliament's ability to fully examine the implications of this bill.

I want to say something very clearly. When I ran for office and asked Bramptonians for their trust, I made a promise to stand up for fundamental freedoms, to defend the rights of faith communities and to be the champion for religious freedom in this Parliament. That promise did not end on election day. It continues every day I serve in this chamber. As a member of Parliament, I will continue to be a strong voice for religious freedom and Brampton West residents. I will continue to defend the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to ensure that the concerns of faith communities are heard in the House.

Faith communities contribute enormously to Canada. Churches run food banks. Religious charities serve the homeless. Faith-based organizations provide shelter, counselling and support for the vulnerable. They strengthen the social fabric of our country. When those communities raise concerns about legislation, Parliament should listen. In a country as diverse as Canada, we must address these concerns. Religious leaders in Brampton and from coast to coast to coast deserve to be heard. Ultimately, listening to them strengthens our democracy. Instead, the government is trying to rush the process. Why the rush? Why limit debate when fundamental freedoms are involved? Why prevent faith leaders from being fully heard?

Strong legislation can withstand scrutiny. Strong legislation listens to Canadians and welcomes debate, but the government seems determined to do the opposite. Under the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party of Canada continues to treat Parliament as an obstacle instead of a democratic safeguard. It prefers speed over scrutiny, control over accountability and process over principle. Canadians deserve better.

The Conservative Party of Canada will not support this approach. We believe religious freedom must always be protected. We believe faith communities deserve a voice in this Parliament and that members of Parliament must have time to examine legislation that could affect fundamental rights. Democracy does not get stronger when debate is shut down. It gets stronger when debate is open, serious and thorough. Therefore, the government should withdraw this programming motion, allow Parliament to do its job, faith leaders to testify and Canadians to be heard. When fundamental freedoms are at stake, rushing legislation is not leadership. It is reckless.

For those reasons, I oppose this motion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am struggling with Bill C-9 because I think the definitions are so vague and there is so much discretion that the bill may not survive court challenges later.

Does the hon. member not think it would be better to take the time here to debate it and get the bill right than to see it defeated in the court later?

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, communities across Canada have been very clear that hate-motivated intimidation is increasing and they want stronger protections. This legislation, Bill C-9, responds to real experiences, from intimidation outside places of worship to harassment targeting cultural and community spaces. Bill C-9 would strengthen the law in practical ways so that when crimes are motivated by hatred towards somebody's identity, the law would recognize and address the harms clearly.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion before the House because the issue at the centre of this debate is not procedural tactics. It is the safety and dignity of Canadians.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 19, 2025. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights shortly thereafter. Since that time, Parliament has debated the bill, the committee has studied it, witnesses have testified, and amendments have been proposed. The legislation has been examined in detail. In total, Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying Bill C-9.

This is serious scrutiny. This is how Parliament is supposed to work. However, scrutiny must eventually lead to a decision. This motion simply ensures that the House can complete its work and that Canadians will finally see Parliament vote on legislation designed to confront hate and intimidation in our communities.

The core purpose of Bill C-9 is straightforward: to strengthen Canada's response to hate-motivated intimidation and violence. It would do this in three practical ways. First, it would create offences that prevent individuals from blocking or intimidating people who are trying to enter places like synagogues, mosques, churches, schools and community centres. Second, it would create a stand-alone hate-motivated offence so that when crimes are committed because of hatred toward somebody's identity, the law would recognize the harm clearly. Third, it would address the public display of hate symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities.

These are not abstract problems. They are real experiences that communities across Canada have been facing. We have seen synagogues targeted, mosques threatened and cultural centres vandalized. We have seen people harassed simply for walking into places that represent their identity and community.

We have seen something else as well. We have seen hate directed at 2SLGBTQIA+ Canadians increase in recent years. As an openly gay member of Parliament, I know personally that hatred is not an abstract concept. It is not something that exists only in statistics or reports. It is something that people experience in their daily lives. It can appear in threats, as intimidation and sometimes in the form of people showing up outside places where communities gather to try to send a message that certain people do not belong.

Canada is not that kind of country. Canada is a country where everyone should be able to live openly and safely. It should not matter whether somebody is Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or atheist. It should not matter whether somebody is Black, indigenous, Asian or from any other background. It should not matter whether somebody is straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or questioning. In Canada, every person deserves to live free from fear. This is what Bill C-9 is about.

It is also important to understand how this bill came to be. In December 2024, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report entitled “Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It”. The report contained a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada's response to hate. Many of those recommendations were reflected directly in Bill C-9. In other words, this legislation is not a surprise. It is the result of a government that listens and actions. It reflects recommendations that were supported by members across party lines. Despite that foundation, the bill has been repeatedly delayed.

Opposition parties play a crucial role in our democracy. Their job is to question legislation, to challenge it and to improve it. In many cases, this is exactly what happens in committee. The job of the opposition is not to stall legislation forever. The job of Parliament is to debate, scrutinize and then decide. Unfortunately, what we have seen in committee over the past several months has not always reflected that principle.

The Conservatives have raised repeated points of order. They have challenged rulings of the chair. They have attempted to reopen settled motions. On one occasion, a Conservative member spoke for two hours about dogs and cats instead of allowing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill to begin. Canadians expect better than that.

They expect Parliament to treat serious issues with seriousness, because while Parliament debates procedure, Canadians are facing real threats. Jewish Canadians have reported intimidation outside synagogues. Muslim Canadians have experienced harassment near mosques. Black Canadians have faced racism in public spaces. Asian Canadians have been targeted by hateful rhetoric. 2SLGBTQIA+ Canadians have seen protests and intimidation directed at community spaces. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a troubling pattern. Communities across Canada have been clear about what they want Parliament to do. They want stronger protections and clear laws. They want Parliament to act. Bill C-9 is part of that response.

Some of the debate around the bill has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let me be very clear about this. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that protection is not changing. Courts in Canada have consistently confirmed that hate propaganda offences require a very high legal threshold. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. In fact, the religious exemption provision itself has never been relied upon in a prosecution.

Nevertheless, when concerns were raised by faith communities, the government listened. In response, a “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to confirm that peaceful religious expression, including sermons, teachings and discussions of scripture, is not captured by the legislation. This is how Parliament should work. Concerns were raised, clarifications were introduced, and collaboration took place. However, even after that effort, obstruction continued.

The motion before us today is not about limiting debate. Debate has already happened, with more than 30 hours of debate and more than 30 witnesses heard at committee, for a bill that is only eight pages long. This is thorough scrutiny by any reasonable standard. The motion simply ensures that Parliament can complete the work and move forward to a vote. At some point, democracy requires decisions. Communities cannot wait forever while Parliament debates procedure.

The question before us is very simple. Should Parliament be allowed to vote on legislation designed to protect Canadians from hate and intimidation? I believe the answer to the question should be yes. The Canada I believe in is a country where diversity is our strength and where people of every background can live openly and safely. It is a country where no one should feel afraid to walk into their schools, places of worship or community centres. It is a country where Parliament stands up clearly against hatred.

This bill is a meaningful step forward. It sends a message that intimidation, harassment and hate-motivated violence have no place in Canada. After months of debate and delay, it is time for Parliament to do its job. It is time to move forward. It is time to vote.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of misinformation with respect to Bill C-9. When I look at Bill C-9, I see it as a very positive piece of legislation dealing with hate crime, but let us be very clear. There is nothing that is taking place in the Sikh gurdwaras, Christian churches, mosques or synagogues that would be impacted by the passage of Bill C-9. Bill C-9 is there to protect.

I appreciate what the member has been saying, and I am wondering if he could provide his personal assurance, given his background, as to why people of faith have nothing to worry about in terms of restricting religions, in particular with the Canadian Charter of Rights.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑9 is designed to prevent religious texts from being used to incite hatred, but by no means does it prohibit anyone from reading or referring to religious texts.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burnaby Central.

I am very pleased to address the House today with respect to the combatting hate act, which is a law that would protect all Canadians better.

However, we need to talk about how we got to the combatting hate act. As a member of the Jewish community of Canada, I would have to start with the fact that since October 7, 2023, the Jewish community of Canada has faced an increasing barrage of hate. It goes up and it goes down, but the fact is that one group that represents 1.2% of the Canadian population faces 70% of religion-based hate crimes. It is a fact that this group has had its synagogues shot at three times in the last week. It is a fact that this group has had schools shot at. It is a fact that this group has had people standing outside its community centres, its schools and its synagogues, yelling vile chants, blaming the people in the building for what is happening across the world and telling the people in the building they should go back to Poland, when many of us have been in this country for six and seven generations or more. We have been here since the beginning of this country. We are as Canadian as anyone else, and the idea that we should be told to go back to somewhere else is beyond belief and beyond any reasonable comment.

Therefore, when we hear outside of our synagogues and schools chants that call for our destruction and call for our demise, that is not okay. When people say “globalize the intifada”, which is a call by Hamas to call for the destruction of the Jewish people, not only in Israel but across the world, that is not okay.

We got to this place in a way that was really, really bad. We saw hate in this country going way up, against Jews but against other groups as well. We have had shootings at a mosque in Quebec City. We have had a couple of Muslims killed in London, Ontario. We have had Christian churches burned across this country. We have had protests, unfair ones, outside of gurdwaras and temples. This law is meant to protect.

Last year, witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. One of the committee members is the MP for Rivière‑du‑Nord. Conservative Party MPs were there too. We studied anti-Semitism in Canada to figure out what we should do to improve our laws and prevent hatred in our country. We made recommendations. I will read four of the committee's recommendations, which are in Bill C‑9.

Recommendation 10 is “That the federal Parliament consider creating a new intimidation offence under the Criminal Code to more clearly and directly protect entrance to and exit from community buildings such as schools, places of worship and community centers, in addition to existing offences that may apply in situations where such buildings are being blocked.”

Recommendation 15 is “That the Government of Canada consider removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the provincial Attorney General in order to prosecute certain hate crimes.” At the committee, we have agreed to drop that, but that was in the bill, and it was recommended by the committee.

Recommendation 16 is “That the Government of Canada take steps to ban the display of symbols of terrorist organizations that are listed under the Criminal Code.” That is in the bill.

Recommendation 17 is “That the Government of Canada work with police forces across the country to develop a standardized definition of 'hate crime'”. That standardized definition of hate is in the bill, and we have agreed with our colleagues in both other parties to amend the bill to ensure that the definition is in line with Keegstra.

As a result of those recommendations, Jewish organizations across the country, including the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, B'nai Brith Canada, Canadian Women Against Antisemitism and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, have put out joint statements calling on the House and members of Parliament to work together to pass this bill.

I would also note that the issue is even more pressing, given the situation last weekend with the three shootings at synagogues in Toronto. There was a press conference on Sunday that was attended by representatives of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, as well as members of the Ontario government, the Toronto city government and police forces of different jurisdictions. There was a commitment made by everybody to a non-partisan approach to tackling the horrible anti-Semitism being faced by Canadian Jews today.

Every Canadian has a right to feel safe and be safe in Canada, and that includes the Jewish community. I was hoping, and I very much had hoped, that type of press conference would convince my colleagues across the aisle to support the bill.

This bill is the number one thing that has been asked for by the Jewish community in order to confront anti-Semitism. It has all of the elements there, so it is a bit disappointing today to hear that my colleagues across the aisle are still not prepared to support the bill.

I want to say that the arguments they are making about religious freedom are not correct. I will read the words of Joseph Neuberger, who is a criminal lawyer with Neuberger and Partners LLP, the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association and also a Conservative Party supporter, as he declares in this article. He says:

Bill C-9 doesn't threaten religious freedom. It draws a necessary line.

Bill C-9 does not regulate belief, worship, sermons or religious teaching. It does not criminalize disagreement or political debate.

Claims that Bill C-9, The Combatting Hate Act, threatens religious freedoms in Canada are false. They are not supported by the bill itself, by the Constitution, or by decades of court decisions.

More than that, the claim that Bill C-9 undermines religious freedom is not a matter of interpretation or reasonable disagreement—it is misinformation. 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.

This defence is used only by people charged with promoting hatred. The threshold is very high. 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.

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. I really hope that people will reconsider and we can all pass the bill.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first acknowledge our Jewish communities that have been victims of recent shootings in Toronto taking place at synagogues. The rise in anti-Semitism has only worsened since the attacks on October 7. These are attacks that are already illegal and that nothing in Bill C-9 would have prevented from occurring. That is why I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-9 and, more specifically, the deal made by the Liberals and the Bloc to eliminate Criminal Code safeguards for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They are now imposing closure on that very important debate.

Over the past 17 years that I have served as a member of Parliament, there have been many issues that have caused deep concern for constituents. Using the measurement of the volume of emails that I receive on any given issue, I can attest that some issues appear to be greater than others. Whether I agree with the opinions expressed in the emails or not, I recognize that constituents have demonstrated that they are deeply passionate enough about an issue to go the extra mile to communicate their opinion to their member of Parliament.

With that context, I want to put on the record that the Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 is a genuinely huge and alarming issue.

My inbox has been flooded with emails from constituents, the likes of which are equal in number only to the number of emails I received when the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act in February 2022. Key among constituents' concerns with the amendment is that with the new definition of hate in Bill C-9 and the removal of the religious defence, it would be easier for people to be prosecuted over religious expression. The ambiguity the bill would create about where the line should be drawn on hate speech would have a chilling effect on discussions about contentious issues.

The following are just a couple of excerpts from emails I have received. Here is one: “As recently as last week and even this morning I have been hearing some troubling news about an amendment to Bill C-9 that does not seem to be good news for our community of faith or our country. As a pastor in a church of the Sask Valley, I think we should raise our voice of disapproval to the amendment that could happen very soon.”

Here is another: “I am writing because I've heard the Justice Committee is reviewing Bill C-9 and may be asked to consider amending the bill to remove the good faith religious belief defense from section 319(3) of the Criminal Code. This defense isn't overused or misused. It's an important protection for minority religious communities like the one I belong to. Removing this defense would marginalize religious Canadians and send the message that their beliefs are less protected in Canada. Please don't allow Bill C-9 to be changed to remove this defense. Thank you for standing against this attempt to restrict our religious freedoms.”

By removing the religious defence and removing Attorney General consent for laying a hate speech charge, the Liberals would be sending a signal to the courts, law enforcement and activist groups that religious teaching is fair game for criminal prosecution. To be clear, the issue is not whether faith leaders should be free to spread hate but rather how hate is defined and how the new law would be applied.

Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and not subject to the religious defence that Bill C-9 proposes to remove. The religious defence has never shielded hate or incitement to violence but has served as an essential safeguard for Canadians of all religious traditions, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and others, who seek to express their sincerely held beliefs in peaceful, responsible ways.

I believe that the removal of the defence would represent a serious shift in the relationship between the state and freedom of religion in Canada. Its removal would risk chilling legitimate religious expression, creating legal uncertainty for faith communities, empowering subjective or inconsistent enforcement and undermining confidence in Canada's commitment to pluralism and freedom.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. These guarantees were enshrined in law to ensure that Canadians can live out their beliefs even when those beliefs are unpopular or run counter to cultural trends.

Respecting diverse beliefs and protecting freedoms is essential to any healthy democracy, and it is something we take pride in here in Canada. The proposed change to Bill C-9 risks eroding that foundation. While it is not surprising that this amendment was put forward by the Bloc, what is shocking is that the Liberal Party of Canada has acceded to this amendment that would completely undermine the charter. Perhaps this is why so many Canadians are taken aback. More than an assault on specific religions that have sacred texts, which some secularists might find offensive, the Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 is an assault on the idea of what it means to be a free country.

Let us be clear: The right of freedom to expression and freedom of religion is connected to the freedom of what someone can think. The government has laws already in existence that would allow it to prosecute hate crimes, and blaming our laws for why politicians from the Liberal Party have left our judges and police officers without the public backing to enforce those laws that exist is wrong.

Despite the government's attempt to gloss over this amendment, there is no way the amendment would be anything but a stripping away of the rights of Canadians. The Supreme Court has recognized the religious defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. When it made this ruling, the highest court in Canada understood how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are.

The good-faith religious defence protects minorities and those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Is the government signalling to Canadians that it does not believe they function in good faith? We are a nation built upon peace, order and good governance. I do not believe that as parliamentarians we have the right to ask that Canadians assume we govern in good faith, while removing provisions that protect their freedoms under the assumption that Canadians themselves do not operate in good faith.

While Liberals continue to insist that their new bill is needed to protect religious Canadians from hate, removing the religious freedom safeguard from the Criminal Code would not make them safer. It would not protect anyone, least among them people of faith, from hate. Instead, it would expose them to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting from their own sacred texts.

I would not be speaking today if I did not feel truly concerned by the monumental change this amendment would have in Canadian society. I know it. Canadians know it. Perhaps most concerning is that the government knows it but does not appear to care.

Despite all this, Conservatives asked the government to split Bill C-9 to quickly move through provisions and protections for places of worship, protections for cultural centres and offences related to intimidation. The Liberals have instead chosen to shut down debate on such a significant change to the Criminal Code in its removal of religious protections. At a time when Canada should be standing shoulder to shoulder, united, the Liberals have chosen to prioritize passing such a divisive piece of legislation.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Bill C-9 did not start out as a debate about religious freedom. It was presented as a modernization measure, a technical reform that we were told would strengthen protections against hatred while ensuring that Canada remained a country defined by tolerance, pluralism and mutual respect. That, at least, was the stated objective when the bill first came to Parliament, yet the legislation has changed in a way that few Canadians anticipated. Even fewer were properly consulted.

During committee, the Liberal government, supported by the Bloc, voted to remove from the Criminal Code a safeguard that has existed for decades, a provision that recognizes that the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs, when offered in good faith, does not constitute criminal hate speech.

This safeguard was not accidental wording inserted into the law without deep reflection. It represents Parliament's understanding that Canada is home to citizens whose deepest convictions are shaped by many different faith traditions, stretching back centuries. These are traditions that speak openly about morality, human dignity, family life and social responsibility, in ways that may at times challenge prevailing cultural opinion. In acknowledging this reality, the Criminal Code drew an important distinction that disagreement, even profound disagreement, must never be confused with criminal intent.

When religious communities across Canada began raising concerns about the removal of this safeguard, and these were concerns voiced by Jewish congregations, Christian churches, Muslim organizations, Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and Buddhist communities, the government responded by introducing what it described as clarifying language to assure Canadians that nothing essential had changed and that religious expression would remain protected under the bill. However, when we take a closer look at this so-called clarification, a fundamental question arises. If religious expression truly remains protected, if sermons, scripture reading, theological teaching and moral discussions are still lawful, then why remove the explicit protection that guaranteed that certainty in the Criminal Code in the first place?

For decades, the Criminal Code contained something very concrete, a good-faith religious defence that recognized that sincerely held religious teachings, expressed honestly and without the intent to promote hatred or violence, fell outside criminal sanction. That clarity mattered not only because it guided prosecutors when deciding whether charges were appropriate, but also because it reassured ordinary Canadians that the practice of their faith, expressed peacefully and in good conscience, would not suddenly expose them to criminal charges, yet the government now proposes to replace that certainty with verbal reassurances alone, asking Canadians simply to trust that their freedom remains secure, even as the explicit protection that guaranteed them is removed from the law. However, verbal reassurance is not the same thing as protection, so I rise today with a sober sense of duty because the responsibility now falls to the members of the House to defend the religious freedom of Canadians.

Over the past weeks and months, thousands of Canadians, pastors, rabbis, imams, community leaders and ordinary citizens, have taken the time to call and write their members of Parliament, expressing deep concern about this bill and asking that it not proceed in its current form. Despite those voices, the government has chosen to press ahead, even shutting down debate in an ironic twist of government censorship of free speech.

If the government were confident that Bill C-9 represented sound legislation capable of withstanding careful examination, it would welcome debate and allow amendments to be discussed openly. It would permit members of Parliament to do the work Canadians sent them here to do, to examine legislation thoughtfully before it becomes law. Instead, the government that insists Bill C-9 is necessary to regulate harmful speech is now censoring debate on its own censorship bill.

Religious freedom holds a unique place among our democratic liberties because it speaks not simply to opinion but to belief, to the deeply held convictions through which people understand duty, morality and the meaning of their lives. History shows us again and again that, when governments attempt to control belief, even claiming to preserve harmony or protect the public good, the result is rarely unity and almost never justice. Over centuries, societies have learned that peace in diverse countries is not achieved by forcing everyone to agree but by allowing people with very different beliefs to live together without fear that the state will dictate what they must believe.

History gives us a lot of examples of what happens when governments try to control belief. A friend of mine recently shared the story of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of the Sikh faith. In the 17th century, during a time of increasing religious pressure in Mughal India, Hindu families from Kashmir were being forced to abandon their faith and convert under the authority of the state. Desperate to preserve their freedom, they travelled long distances seeking someone who would defend their right to follow their beliefs. They turned to Guru Tegh Bahadur, a Sikh spiritual leader, because they believed he understood something essential, which is that freedom of conscience belongs to every person.

Guru Tegh Bahadur could have chosen silence and avoided a confrontation with imperial power, yet he understood that, once a government claims the authority to dictate the beliefs of one community, the freedom of everyone becomes vulnerable. Knowing that risk, he refused demands that he convert or force others to convert. For taking that stand in defence of the right of a faith community to exist, he was imprisoned and ultimately executed in Delhi in 1675.

For this reason, he is remembered in Sikh tradition as the shield of India, because his sacrifice protected the freedom of others. His life reminds us of a truth that reaches across centuries and cultures, which is that religious liberty cannot be divided. When it is taken from one group, it eventually becomes fragile for everyone. That lesson echoes throughout history, because societies thrive when people are free to speak openly about their convictions, even when those convictions challenge the thinking of the day. Many ideas we now celebrate as moral progress began as minority voices standing against the consensus of their time.

I want to be very clear about why I raise this example. The point is simple, and it is that moral arguments, including those shaped by faith, have always been a part of public life, and history shows that silencing those voices cost society dearly. Few stories show this more clearly than the life of William Wilberforce.

At the height of the British Empire, the transatlantic slave trade was deeply embedded in the global economy, with powerful institutions defending it and many believing Britain's prosperity depended upon it. To oppose slavery at that time was widely seen as extreme, yet Wilberforce, guided by his Christian faith, believed moral responsibility required action. He began a decades-long struggle in Parliament, standing year after year to argue for abolition, all while facing defeat, ridicule and warnings that his efforts threatened Britain's economy. For nearly 20 years, his efforts failed, but perseverance eventually prevailed when Parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807.

What began as an unpopular moral conviction ultimately reshaped law and history. The lesson is clearly that freedom of expression does not exist simply to protect views that are comfortable or widely accepted, but to protect the voices that challenge the thinking of the moment. The lesson is not that every moral argument wins, but that a free society must allow those arguments to be made.

Canada's success as a pluralistic society rests on that principle. People came here seeking the freedom to live according to conscience, bringing different languages, cultures and faith traditions, which could exist side by side because the law did not demand ideological conformity. Faith communities helped build our country precisely because they were free. Long before government programs existed, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and gurdwaras helped establish hospitals, schools, food banks, shelters and charitable organizations that continue to serve Canadians today.

Removing religious safeguards from the Criminal Code does not strengthen our democracy; it weakens the legal clarity that allows this pluralism to flourish. Canadian courts have already made it clear that violence, threats and incitement to harm are not protected speech and never have been, which is why these actions are already criminal offences. What the good-faith defence protects is something very different. It is the right of Canadians to express sincerely held beliefs without fear that disagreement itself might one day become a criminal matter.

Canada has never required uniformity of belief to maintain peace. Our strength has always rested on freedom under law and the ability of people with very different convictions to live together without coercion. If the government truly believes religious expression remains protected, then leaving the safeguard in place should present no difficulty because its presence harms no one, while its removal creates uncertainty for many Canadians.

A confident democracy does not silence debate and certainly does not use closure motions to rush through legislation that touches on the freedoms of conscience and expression. In a free country, we respond to ideas we disagree with through debate, persuasion and democratic engagement, not through criminal law and shutting down Parliament to prevent discussion.

Canadians deserve clarity in their law, confidence in their freedoms and a Parliament willing to defend both.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the motion before the House, but also about something larger than procedure. I rise to speak about responsibility, the responsibility we hold as legislators when Canadians are facing real threats in their communities.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced on September 19, 2025. It has been debated in the House. It has been studied at committee. More than 20 witnesses have appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation.

That is what we call serious scrutiny. That is responsible legislative review, yet despite all of that work, the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate and not because the legislation has not been studied, but because procedural tactics have been used to delay the moment when Parliament must make a decision.

I want to speak plainly today. Members of the House are free to oppose legislation. They are free to disagree with provisions. They are free to vote against a clause. They are free to vote against the amendment, and they are free to vote against the entire bill. That is democracy, but democracy also requires that Parliament eventually vote. It cannot function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely through procedural manoeuvres. Members of the opposition have had months to present their arguments. They have had hours and hours and hours to debate. They have had the opportunity to propose amendments throughout many, many months. What they do not have is the right to stall Parliament indefinitely, because while this chamber debates procedure, something else is happening outside these walls.

Communities across Canada are facing rising hate and intimidation. We see it in the data. We see it in police reports, and we see it on the news. Just recently, shots were fired at a synagogue in the greater Toronto area. Shots were fired at a place of worship, a place where people gather and pray, a place where families bring children, a place where Canadians should feel free and protected. That incident is not isolated. Jewish communities have reported rising threats. Mosques have reported rising threats and facing intimidation, and many other religious institutions have been subjected to hate crimes. Community centres from all backgrounds have been targeted, and hateful symbols have appeared outside schools and cultural institutions.

These are not theoretical concerns. They are real events affecting real people. When Canadians see incidents like this, they expect Parliament to respond with seriousness and efficiency. They expect Parliament to strengthen protections, and they expect Parliament to act.

Bill C-9 is part of that response. The legislation does three simple things. First, it creates an offence to prevent people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places like synagogues, mosques, churches, schools, community centres and any other places of worship. Second, it creates a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence, so that when crimes are committed because of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes that harm clearly. Third, it addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities.

These are practical measures. They are targeted measures, and they respond directly to what communities have been asking Parliament to address. The legislation before us is only eight pages long, eight pages, yet Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours studying it. Witnesses have testified. Experts have spoken. Communities have shared their experiences. Amendments have been debated. That is thorough scrutiny by any reasonable standard, yet the delays continue.

Much of the opposition's argument has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us examine that argument carefully. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental. It is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional system, and it is not changing. Courts in Canada have repeatedly confirmed that hate propaganda offences require an extremely high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected.

In fact, the religious exemption provisions that have become the focus of this debate have never been relied upon in a prosecution, not once. The protection for religious expression in Canada comes from the charter and from the high legal threshold built into the Criminal Code of Canada. Nevertheless, concerns were raised, and when those concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression, including sermons, teachings and discussion of scripture, would never be criminalized under this legislation. That clarification was introduced in good faith. It addressed the concern directly, and it reaffirmed what the charter already guarantees, but even after the clarification, the delay continued.

Canadians watching this debate might reasonably ask a simple question. If the Charter protects religious freedom, if the courts already set a very high threshold, and if the bill now contains an explicit clarification protecting religious expression, then why does the delay continue? That is a question members of the opposition should answer, because Canadians expect Parliament to deal honestly with the facts, and the facts are clear: Freedom of religion is protected, and peaceful religious expression is protected.

This legislation targets something entirely different. It targets intimidation. It targets harassment. It targets the deliberate promotion of hatred. When people block the entrance to a synagogue, to a mosque or to any other place of worship to frighten worshippers, that is intimidation. When people surround a mosque, shouting threats, that is intimidation. When hateful symbols are displayed outside synagogues, schools or community centres to frighten families, that is intimidation. Canadians are asking Parliament to respond to that intimidation.

There is another consequence to this ongoing delay that we must acknowledge. Parliament's time is not unlimited. Every hour spent delaying one bill is an hour that cannot be spent advancing other legislation, including legislation addressing public safety, legislation addressing justice reform and legislation addressing economic issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When procedural tactics are used to stall legislation indefinitely, they slow the entire work of Parliament. That is not responsible opposition.

Responsible opposition means debating legislation seriously. Responsible opposition means proposing amendments. Responsible opposition means voting according to one's principles. What it does not mean is preventing Parliament from reaching a decision.

The motion before us today is straightforward. It would not eliminate debate. Debate has already happened for hours and hours and months and months, with more than 30 hours of it just in committee. What this motion would do is ensure that the committee could complete its work and that the House could finally vote on Bill C-9. Every member of the House would then have the opportunity to make their position clear. Those who support confronting hatred would vote for the legislation. Those who oppose would vote against it. That is how democracy functions. Canadians are watching this debate.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is shameful, and we are going to put a stop to that. This would not criminalize the mere display of a symbol, but it would target situations where symbols like Nazi imagery are shown in public with the clear intention of promoting hatred against certain communities. This motion calls on the justice committee to put an end to the obstruction and delay tactics that have prevented progress on the combatting hate act, which has now been before the committee for over six months.

Canadians might be surprised by this delay. After all, much of what is in Bill C-9 comes directly from the December 2024 fighting anti-Semitism report of the justice committee. Many members took part in this committee's hearings. This was a special anti-Semitism report that called for these types of steps to be taken. It called on the government to introduce measures to define “hate”, create a stand-alone hate crime offence and criminalize intimidation targeting religious groups. As a news flash to many Conservative colleagues who took an active part in this committee, all of these measures are in Bill C-9.

Fast-forward from the Conservatives of 2024 to the Conservatives of 2026, and suddenly the very measures they once backed are now being blocked and delayed in committee. Canadians are left asking a simple question: Which Conservatives should they believe, the ones from 2024 who said Parliament must act against hate, or the 2026 Trumpian-style Conservatives who now stand in the way of legislating against the hatred and intimidation our most vulnerable communities are facing?

Parliament has already spent significant time debating this bill. Since September 2025, it has been debated in the House and studied extensively at committee with over 30 witnesses heard, amendments proposed and every clause examined. In total, more than 35 hours have been spent studying a bill that is only eight pages long. We have spent 35 hours studying eight pages. That is thorough scrutiny.

I recognize it may have been tempting for a small number of Conservative MPs to spread false claims that this bill would threaten religious freedom and free speech, and to use those claims to raise a few dollars from faith communities at rallies. Even in the face of that, the Liberals were willing to work with them. We were ready to find common ground and added a clause for greater certainty stating clearly that the right to pray, teach or quote religious texts would not be affected.

After all, we are the party that literally enshrined freedom of religion in one of the most important documents in this country: the charter. Unfortunately, even after we responded to concerns raised by a few Conservative MPs, and even after religious communities from across the country backed this new clarifying amendment and asked Parliament to move forward, Conservatives at the justice committee still kept obstructing.

Canadians see this. Canadians get frustrated when they see Conservative members like the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South spend hours speaking about his admiration for cats and dogs, instead of addressing the issue of hate in this country. The member is the Leader of the Opposition's designated champion on fighting hate, yet this is the same member who previously claimed that the observation of the Polytechnique shooting was a fake holiday, the same member who defended Holocaust deniers on the radio by suggesting that saying the Holocaust never happened is free speech and the same member who stood up for Pegida, a white supremacist organization, after the 2017 Quebec City mosque attack that left six men dead. They were fathers, sons and husbands who were killed while praying by a vile person who admired the same group.

Canadians get frustrated when they see the Conservative member for York Centre waste an entire committee meeting talking about what he had for lunch, while synagogues in his own country, in his own community, are facing threats and while CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, is asking him and Parliament to pass Bill C-9 quickly. The member for York Centre was elected to bring the voice of his community to Parliament. Many people in his community are asking him to support this anti-hate bill that would help keep them safe. Instead of bringing his community's voice to Ottawa, he is bringing his leader's voice back to his community. That is not the duty of a member of Parliament. I believe that the member supports this bill because I have seen him work constructively in committee. I know he appreciated the amendment we introduced to clarify that religious freedom would not be affected by this legislation. I believe he would like to move forward and represent his community, but his leader is telling him not to.

Page 19 of our platform made a clear commitment to Canadians. It promised to criminalize intimidation and obstruction targeting those who simply want to access their community centres and places of worship, and to strengthen protections for communities facing hate-motivated crimes. Canadians, including the people of Carleton, made their choice at the ballot box and want us to implement the commitments in the platform. Bill C-9 delivers on those promises.

For more than six months now, communities across the country have been waiting for Parliament to act. Jewish communities facing rising anti-Semitism, Muslim communities facing Islamophobia, Christians seeing their churches being burned and many other vulnerable communities who simply want to gather, worship and live safely have been asking us to move forward.

That is why this motion calls on the justice committee to finally complete—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

Every Canadian should be able to walk into their place of worship, send their children to school or gather in their community without fear. They should not have to look over their shoulder or wonder whether someone outside is shouting threats, blocking the entrance or intimidating them simply because of who they are, yet for too many Canadians today, that fear is real.

During the last week, I visited synagogue Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto, Temple Emanu-El and the Shaarei Shomayim congregation in Toronto. Those synagogues have been victim to shooting incidents. I also visited the Toronto Islamic Centre, which was recently in the news for receiving threats of a mass shooting. That is precisely why, in September, having seen the rise of hate crimes in our community, our government introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. This legislation is about protecting Canadians and defending a basic principle that in Canada, every person should be able to gather, worship and live in their community without fear or intimidation.

The bill takes three clear steps to make that principle real. First, the bill would create two new offences to stop people from intimidating or blocking others from entering places used by their communities, such as places of worship or community centres. For example, it would make it illegal to block the entrance of a synagogue or mosque to stop people from going inside to pray. We had heard from many community groups that due to the rise in protests happening at places of worship, they needed the federal government to put forward legislation like this so that it could apply across the country. We have seen municipalities and some provinces recently step up, but they had asked the federal government to act. That is exactly what we are doing with this bill.

Second, it would create a stand-alone hate-motivated offence. Right now, if someone attacks a person because of their faith, identity or skin colour, they can be charged with assault, and the hate motive is only considered later at sentencing. This is a very important point. It has been brought up many times here today that this bill would not change anything. That is not true. Right now, the hate motivation would only be considered at sentencing. Under this bill, the hate motive would be recognized in the offence itself from the start, which would then have an impact on bail hearings and many other preliminary hearings.

Third, it would address the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols. This is a very important point that many communities have brought to our attention. There have been, even on Parliament Hill, the display of terrorist symbols at Canada's Parliament.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the position that law enforcement officers and criminal lawyers have taken is that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient to deal with that situation. The government has not put forward any argument to suggest that the changes that would be made by this bill would result in that arrest. In fact, I would be willing to go so far as to predict right now that the day after Bill C-9 is passed, no one would be arrested who could not be arrested today.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are now very familiar with Václav Havel's greengrocer, who displays a sign in his window not because he believes it but because it is what one does, what is familiar and what is required.

In Davos, the Prime Minister talked about taking the sign out of the window. Today, I want to talk about how the sign got there in the first place, because Havel's parable was a warning, a warning about how democracy and freedom degrade when we create a society where people say what they are supposed to say, regardless of what they believe, and about the problems that arise when the only acceptable speech is narrowed to what is written on signs. As many of those who have immigrated to this great country will tell us, where there are signs in windows, the signs always start out fine. The problem is that there inevitably comes a time when the people in charge change the signs, and by the time they do, it is always too late. There is no more room for dissent, and the people who helped put up the signs find that they have become prisoners in the very system they helped build.

The problem is that when the signs first go up, people like them. They are reassuring. They create a sense of moral clarity for the majority whose views are reflected in them, but that comfort comes at an unacceptable cost. When societies begin rewarding the display of approved ideas instead of the honest exchange of them, something essential begins to erode. It surprises me that the government of a Prime Minister who invoked Havel's greengrocer would be allowed to do what it is doing today. Members should make no mistake about it. This motion and the sentiments behind it, along with the bill, are a giant sign in a very small window. That is where the real risks to our society begin.

If the story of Bill C-9 were a play, we would now be in the third act. In the first act, when the bill was introduced, I raised three serious concerns in the chamber, two of which have not been fixed in committee. The first is the vagueness of the bill's definition of hate. Criminal law must be clear and precise. When definitions are vague, they create uncertainty about what speech will be criminalized, and that creates an opportunity for weaponization outside of the criminal system. The second is the reality that the laws we already have in Canada to combat hate and incitement to violence on the basis of hate are not being enforced. Where provincial governments are unwilling or unable to enforce existing words, adding more words is not going to help.

The concerns I expressed were not Conservative. They are shared by a remarkably broad coalition of Canadians. Religious organizations and civil liberties groups from across the political spectrum have raised similar alarms. Groups as diverse as the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the rabbinical council of Toronto all sounded the alarm about the bill's potential impact on freedom of expression and religious liberty. A rabbi, a priest and an imam literally approached the bar of the House of Commons, and the government ignored them. Despite those concerns, we moved the bill to committee because we agreed with its stated objectives. No one in the House supports hatred or violence directed at any community. Canadians expect Parliament to confront both.

That brings us to the second act. At committee, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois amended the bill to remove the long-standing religious defence contained in section 319 of the Criminal Code. This defence protects statements made in good faith on a religious subject based on belief in a religious text. That is where everything went off the rails.

This defence has never protected the deliberate promotion of hatred or calls for violence. It exists to ensure that Canadians can express sincere religious beliefs without fear that their words could be criminalized simply because someone else finds them offensive. It also exists so that dialogue can happen that might cause people to change those views. When the Liberal-Bloc amendment passed, it immediately revealed the danger that many of us had warned about. Within hours, people online were celebrating the change and claiming that individuals could now be prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views. That is not what the law actually says, but the reaction illustrates the chilling effect that the amendment creates. It encourages the belief that the Criminal Code can now be used to silence views that people dislike.

Canada's legal tradition has long recognized the importance of state neutrality in matters of faith. Parliament included the religious defence in the hate propaganda provisions because it understood that criminal law must not be used to police religious doctrine. The state must not edit the Bible. Our courts have recognized that balance. In the Keegstra decision, the Supreme Court upheld Canada's hate propaganda laws in part because of the safeguards Parliament had included, including the protection for good-faith religious expression that the House now seeks to remove.

Parliament has revisited these provisions several times over the decades, as new groups were added to the Criminal Code. Each time, members across party lines concluded that protecting vulnerable communities and protecting freedom of religion must go hand in hand. Removing that safeguard continues to risk upsetting a constitutional balance that has been carefully managed for decades.

Then, during the parliamentary break, something interesting happened. The government began hearing from Canadians who did not want the sign in the window. Canadians from across the political and religious spectrum were alarmed at the direction the bill has taken. One might have expected the government to reflect and reconsider, but instead it decided to shut down debate on its own bill, just a few minutes ago, which brings us to the third act.

We are now debating Bill C-9 under time constraints because the government is determined to pass it quickly, even if that means passing it in a way that restricts our ability to continue to have dialogue about these topics in society. The irony is difficult to miss. When government seeks to expand the power of the state to regulate expression while restricting debate about those powers, Parliament should pause, because the danger is not only that the law might punish the wrong people. The deeper danger is that it may change how people speak to each other in the first place.

Canada can and must confront hatred, but criminal law must be precise, restrained and grounded in constitutional principles. I return to the very arguments I stood to make in the House in September, in the first act of the discussion on the bill. If we are serious about addressing hatred, I remain convinced and reiterate that the first step is to work with the provinces and municipalities to enforce the laws we already have. The Criminal Code already prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred and the incitement of violence. Those provisions should be applied consistently and effectively.

If real gaps exist, Parliament can address them, but any changes must be carefully drafted and respectful of the charter rights that define our country. What we should not do is expand vague criminal provisions, remove long-standing safeguards for religious expression and then rush the legislation through Parliament by shutting down debate. That approach does not strengthen public confidence in the law. It weakens it, for those who feel threatened.

A free society should never push its citizens toward the greengrocer's window where the safest choice is to display the approved message and keep one's real beliefs to oneself, and Parliament should never pass a law that risks creating that pressure in the first place.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am Jewish and I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in Canada. I am disgusted by the Liberal government and how it pretends that the Jewish community wants Bill C-9 passed, which is nonsense. The Liberals are saying that while adding fuel to the fire of Jew hatred in Canada.

When the Prime Minister says on the campaign trail that he knows there is genocide in Gaza, he fuels Jew hatred. When Liberals engage in the greatest blood libel of the 21st century, that the Jewish state is using starvation as a weapon of war, they fuel Jew hatred. When they sanction Israel to stop the Gaza war for Hamas to survive, they encourage terrorists in the Middle East and here at home to keep up the jihad. When the Prime Minister recognized the Palestinian state, he rewarded the brutality of Hamas, and he did so on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that.

Why do the Liberals not call for the enforcement of existing laws? Masked thugs chant for intifada every Sunday at Sheppard and Bathurst. Did anyone say, “Stop. It is incitement to violence so arrest them”? When they march on residential streets frightening neighbours, did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Olivia Chow?” Did anyone say, “What is wrong with you, Chief of Police Demkiw? It is mischief so arrest them”?

Please save your tweets and platitudes. Three synagogues were shot at last week in the city of Toronto. Bill C-9 would do nothing to stop that.

With respect to the bill, the Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do. That is intimidation and contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code.

However, do not listen to me. Listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone in the country and who was invited to testify at the justice committee by both me and the Liberals. He said, “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.” There is nothing new here.

With respect to the new hate-motivated offence, it already effectively exists through sentencing. If an offence is motivated by hate, that is an aggravating factor upon sentencing. However, the new hate-motivated offence in Bill C-9 would not just criminalize criminal conduct. It would also criminalize any hate offence that is tacked onto a civil offence, so non-criminal conduct could now become criminal. This is very dangerous, and the threshold to convict for hatred would be lowered from a good test established by the Supreme Court 40 years ago.

I am telling the Jewish community that Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect us. In fact, I believe that Bill C-9 would be weaponized against us.

However, this is what we can do to protect Canada's Jewish community. First, no one is talking about law enforcement. This is now beyond a local police problem. We need the RCMP in North York. We need the RCMP in Thornhill. We have RCMP units called integrated national security enforcement teams, which work with the CBSA and local police to counter terrorism. One needs to be empowered locally to protect the Jewish community.

Second, there are about 700 IRGC agents in Canada, and according to Global News, there are 450 members linked to Hamas. Why are the Liberals allowing this? Let us investigate these networks and expel these individuals from Canada.

Third is to put political pressure on mayors and police to stop the Jew hatred on our streets that is already criminal. Stop the calls for intifada, which is incitement to violence and is already illegal and criminalized in the U.K. End the intimidation of Jewish-owned businesses. Conservatives will defend the Jewish community, but Bill C-9 is a Trojan horse to limit free speech.

Shame on the Liberals for Bill C-9. Shame on the Liberals for using the Jewish community as a prop. Shame on you for this motion closing debate.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the hon. minister on the matter before us right now, which is shutting down debate on Bill C-9, rather than the details within Bill C-9. I think the bill needs much more debate and discussion, which is why I hope the government will withdraw the attempt at closure on Bill C-9 before we have had an opportunity to discuss it properly.

I know the minister will say it was stuck at clause-by-clause. In this case, I will absolutely agree that the Conservatives were obstructing in the committee on Bill C-9. They have been so routinely accused of filibustering and obstructing when they have not that I feel it is worthwhile pointing out, in this one instance, that there has been an attempt to slow down Bill C-9.

I find much of the bill objectionable. Certainly, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, in its brief to the minister, has pointed out how the intimidation and disruption sections are overly broad and create a really large risk of discretionary enforcement by police that will leave people who are engaged in lawful exercise of their democratic rights and free speech on the wrong side of a law that is vague and discretionary.

I urge the minister to please reconsider and withdraw the motion under debate at the moment so we can have a full discussion and debate, which is what Parliament is for.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9, as drafted, did not seek the removal of a 50-plus-year-old legal defence, nor did any witnesses called by the Liberal committee members speak on behalf of the Liberal Party to remove this long-held defence. In fact, no interventions by any Liberal committee members sought clarification on the removal of the defence.

We had moved to clause by clause, and we were progressing very well. In fact, there was more in common between the Liberals and the Conservatives on the terms of Bill C-9 than not, but approximately one week into clause-by-clause, all of a sudden a secret weekend backroom deal between the Minister of Justice and the Bloc Québécois took precedence.

Why did a political advantage mean more to the Liberal government than the will of the Canadian people and the faith leaders across this country who are adamantly opposed to the removal of this defence?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his extraordinary advocacy in the House on behalf of the Jewish community, including on Bill C-9.

A direct answer to his question is that it would obviously be an affront to the role that I hold in the House and in this country if I were to start calling up law enforcement and directing them to intervene on individual prosecutions. However, one thing that we can do to make the lives of law enforcement easier when it comes to enforcing the laws that are on the books is to listen to their recommendations and giving clarity on what the definition of hate should actually consist of.

Bill C-9 would take the common-law definition and codify it to give certainty to law enforcement as to when a hate crime exists, which would allow them to independently take action to enforce the law on the books.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard in response to the Minister of Justice's comments, multiple times, that we should enforce the existing law. Enforcing the existing law is one thing; sending a message to police about what the House of Commons believes we should be doing about hate crimes and adding additional offences is another.

My questions are, one, does the minister have the power to tell the Toronto police, the Montreal police or any other municipal police in this country to enforce the law in the way that the minister intends them to enforce it? In other words, do they have to listen to him? Two, would the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada not be giving a very clear message to the police if we were to adopt the combatting hate act?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have received petitions from thousands of people in my community of Cambridge who are deeply concerned about Bill C-9. It is not misinformation when Canadians took the time to write, call and sign petitions because they want their voices heard in this place, yet today the government is not only advancing legislation that many believe threatens freedom of expression and religious freedom, but also moving to shut down debate on that very bill. To my constituents, that feels like double censorship, as the government is limiting their freedoms and then limiting Parliament's ability to even debate it.

Why is the government so determined to silence debate on Bill C-9 instead of allowing Parliament the time to fully examine legislation that Canadians believe threatens their fundamental freedoms?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern that a lot of misinformation has come to characterize the politics of this debate rather than thoughtful deliberation on what would expand religious freedoms in this country, which is what Bill C-9 was designed to do from inception.

One of the reasons I have some skepticism over the nature of the complaints that have been registered by the party opposite is that its members have actually raised substantive objections to the text of the bill that have now been accommodated. They raised concerns about the role of the Attorney General's consent, which we are willing to accommodate. They raised concerns about the precise nature of the definition reflecting the court's decisions on the issue of hate crimes, which we are willing to accommodate. They have raised concerns about the removal of the religious exemption, which we are willing to make changes to to accommodate and to ensure that communities of faith continue to practise their religions freely.

When each of the concerns that were raised have been accommodated, or we have demonstrated a willingness to accommodate them in full, we have to ask ourselves what the motivation is to not only continue to oppose, which would be fine, but also obstruct and filibuster for months at a time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the intentional spreading of misinformation is what we continue to witness from the Conservatives. The motivating factor behind their opposition to Bill C-9 is that of fundraising. I could table, if they wanted, an email in which the Conservative Party is attempting to raise money by spreading misinformation and asking the recipients to donate to the party.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am hearing overwhelmingly from my constituents the concern they have about Bill C-9, in general on how it attacks free speech and freedom of expression, but specifically about the amendment tabled by the Liberals and the Bloc to remove the exemption for good-faith religious discussion about texts. We have already heard the former chair of the justice committee, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, cite several books of the Bible as being hate books, and we know that is blatantly false.

Many schools and churches in my riding teach the Bible as it is written. What guarantee would there be under this legislation that the professors and teachers in these institutions would not be criminalized?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a history of violating the charter rights of Canadians, from freedom of expression to freezing their bank accounts under the illegal Emergencies Act, etc.

Thirty million people of faith in Canada are expressing concern about Bill C-9 and removing the religious exemption under the hate speech law. We have heard from Christian evangelists, the Catholic Church, Muslim associations and Jewish associations. They all say that this bill is going to cause them to not be able to read their religious texts, because somebody will find them offensive and they will end up in prison.

Why does the minister not care what 30 million people of faith in this country think?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Jewish community, from one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, I do not believe that Bill C-9 will do anything to accomplish the protection of the Jewish community, but I would like to ask the minister a professional, legal question. The Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue or a school. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do, because that is contrary to the Criminal Code section 423. It is called intimidation.

The minister does not have to listen to me. He should listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone. He testified before our committee at the invitation of the Liberals and said that the “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.”

Why is the minister representing that the new intimidation and obstruction offence will do anything, when in reality such conduct is already contrary to the Criminal Code?

Religious Freedom

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 354 different Muslim organizations have signed a letter underlining their opposition to Bill C-9. They note that Bill C-9, as currently drafted, would present serious harms to the civil liberties of Canadian Muslims and Canadians who are raising their voices about human rights.

As I table this petition highlighting the opposition of petitioners to Bill C-9, it is important for the government to understand and not misstate the strong opposition from many different communities. There are serious concerns from the Christian community, the Muslim community, the Orthodox Jewish community and many other faith communities about the removal of the religious defence.

The petitioners would like to see the government not move forward with this amendment. They would like to see Parliament protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion and recognize that these are fundamental rights. They would like the House to put a stop to this government overreach, which would undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of London—Fanshawe and the many Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-9.

Canadians are concerned with regard to the amendments to Bill C-9, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge, who are asking that Bill C-9 be withdrawn to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts and prevent government intrusion into their faith.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would like to see Bill C-9 withdrawn.

Given the atrocious record of this Liberal government in overstepping its bounds, given the Emergency Act and freezing bank accounts, these Canadians are asking what exactly is preventing this government from expanding its powers under the bill, just to squash dissent. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to withdraw Bill C-9.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the thousands of Canadians who have called in to MPs' offices in regard to Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 would amend the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda and hate crimes, but the Liberals are proposing an amendment to remove the religious exemption that protects good-faith expression of beliefs based on religious texts. Removing this exemption would criminalize Canadians for expressing sincerely held religious beliefs, undermining freedoms guaranteed by the charter. This change could lead to legal action against clergy, educators and individuals for quoting or teaching from sacred texts without malice.

Therefore, the undersigned citizens and permanent residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to reject any amendments to Bill C-9 that would remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, protect Canadians' constitutional rights to freedom of religion, and express and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good-faith religious discourse or teaching.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of concerned Canadians in my riding of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South and across the country who are registering their incredible frustration and concern with Liberal Bill C-9 and its erosion of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, specifically with the Liberal-Bloc amendment to remove long-standing protections for religious speech.

Petitioners are very much calling on the Liberal government to withdraw this divisive and toxic bill; to state firmly that it will always stand up for religious freedom, including the right to read and share sacred texts; and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

I hope the Minister of Justice, who is in the chamber, takes heed of these concerns, which have been coming in by the tens of thousands. I submit them herewith.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions.

First I rise in support of the Conservative petition regarding the flawed amendments the Bloc and Liberals are proposing to Bill C-9. If passed, they would put religious freedoms of Canadians in jeopardy.

The residents of Abbotsford—South Langley have voiced their concerns regarding the development of how this may restrict their freedoms. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states in sections 2(a) and 2(b) that freedom of expression and freedom of religion must be preserved and are crucial to Canadian society.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to protect religious freedoms and uphold the right to read and share sacred texts.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford are concerned about Bill C-9, which would amend the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda and hate crimes. The Liberals are proposing an amendment to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code that protects good faith expressions of beliefs based on religious texts.

Therefore, the petitioners and permanent residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that would remove the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, to protect Canada's constitutional rights to freedom of religion and expression and ensure that legislation does not criminalize good faith, religious discourse or teaching.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of constituents of the riding of Bow River and, in fact, constituents across the country to present a petition from Canadians who are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of a faith community, and freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of the residents in my community on Bill C-9 and the proposal by the Liberal and Bloc members of the House to remove long-standing safeguards that protect religious freedom and religious expression, including religious expression based on sacred texts. The petitioners share the desire to combat hate and acts that propagate hate, but note that this proposal would not achieve those goals and would instead subject those who hold sincerely held religious beliefs to criminal prosecution.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to do two things. The first is to withdraw this proposal entirely, and the second is to promote and protect religious freedom for all Canadians, uphold their right to read, share and teach sacred texts and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. On this occasion, I rise to present a petition that cautions that the way Bill C-9 is proceeding, it would silence people when it comes to their religious texts and lead to persecution.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and table a petition on behalf of my constituents. I have had the honour of doing so on behalf of hundreds of constituents already, and today I am adding hundreds more names.

The petition is on protecting the religious freedom in Bill C-9, which is very topical here today as the Liberals and the Bloc attempt to ram through that legislation. Canadians are concerned that the Bloc-Liberal amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The petitioners mention the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community.

I hear from residents over and over again about all the challenges we face in this country. Putting through this amendment, with all the effort that the Liberal and Bloc members are putting into it, is something I am not hearing. We need to protect religious freedom, and I am glad to add my voice and these petitioners' voices to that effort.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition, as many people have reached out to my office and contacted me repeatedly from various faith communities concerned about Bill C-9. This petition calls for there to be free expression, and the protection of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of belief, which are fundamental rights.

I cannot help but think of Canada's 13th prime minister, Sir John G. Diefenbaker, when he said, “I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition directed to the Government of Canada. The petitioners are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 would potentially criminalize the reading or the teaching of certain passages of the Bible, the Quran and the Torah. Petitioners want the government to take note of that, immediately withdraw the amendment and also shelve Bill C-9.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table two petitions on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the implications of Bill C-9.

The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that Liberal Bill C-9 is an infringement on those rights. As such, they call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect the rights of Canadians to read, share and speak their religious convictions freely.

I have another petition to present.

The petitioners are seriously concerned about Bill C-9 and amendments adopted at the justice committee. The petitioners believe that these changes remove long-standing protections for good faith religious expression. They fear that this would allow the state to intrude into religious teachings, sacred texts and the peaceful expression of deeply held beliefs. They affirm that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights in Canada, and they should be protected from government overreach.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and to uphold and protect religious freedom, including the right to read, share and teach sacred texts without fear of criminal sanction.

The last petition I am presenting is on the same theme.

Petitioners warn that removing the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code risks criminalizing the reading and sharing of sacred texts, including the Bible, the Quran and the Torah. They believe that this opens the door to persecuting Canadians for expressing deeply held religious beliefs. They remind the House that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a free and democratic society.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and to protect religious freedom by preventing government intrusion into matters of faith.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, residents from Richmond Centre—Marpole and hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country are standing against Bill C-9 and for the protection of religious freedom in Canada.

The petitioners note that the Liberal-Bloc amendment adopted at committee would remove the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code. They warn that this change would allow the state to persecute individuals for sharing passages from sacred texts, such as the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other religious teachings, if they are deemed offensive.

Canadians understand that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are cornerstones of a free society. People of faith should never have to wonder whether expressing their beliefs will bring the power of the state to their—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that comes from many Christians across the country who are concerned about the effects of Bill C-9 and that its effects could criminalize passages of the Bible.

Petitioners say that the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and to share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition from Canadians who are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the matter this member brings up is a decision that was made by the Parole Board of Canada, which is an independent entity from government.

Let me also say that in order to ensure the safety and security of our children and those who are exploited, we need lawful access as law in Canada. This is why I am concerned when the Conservative Party absolutely does not move forward on important legislation, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, yet pontificates here, because they are doing it for clickbait. What is important is that we pass legislation that is critical for—

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the department at IRCC has a rigorous process for vetting all applicants who are applying for a visa. In addition, we encourage the opposition to vote in favour of Bill C-9, which it is refusing to do.

Finally, let me clarify again that on this side of the House, the Iranian regime is a terrorist entity. It is a state sponsor of terrorism. We encourage all parties to respect the rules of international conflict and engagement, and we will work to bring Canadian citizens home safely.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset say that if my colleague opposite feels that we need to ensure the protection of Canadians, he will support the passage of Bill C-9 and the Conservative Party will pass Bill C-9 today. That is how we protect Canadians. That is how we protect communities. That is how we ensure the safety and security of Canadians.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that since last November, we have funded over 108 projects relating to Jewish community institutions.

Let me also say that this is a moment when all Canadians need to come together, including the Conservative Party. There is a bill right now, Bill C-9, that is meant to support and ensure the safety and security of institutions, particularly those that are serving the Jewish community. I have heard from communities across this country. It is time for the Conservative Party to act and to ensure that Bill C-9 becomes law.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week three different synagogues were shot at in the Toronto area. There was always conflict abroad, but it never spilled onto Canada's streets like it has under this Liberal government.

The Liberals politicize the Middle East; add to that their soft-on-crime agenda, and it is no longer safe for Canada's Jewish community. They can, please, save the tweets, the empty platitudes and Bill C-9, which will do nothing for the Jewish community, and instead deal with the terrorists in our streets and enforce existing laws.

Now an Iranian activist is missing, and police fear that he was murdered. Hundreds of IRGC agents safely reside in Canada. That is because Liberal immigration minister after Liberal immigration minister fails to protect our borders, and Liberal public safety minister after Liberal public safety minister fails to deport them.

When will this Liberal government start protecting Canadians and finally deport those who are connected to the Iranian regime?

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the “guillotine” or the “hammer” is generally how these motions are referred to when the government shuts down debate. It is shutting down speech, ironically, on a bill that deals with speech and the issue of free speech. The Liberals are saying there has been enough debate on Bill C-9. Yes, there has been a lot of talk between politicians on it, but the Liberals are refusing to hear from witnesses and from Canadians.

I want to tell Canadians not just about Bill C-9, but about what the Liberals did to shove this terrible piece of legislation down our throats to the point that today they have to drop a nuclear bomb to stop me from doing my job at the justice committee.

We have heard from a handful of witnesses on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation this Parliament will take up. We were supposed to hear from B’nai Brith and Simon Wiesenthal. They were scheduled to testify, but the former head of the committee suspended witness hearings before they were able to testify and ordered the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. I had witnesses calling me personally. Canadian Women Against Antisemitism called me. I had Imam Tawhidi call me to ask why he was not permitted to testify on this piece of legislation. The former committee chair, the same committee chair who asked how certain scriptures could not be hate speech, is the same committee chair who refused to hear from multiple witnesses who wanted to make submissions on this piece of legislation even before the amendments.

We proceeded to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. I was there and had a front row seat for all of it. We were working in good faith. I worked with my Liberal colleague from Mount Royal. We agreed to fix the definition of “hate speech”. My concern with respect to the removal of the consent of the Attorney General was also dealt with. Even better, I was surprised to see in the proposed amendments that my private member's bill, Bill C-257, against the wilful promotion of terrorism, in one form or another, made it into the proposed amendments by the Liberals. That was one of the best days of my career.

We could have potentially fixed this bill. Then I learned about the Bloc's amendment from the news media. The Liberals did not have the courage to tell us what they were doing. They had agreed to the Bloc's amendment to remove the religious defence to hate speech from the Criminal Code. The entire exercise had been a fiasco.

However, the amendment that the Bloc passed with its Liberal friends is predicated on false pretenses. By moving this amendment, the Bloc is saying that people should not be able to hide behind a religious exemption to hate speech. As we know, it is because an imam in Montreal named Charkaoui called for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Bloc is saying that because he was not prosecuted, we need to remove this religious exemption. That is just not true. To avail oneself of the religious exemption, the words one utters need to be in good faith. When one calls for the extermination of people, that is not in good faith. If we look at the law, the religious defence does not apply to incitement. It applies to the second category of hate speech, which is the wilful promotion of hatred. One cannot hide behind the religious defence when one is inciting violence as incitement is not protected.

I read a statement at committee from the Quebec prosecutors that said that they did not lay charges against Charkaoui not because of the religious defence, but because the “enemies of Gaza” was not an identifiable group of people. Apparently, one can call for their extermination, according to the Quebec prosecution, but this had nothing to do with the amendment or the religious defence. The Bloc knows this. The Liberals know this. This is a charade.

I will be splitting my time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, upon reflection, it was the Liberal Party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of religion and its practice are very clear. We are not going to censor people sitting in a Bible club or practising their faith. The arguments the Conservative Party has brought to the floor on Bill C-9 are absolutely ridiculous. I would ultimately argue that the Conservatives are being motivated by the idea of raising money as opposed to protecting the interests of Canadians.

Hate crime is a serious issue. The government is going to deal with—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, with the exception of that last statement, I am in concurrence with the leader of the Green Party. Having said that, if we were to do what the leader of the Green Party is saying, we would not be able to pass any legislation. Bill C-9 would die. There is no reason Bill C-9 could not have passed at the end of last year. We could have passed it. It could be the law today. The reason it has not passed is that the Conservative Party refuses in many ways to pass legislation, and ironically they will then go out in the media and say that we Liberals cannot pass our own legislation and cannot deal with our own legislative agenda.

My Conservative friends should look in the mirror. If they want to do what is in the interest of Canadians as a whole and in the public interest, as opposed to the Conservative Party's best interests, I believe they would recognize the value of legislation and at least allow it to come to a vote. It does not take much to filibuster legislation, and that is what we have witnessed, day in and day out, coming from the Conservative Party of Canada, sadly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to the credit of members of the Bloc, they have recognized the true value of Bill C-9. They have recognized that the Minister of Justice was serious when he said that he is open to making the legislation stronger and working with opposition members or faith leaders so that we have good legislation here in Canada.

A vast majority of the members of Parliament in today's Parliament actually support us moving forward and ultimately passing the legislation. The reason we are having this debate on Motion No. 6 is that the Conservatives have absolutely made it a mission of theirs to continue to raise more money, spread more misinformation and prevent Bill C-9 from passing. The only way we can get it passed is if we have support from some opposition members, and I appreciate that the Bloc has stepped up to the plate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the far right members in the Conservative caucus applaud the comment. Sure they would. They are the authors of the letter. It goes on: “Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to stop this reckless and unprecedented attack on our freedoms and defend the Canadian Charter of Rights.” What a joke this is. This is actually ridiculous.

What is the purpose of sending the letter out? It is all about raising money. The Conservatives are sending out thousands of emails across the country, spreading misinformation and fear in order to raise money. That is what that email is, and it is coming from the Conservative Party.

Another email says, “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.” In this one, they are not looking for money, but rather they are building a data bank.

We wonder why we finally got the bill through second reading and to committee, months ago, and the Conservative Party is continuing to filibuster at committee stage. The Conservatives do not want the legislation to pass, even though the essence of the legislation is sound, it would make a difference and it was a part of an election platform from Canada's new Prime Minister and 300-plus Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast, dealing with the issue of crime. I am not surprised.

We have a substantial legislative agenda dealing with crime. If the Conservatives would only recognize what Canadians even in Conservative ridings are hearing, which is that people want legislation. They want action. They want co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons and its standing committees so we can make and pass good, sound public policy. That is what Bill C-9 is, but it is not alone. For this bill, we finally got the okay by getting an opposition party, in particular the Bloc, onside, which would allow our minority Liberal government to ultimately get it through committee and pass it to become law.

All we have to do is read the propaganda that comes out of the Conservative caucus and listen to what the members say inside the House or in committee, and we will understand that the Conservatives have no intention of passing the legislation. Then if we say we have a motion before us that would guarantee its passage, they try to link it to democracy and freedoms and so forth.

I sat in opposition for over 20 years. There is a time when the Conservatives have to really reflect on just how effective they are being and question the motivations even within their own leadership. The leadership of the Conservative Party today is an absolute disaster.

When we have good, sound public policy to deal with issues that Canadians want us to be dealing with but we continue to have the type of filibustering that we see coming from the Conservative Party, I say shame on the Conservatives who continue to promote that type of behaviour. They should not try to say that we as a government are trying to be anti-democratic. I stood in my place, as I have highlighted before, and asked for the leave of the House to be able to sit until midnight for weeks.

It is the Conservatives who say no to that, even though they will say they want more time. When they are provided with the opportunity for more time, what do they say? They say no, because it would mean they would have to put in a bit of extra work. They talk about how they want to be able to debate things. That is not the reality. The reality is that they want to use the argument in order to justify their poor behaviour in terms of delivering for Canadians. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming for us to actually get Bill C-14, bail reform legislation, through the House. They have to be shamed into doing it.

Let us reflect on what is happening with Bill C-2. The Conservatives cry about certain issues, but when it comes time to actually do something, such as pass legislation, they want to filibuster. Let us take a look at what is happening with Bill C-2. Again, it is an absolute dead end because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, has made the determination that it does not want to deliver for Canadians. It wants to deliver for the Conservative Party alone. That is what its motivation is.

Let us take a look at some of the substance of the bill itself, if I could get off the motion and look at what Bill C-9 would do. There are some substantial changes that are being proposed in it. Let us think in terms of obstruction and intimidation that are used in order to prevent individuals from having access.

The Conservatives talk about religious freedom. What about having the freedom to be able to go unimpeded to a church, a mosque or a synagogue? They do not understand it. These are stand-alone hate offences that we would be creating. These are offences—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, some are saying, “hear, hear”, and another is saying, “free speech”.

I will add something else. The Conservatives are more interested in the Conservative Party of Canada and what is happening internally within their party than what is in the best interest of Canadians, and I will expand on that. With respect to Bill C-9, there is a great deal of misinformation out there, and a lot of that misinformation is rooted in the Conservative caucus of Canada, the official opposition. I will clearly demonstrate some of that.

I do not know how it is, but I get fundraising emails from the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives can take me off the list, and I have told them before that they can take me off it whenever they want.

I will read a couple of emails. This is really important, because I believe there is a split in the motivating factor in the Conservative Party. It has the far right, but many others will be quiet on the issue because of the leadership of the Conservative Party. What is the motivation? In good part, it is about building up a data bank and raising money. That is a real issue for the Conservative Party.

It sees Bill C-9 as a way in which it can promote fear, spread misinformation and raise money. Let me quote from a couple of emails. This is what the Conservative Party of Canada has sent out to thousands of Canadians: “Kevin, the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts. These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be stopped at once.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to start off, I will make it very clear that I truly believe, as I know my colleagues believe, that no one in Canadian society should feel unsafe because of who they are.

Bill C-9 deals with a critically important issue that was raised in the last federal election: a commitment that today's Prime Minister made to Canadians less than a year ago to come forth with legislation that would actually have a real and tangible impact on dealing with the issue of hate crime.

As indicated in the question I just posed to the member from the Bloc, we are all aware of many horrific hate-motivated crimes that have taken place in Canada. Many of them get publicized to the nth degree, but there are a whole lot more that take place that we never hear about. I believe that the passage of Bill C-9 would raise the profile of the issue in a positive manner.

There are two things I would like to divide out in terms of the debate. The first is to deal with the motion we have before us and the purpose of the motion. The second is to deal with Bill C-9 itself.

We have before us a motion that would ensure that the legislation actually gets voted upon. Even though we have a minority of members of Parliament in the House, we believe we have a majority of MPs who clearly support Bill C-9. Our problem is that the Conservative Party of Canada has made the decision to prevent the legislation from passing, at all costs.

I have said in the past that with any group of 12 students at a public high school in Canada, I would be able to put up a filibuster that would prevent legislation from passing unless a government were able to bring in some form of time allocation. It is not because the Conservatives are outstanding parliamentarians that they are able to frustrate the system, but rather there is a motivation within the Conservative Party that does not want the legislation to pass.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must commend the Bloc Québécois for so successfully enlisting the Liberal government in its assault on religious freedom in this country. I know the Bloc has long tried to do what Bill C-9 would do. Good on the Bloc for getting the Liberals on board.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois has once again misrepresented the facts of the Adil Charkaoui case to justify removing the religious defence. Will he acknowledge that the religious defence does not apply, and has never applied, to Criminal Code provisions dealing with violence or the threat of violence, and acknowledge that prosecutors did not invoke the existence of the religious defence when they did not proceed with charges against Mr. Charkaoui? Will he clear the record and stop misrepresenting the record?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will read a quote:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them—

Indeed, it is important not to cut down trees.

—you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

I was raised in a very religious family. Both of my parents are theologians. I decided to highlight Deuteronomy, chapter 20, which is in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, which is also the Devarim in the Torah.

This reminds us of one thing. Most religious texts were written before medieval times. These texts were written by humans at a time when the killing of ethnic or religious opponents or those with a different way of life was the norm. Of course, military leaders at the time were careful to include, as needed, whatever moral guidelines suited them. However, these texts all include passages that clearly constitute hate speech and calls for massacre. In any case, that is clearly the case for the three Abrahamic faiths.

Does that mean people do not have the right to read them? I just read them in front of everyone for educational purposes. Will I be put in jail? No. Did I commit a crime? No. I want to reassure everyone that I do not know any Hittites, Amorites or Hivites. I do not know any Jebusites either. However, I do know that some interpretations or explanations of these texts in the hands of rogue prelates or pastors could lead to a crime being committed. If I were a believer who thought these texts had historical value, the last thing I would want is for them to be used by malicious people. I actually think these texts do have historical value, but there is no doubt they can be used for such purposes.

That is how those texts could be used, because the last thing a reader would take away from them is that they should mend fences and spread love. Religions have evolved, but most religious texts are legislative texts that have not been amended as we are going to do with Bill C‑9. With the amendments to Bill C-9, with the way they are written, with the protections included in the amendments, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—which Bill C-9 and its amendments will be subject to—and with the case law that calls on us to adopt these amendments and clarify the law, we are protecting religious speech.

We are protecting religious values. We are protecting peace. We are protecting love. We are protecting the best parts of religions without allowing certain people to use them to their own end. That is what Bill C‑9 is all about. I will say one thing: There is a reason we are discussing Bill C-9.

The Conservatives are making noise on the other side.

I listened to the Conservatives. I am a respectful guy, most of the time. I listened to them and I want to tell them that no one has a monopoly on faith-based hate crime. In 2023, a total of 1,284 hate crimes were committed against a specific religion, 516 more than in 2022. These crimes were not necessarily triggered by a cleric's remarks. That is not what I am saying. However, each of these crimes was an attack on freedom of religion, freedom of worship and the freedom to go to a mosque, church or synagogue. These crimes are also a much more serious attack on freedom of religion than what the Conservatives are claiming about Bill C‑9.

The 45% increase in hate crimes in 2023 worries me a lot more. It was largely the result of the increase in hate crimes reported by police against Jewish populations. Jewish communities experienced a 71% rise in hate crimes. For Muslim communities, the increase was 94%. This is what needs to be addressed.

What does this bill do? I want to remind the Conservatives that we have a time allocation motion before us. Earlier, they said that that the committee dragged its feet at until two in the morning and that it had wasted everyone's time because it did not hear from enough witnesses.

Personally, I watched the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting. People may not know how patient I am. The member for Rivière-du-Nord asked all the witnesses who appeared before the committee a question about the religious exemption. Some people agreed with it, while others did not, but the question was asked. However, getting on everybody's nerves does not count as debate. Spreading disinformation does not count as debate. Wasting time does not count as debate.

What does this bill do? It reinstates the requirement for the Attorney General to give consent before charges can be laid for the offence of inciting hatred. It aligns the definition of hatred with the definition in Keegstra to be consistent with case law. It abolishes the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for the offence of inciting hatred. According to Keegstra, it does not in any way interfere with the freedom to read and teach religious texts.

It is not normal to hide behind a particular provision of the Criminal Code in order to commit crimes. If I were a deeply religious person, the last thing I would want would be to be associated with someone who uses and exploits my religion to commit crimes. The case of Adil Charkaoui in Quebec is well known. That is why there is a consensus in Quebec for the kind of amendment we are proposing to Bill C‑9. There is a consensus, and that is why the Quebec Conservatives are hiding in the sub-basement.

In 2017, Imam Sheikh Muhammad ibn Musa Al Nasr stated that Jews were the worst of mankind and that they should be slaughtered on Judgment Day. An arrest warrant was issued against him. In August 2024, in his mosque in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Imam Adnan Abyat called for the death of Jews and Christians. Is that what love and kindness look like? In October 2024, Adil Charkaoui prayed for the death of Jews during a protest. Praying at a protest is a loophole. He is so good at loopholes that he would make a good tax lawyer. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to prosecute him, concluding that he had taken refuge behind the problematic Criminal Code provision. If we had said the same thing, we would have had to face justice.

Priest Calvin Robinson was defrocked by the Anglican Catholic Church after giving the Nazi salute at a pro-life rally associated with Trump. Wow, this religion of love is so nice. Islamic preacher Uthman Ibn Farooq was denied entry to Canada, where he was planning to give a lecture. This was thanks to, among other things, the intervention of the Bloc Québécois and my colleague who is now the House leader. This preacher was banned from coming to give his lectures because he believed that members of the LGBTQ+ sexual minority did not have the right to live.

These are crimes, and these actions and words must be treated as crimes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech.

I have a lot of concerns about Bill C-9, but that is not what we are talking about today. I do not like the idea of putting so much importance on using motions like these to study a bill quickly.

I have a problem with the part of Bill C-9 that makes it possible to break the law during a demonstration for being too close to a building. A demonstrator might not realize that there is not enough space between the demonstration and the building.

What does the member think about this problematic aspect of Bill C-9?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize that my question is not in French, but I really appreciated the speech from the member opposite.

The combatting hate act was developed in close consultation with impacted communities, with faith communities and with police across Canada.

The member made some important points, including that the show, the performance, we are seeing from the members opposite is extremely unfortunate. I really question the motivation for what the Conservatives are doing. I would like the member opposite to comment on what he sees as the damage of this performance, of building the bill up to be something it is not, in a purely cynical way, to fundraise and gain followers, likes, clicks and subscriptions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Mirabel. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that I will be delivering a preview of, or a preamble to, my colleague from Mirabel's speech, which I am sure will be particularly entertaining. I will not say any more, but I hope my colleagues enjoy this teaser.

Before I begin, I would also like to highlight two events that affected deeply me over the weekend and this morning.

First, my thoughts go out to the family of the young cadet who passed away in an accident involving a school bus in Sainte‑Rose‑de‑Watford. I can only imagine the pain that his parents and loved ones are going through. My thoughts also go out to the wider cadet family across Quebec. It is a tight-knit family, and I know this big family is in mourning. I am keeping them in my thoughts.

Second, before I get into the subject matter of today's debate, tragedy struck in Drummondville this morning when a woman was found dead in a residential neighbourhood. We do not have any details or context at this time, but when things like this happen in a peaceful area, in another tight-knit community, the whole community is shaken. My thoughts go out to the people in Drummondville who were affected by today's events.

Let me get back to Bill C-9. This circus will soon come to an end because at some point, we have to call a spade a spade. We are witnessing a manipulation of the facts and the truth, as well as the spreading of disinformation and a manipulation of these facts and this truth for financial gain and for dishonest purposes.

I will start by reminding members of the Bloc Québecois's demands, which I think were very reasonable in the context of a bill like Bill C‑9.

First, we proposed reinstating the requirement to obtain consent from the Attorney General before initiating prosecutions for inciting hatred, which adds another layer of security aimed at reassuring people who say that this measure could be misused and that anyone could wake up one day and decide to launch a case. It would not be something that would become automatic just because the religious exemption was removed from the Criminal Code. There is another layer of security, even though Quebec already has its own independent institution, the director of criminal and penal prosecutions. In our opinion, this guarantee, which would apply across Canada, would strengthen this kind of religious freedom of expression.

Another very important element at the heart of the whole circus that the Conservatives mounted in committee is obviously the elimination of the religious exemption that allows someone to sidestep criminal charges for fomenting hatred. It is okay to have a religion and to practise that religion. It is okay to have faith and to live that faith, that belief system. That is completely legitimate. That is just fine. We have always respected that. It is a fundamental right that the Bloc Québécois will never attack, contrary to what the Conservatives claimed while putting on that circus in committee.

I know of no religion that does not claim to be a religion of love and peace. I know of no religion that says its followers must spread hate and violent messages. Once again, let me remind my colleagues to listen closely to what my colleague from Mirabel has to say because he might have a different point of view. As I said, I know of no religion that does not claim to be a religion of love. Therefore, I do not see why anyone who is committed to a religion and practises their faith would disagree with the idea of eliminating the possibility of using religious conviction as grounds for inciting hate or calling for violence against a particular group.

People often cite the infamous Adil Charkaoui, who called for the wholesale murder of Zionist Jews in a speech he delivered right in downtown Montreal a few years ago. People often use him as an example, but letting people use religion as a shield in order to call for such acts of violence is abominable.

I do not know anyone—not personally, anyway—who would say that that particular protection should remain in place. I do not know anyone who would say that our priests, our pastors, our imams or our rabbis should be allowed to call for the elimination of a segment of society or a group on the basis of religious texts. No one is saying that. I have certainly never seen anyone say it. The way the Conservatives have manipulated the facts around this issue is disturbing. Frankly, I find it appalling.

A few years ago, the Bloc Québecois tabled a motion to abolish the religious exemption. That was before Bill C-9 came along. The Bloc Québecois's position goes back a long way, because this issue speaks to a core Quebec value. At the time, a Conservative member stopped me in the hall and asked me to tell him a little bit about our proposal and to explain what it was all about. I told him that it was simply aimed at preventing someone from calling for violence or promoting hatred under the pretext that their religion allows or commands it. I told him this did not mean that a person could not quote a text. It would still be permissible to quote texts that may be particularly violent or texts that feel odd and unsettling to readers in 2026 without promoting hatred. I explained that to him. I told him that it was simply a way of not providing a refuge under the Criminal Code to somebody promoting hatred. His response was that he did not agree with that because if this measure was adopted, his pastor would not be able to speak out against homosexuals if he wanted to.

I was dumbfounded. I asked him whether he was telling me that his pastor could call for violence against the LGBTQ community because of some religious text. He told me that his pastor ought to have the right to this freedom of expression. My first thought was: What kind of pastor would call his flock or his followers to hate or rally against any community? I said to him, “Man, you should change pastors. You should change religions and find one that is actually a religion of peace, or at least find another messenger because that messenger is broken.”

Given everything we saw in committee during the Conservative filibuster, we all understood that they were probably getting a huge financial boost and that money must be pouring in. All MPs from all parties have no doubt received dozens of emails from citizens across Canada asking them not to attack this provision of the Criminal Code. I am sure it made for an extraordinary windfall. I am sure it was fun for them to feed the flames and keep the money rolling in, but it has to stop.

We have reached the point where MPs are showboating with Bibles in their hands and bashing the Bloc Québécois. Enough is enough. The parliamentary process, and democracy, must be allowed to take its course, as my colleague stated earlier. Enough is enough. We need to be able to work and move forward. There are important things in these bills. We may not agree on certain things, but at some point, members will have to realize that they are filibustering, that they are going nowhere and that they will end up looking crazy if they keep hammering away at the same nail over and over.

In fact, there is something that I am still not sure about. I know that we sometimes need to give people the benefit of the doubt and that some of these members may truly believe that removing the religious exemption is an attack on their fundamental right to practise their religion. There may be some who sincerely believe that. However, I wonder which is worse: that a federal member of Parliament fails to understand the scope of an amendment like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois, or that they understand the amendment perfectly but choose to abuse their constituents' trust by leading them to believe that it will limit their religious freedom? I actually do not know which is worse: to be downright incompetent or downright evil. There is a fine line between the two.

As my colleague said earlier, at some point, a little hype and sensationalism is all right, but disinformation must never be tolerated, much less manipulation of the facts or truth. I think it is time for that to stop, which is why the Bloc Québécois supports this motion to limit debate and move on to something else so that this Parliament can actually do its job and we can discuss other important issues.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will choose to appreciate and thank my colleague for her compliment.

The challenge is that, while we have had some time at committee to look at Bill C-9, the most contentious part of it, which is the removal of the religious defence, had no witness testimony and no opportunity to freely discuss it with the people who would be most affected.

It is in that spirit that even our efforts to rectify this were met by denunciation from the Liberals, who on one hand claimed co-operation and collaboration, but on the other hand slapped our hand away when we offered to give them a legislative safeguard that did what they claimed they wanted Bill C-9 to do.

When we, as a committee, are looking at a bill, we do not, as members of Parliament, have the moral or legal right to bargain away Canadians' fundamental rights and freedoms.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. The matter before us today, what we are debating, is not necessarily the substance of Bill C‑9, but the process for getting it passed.

I know that my colleague is newly elected, and I was able to admire his skill as a speaker in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where he was able to fill a lot of time by filibustering the consideration of Bill C‑12.

After 50 hours of debate, does he not think it is normal for us to be able to stop and agree to move forward and pass Bill C‑9?

I know that my colleague is not happy with the amendment on the religious exemption, but democracy has to take its course at a certain point. Today, we are talking about speeding up the work because of excessive filibustering by the Conservatives.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, not only do I not oppose it, but I am also very proud that it is already illegal, and nothing in Bill C-9 would change that. Perhaps the member should spend less time talking and more time reading the legislation he talks about.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

I said in my maiden speech in this chamber that I came to Ottawa with the goal of making Canada a freer place. Indeed, one of the motivations I had for getting into politics was seeing our fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression, under threat. This has been done largely by the policies and decisions taken by the Liberal government over the last few years.

It was in that spirit that I rose to the task of combatting this very dangerous bill, Bill C-9, from the get-go. When the Liberals put this bill forward, I read in the text of the bill language that would not be used to protect marginalized communities but would actually inflict harm on the very people the Liberals claim it would protect.

Let me say, first and foremost, that hate is real. It is a scourge in society. I have seen the brazen anti-Semitism unleashed on Canadian streets since October 7. London is a part of my riding. We saw, five years ago, the brutal slaying of the Afzaal family, a Muslim family targeted by a man who had hate and evil in his heart purely because of their faith. We have also seen 123 Christian churches burned or vandalized in the last five years. When Justin Trudeau, the former Liberal prime minister, was asked about these actions, he said they were “understandable”.

Hate is real, and sometimes it can come from a political leader, but Bill C-9 is not an antidote to hate, which is a problem that was allowed to fester on the Liberal government's watch. Much of what Bill C-9 would do, such as criminalize obstruction to a house of worship or prohibit the display of hate symbols, would tread over ground that is already covered by existing laws. These laws have been unenforced for the last several years because of a failure of political leadership in the Liberals.

We can then look at what Bill C-9 would do to actually change things. It would create a new definition of hate. Every witness who testified before the justice committee said that it would lower the threshold and make it easier to charge people for the words they say than it is now. The bill would remove critical safeguards for overzealous prosecution.

Of course, we have the removal of the religious defence, the removal of long-standing religious safeguards for political speech, and that decision became especially significant when we looked at a transcript of the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture's comments. In his view, there is clear hatred living within the holy texts that millions of people across this country read, cite and pray over from a place of love. The minister said there is clear hatred and prosecutors should be able to, in his words, press charges against those who cite them.

That is why all of the declarations and claims from Liberals that they will protect our charter freedoms, the freedom of expression and religious freedom ring hollow. They have been abundantly clear in their language that they do not protect those things. They do not value the role that faith plays in society.

I want to give a perfect example of why the Liberals cannot be taken at their word that they will protect charter freedoms. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said before committee, “Freedom of religion is already fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” She said that to assuage concerns that Bill C-9 would lead to the further erosion of these freedoms.

Does it sound familiar? It should because Justin Trudeau said something very similar when he was defending the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He said, “I want to reassure Canadians that when the Emergencies Act is invoked, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect their individual rights.” The Federal Court later determined that was a lie. The Federal Court of Appeal later affirmed that was a lie. A government that claims it is protecting charter rights is not sufficient enough to actually protect those rights. This is coming from a government that has a long history of censorship bills.

Now, on Bill C-9, when Conservative members of the justice committee wanted to bring forward the testimony of people who are among the millions of Canadians of faith who would be directly affected by this change, the Liberals moved the motion before us today to shut down debate. The Liberals are censoring debate on their censorship bill.

The Liberals are denying us the opportunity to read letters from imams, pastors, rabbis, civil liberties advocates and individual Canadians. They have been flooding members of Parliament's inboxes, voice mailboxes and phone lines with their concerns about Bill C-9. The denunciation of Bill C-9 has not come from some far right conspiracy, as some of the members in this chamber have alluded to today. It has come from the left and the right, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Egale Canada. Groups representing almost every faith tradition in this country, as well as civil liberties organizations and social justice organizations, all believe that Bill C-9 would harm the very groups the Liberals claim it would protect.

Why is this so fundamental? I will go back to my comments in my maiden speech that freedom of expression has always been, and will always be, my hill to die on.

There is a line from James Madison that comes to mind, which is “the advancement and diffusion of knowledge...is the only Guardian of true liberty.” Put simply, if all other freedoms were stripped away except the freedoms of expression and speech, we would be able to use those fundamental liberties to fight back for all the others.

Removing the freedom of expression takes away a vital tool Canadians have against an overzealous and authoritarian government. It is fitting that the Liberals are laying their intentions out so barely that they are prepared to censor the very debates and discussions we need to have in this chamber to justify legislation that would censor the thoughts and expressions of Canadians.

The best remedy, even for offensive speech, is more speech, not enforced silence. The best antidote to someone abusing scriptures is the freedom for all Canadians to freely discuss and debate those scriptures, share their true intention, read their holy texts and demonstrate that these texts came from a place of love. This lies at the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of expression.

Censorship is the confession of a society that it no longer trusts truth to win and that it no longer trusts people to be the arbiters of what should be discussed, debated and freely disseminated in society. When the state dictates what words can be uttered and what scripture verses can be read, it polices the ideas that can be shared and even what can be believed, at a fundamental level, by Canadians.

In the absence of the freedom of expression, there are only official lies. A society that fears words has already begun to fear thoughts themselves. That is why the groundswell of opposition to Bill C-9 has been so robust. The freedom of expression was not enshrined in the charter to protect the easy or the popular; it is there precisely to protect the difficult and the unpopular. Those are the ideas, the sentiments or, as some Liberal members need to be told, the scripture verses that need protection the most.

When we stand up for the freedom of expression, it is not a guarantee that every voice will or should be welcomed. Instead, it is to say that no voice should be silenced because of the dictates of a state that wants to draw an arbitrary line on what constitutes hate to silence those it hates. That is, to be perfectly frank, what is at stake today. The Liberals not only want to silence in our society certain viewpoints, ideas and people, but also to silence those voices from being heard in the legislative process.

I will close on this: Freedom of expression is the covenant of a free people that no idea is so dangerous it must be buried and no citizen so small that their voice may be denied the light. The Liberals may wish to be the arbiters of what we say, and even what we think, but they do not have or deserve that licence.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an absolute pleasure to rise on behalf of the exceptional residents of my riding and Canadian faith leaders, as well as Canadians coast to coast to coast, from whom we have heard, through emails, telephone calls, town halls and stakeholder meetings, a whole litany of pieces of communication, that they are extremely disappointed with the Liberals and their attempt to challenge and stifle freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Let me make something abundantly clear. Unlike the parliamentary secretary, who wanted to frame a very false narrative to support what the Liberal government is doing with this closure debate, Conservatives will always support, unequivocally, churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and cultural centres from all forms of intimidation, obstruction and violence. Canadians of every faith must be able to gather and worship without fear from terrorists, from those individuals who would wish to intimidate and, more importantly, from the Liberal government.

Today's debate is not about protecting places of worship, as the parliamentary secretary wishes to frame this. This debate is about a Liberal censorship motion designed to unequivocally shut down all forms of debate and ram through a controversial change to the Criminal Code.

It is very clear that Canada has been witness to a deeply troubling surge in anti-Semitism, heightened by the October 7, 2023, events, and targeted violence against Jewish communities from coast to coast to coast. In recent days, sadly, there have been targeted shootings at Jewish places of worship in the GTA. In at least one incident, people were inside the synagogue at the time of the shooting. Jewish Canadians are increasingly feeling that their communities are under siege.

There were a number of newspaper articles, and I am merely drawing attention to a few that I read yesterday and today. Today's headlines in the Toronto Sun are “Jews 'Under Attack'” and “Antisemitism out of control”. I am aware, as well, of a social media post by B'nai Brith, “Synagogues under attack. Enough words. Government must act now!” There was another article that I read in the Toronto Sun that talked about the typical responses from all political leaders, particularly the Liberal government, that anti-Semitism has no place in Canada. The article made it abundantly clear that Jewish Canadians and members of all religious denominations and faiths who are facing intimidation and attacks do not want hollow words from their political leaders. They want action. Jewish Canadians, in particular, have wanted action for almost two and a half years, while the Liberals sat in their seats and did not address this rising level of anti-Semitism in a fashion worthy of a federal government.

These attacks are not the result of a missing clause in the Criminal Code. They are a symptom of the rising anti-Semitism that the Liberal government has failed to confront with clarity and strength. Let me be abundantly clear again, as I wish to be on the record to correct this parliamentary record. Bill C-9, if it were law today, would not have prevented the attacks that the GTA saw over the past weekend. Canadians need real leadership against anti-Semitism, not rushed legislation designed for political headlines.

We recall the government House leader saying “put up or shut up” when we returned to start our 2026 legislative calendar. I believe that phrase perfectly captures the government's approach to Parliament. Instead of answering legitimate questions about the bill or listening to concerns raised in committee, the government has chosen to shut down debate through this motion.

This motion would force the justice committee to immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, whereupon all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved. Then the chair would put every remaining question immediately without debate. Debate in the House would also be restricted. There would be only one sitting day at report stage and one sitting day at third reading. Votes are to be forced immediately after further debate.

Now, let me have this next phrase really sink in. I know that the parliamentary secretary did not like my choice of words, but I am going to reference it again: The Liberal government is censoring debate on Bill C-9, its own censorship bill.

Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill began on November 27, 2025. However, the study of the bill began earlier, on October 9 of that same year. Since that time, the committee held eight meetings on Bill C-9. Amendments were debated. Amendments were adopted. Some amendments brought forward by Conservatives were even adopted by the committee as a whole.

It is also important to understand how the government handled that process. Three scheduled committee meetings on the bill were cancelled without explanation. At least two meetings were gavelled out early, again without explanation. The reality is that this committee was engaged in active debate on the bill on the implications of removing the religious defence. In fact, during committee hearings, Liberal ministers even raised questions about religious texts and the scope of the defence.

The current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, when he was the chair of the committee, stated the following:

I want to dig a bit into the concept of good faith....

In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred.... I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke...or be a defence.

Here is the real interesting commentary by the minister and former chair: “There should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”

The moment that minister uttered those words at the justice committee, we received a flood of concerns right across this country, because those words sent a chill down the spine of every religious leader in this country and those who practise their faith. This was, and still is, a direct attack by the Liberal government on freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The Liberals had no business at all making a side, backroom deal in the middle of clause-by-clause consideration to support the Bloc amendment when the clause-by-clause consideration was progressing very well. There was every expectation that we would have come to an agreement, save and except this poisonous amendment by the Bloc Québécois, but no, the Liberal government chose this not because it was in Canada's best interests, not because it was in the best interests of religious leaders across this country, not to stop the rising levels of hatred and not to stop the attacks on the Jewish communities. It did this for purely selfish political reasons.

As I indicated, this was a 50-year-old defence, entrenched in the Criminal Code and brought in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself. It has been used sparingly and not successfully, but that in and of itself does not give licence to this hypocritical Liberal government to remove it for political reasons.

I will wrap it up here. l look forward to questions and will probably elaborate a little more in my responses.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing Bill C-9, not so much in terms of its substance but more in terms of time allocation.

It is important to remember that, in committee, as long as the Conservatives decide to keep speaking to any amendment or clause, we are no longer able to work. They can read the telephone book, a novel or the Old Testament. It can be long and and it can be painful.

I would like my colleague to explain what she thinks will happen with Bill C-9 if we do not adopt this motion today.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the parliamentary secretary. Early in her intervention, she indicated that she had confidence that every member of the Conservative Party of Canada would support the swift passage of Bill C-9. While that may be true in principle, we do not support the method by which they wish Bill C-9 to move through the process. We do not support their ability to censor debate, and it is rather ironic that the member speaks about censoring debate on a censorship bill.

I am also aware that there are some deep divisions within the Liberal Party itself. Is there an expectation that the party will whip the vote, or will the party allow a free vote for those members who voice their displeasure with removing this religious defence?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion to curtail debate on Bill C‑9 in its entirety. That strikes me as odd.

This is happening because the religious right wing of the Conservative Party has been filibustering the committee. They do not like that the Liberals and Bloc Québécois passed an amendment to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. I must say, this is right-wing obstructionism, and I find it illogical. People cannot claim religious goodwill while allowing hatred to be propagated and spread in the name of religion.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have seen a rise in incidents of anti-Semitism, including two shootings at synagogues just last week. It is literally a reminder that Bill C-9 needs to pass, and to pass quickly, to send a strong message to Canadians that hate crimes are heinous and must be denounced. That is why we are acting on Bill C-9, to make it illegal to block or impede someone's access to their community or religious centre, and to create a new stand-alone hate offence so that these crimes are treated seriously.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has put on the record in terms of why it is so important that Bill C-9 pass and on her frustration with the official opposition and the manner in which they feel they have an absolute entitlement to be a destructive force inside the House of Commons and at times in standing committees. As the member has pointed out, this is an issue that was raised during the last federal election. It was a ballot question, as she put it.

My question to the member is this: Would she not agree, given the very nature of the issue, that it is time for us to recognize that the Conservative Party seems to be more interested in the Conservative Party agenda, which in part includes fundraising on this issue, than it is in the public interest of Canada? We can see that through the filibustering they put forward on Bill C-9 at committee.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague across the room, and something that struck me was rather unique. She talked about how, when the Bloc introduced this motion to remove a 50-year-old-plus defence in the Criminal Code, the Liberals listened, the government listened, and she and other Liberal committee members listened.

I am going to ask her now whether she can identify which witnesses were called to the committee on Bill C-9 by the Liberal government to support the removal of the religious defence? It is a very simple question, and I would like a simple answer.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, partisan politics is failing our most vulnerable communities. Partisan politics is failing our response to hate-motivated crimes and violence in this country, and when it prevents Parliament from acting to protect Canadians, then partisan politics is failing Canada itself.

The motion before us today is a response to that failure. Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 19, 2025, and was referred to the justice committee on October 1, 2025. Today is March 9, 2026. Nearly six months have passed since the bill's introduction. Since then, the House has debated the bill and the justice committee has studied it. Well over 30 witnesses have appeared and testified. Communities have spoken, both in person and via briefs, and amendments have been discussed among committee members.

Parliament has done its job of scrutinizing this eight-page bill, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to a decision. After half a year of debate and study, the time has come for Parliament to act. The time has come to bring the combatting hate act to a vote, yet the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate but because today's Conservative Party of Canada is divided on this issue. I say this with sincerity. When this bill finally comes to a vote, I believe many Conservative members will stand with us and support it. I believe that because many of them understand something fundamental, which is that Parliament has a duty to confront a specific form of violence that is rising in our communities: hate-motivated violence.

Bill C-9 is not a complicated piece of legislation. In fact, it is only eight pages long. However, those eight pages carry an important message: that in Canada, hatred and intimidation have no place in our public lives.

The bill does three straightforward things: First, it creates offences to stop people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places such as synagogues, mosques, churches, schools or community centres. Second, it creates a stand-alone hate-motivated offence so that when someone commits a crime of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes it right from the start. Third, it addresses the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols used to target and intimidate vulnerable communities.

I know many Conservatives support these measures because they themselves called for them. In fact, in December 2024, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released its report on fighting anti-Semitism in Canada. That report, which was supported by the Conservatives, recommended measures that are now reflected in Bill C-9: defining hate more clearly, creating a stand-alone hate crime offence and criminalizing intimidation directed at religious communities.

That is why it is difficult for Canadians to understand what has happened since then. The Conservatives of 2024 called on Parliament to act. The Conservatives of 2026 are delaying the very measures they once supported. Canadians are left asking a simple question: Which position reflects the Conservative Party's true position on the issue of hate crimes?

More importantly, this debate is not only about parliamentary process but about Canadians themselves. In the last federal election, our party made a clear commitment to confront the rise of hate-motivated crime, which appears on page 19 of the 2025 Liberal platform. I will remind Conservatives that Canadians, including the people of Carleton, supported our platform to address hate crimes at the ballot box. They asked us to act. Bill C-9 is part of fulfilling that promise.

I have a great respect for the role of the opposition. Opposition parties play a vital role in strengthening legislation. Their job is to challenge, question and even improve bills through committee work, but not to paralyze Parliament simply because a bill creates internal divisions within their own caucus. Unfortunately, this is what Canadians have been witnessing.

For example, the Conservative member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South spent hours in committee speaking about issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill, including his admiration for cats and dogs, while witnesses endured countless hours of filibustering and patiently waited to discuss this legislation designed to confront hate. The Conservative member for York Centre used valuable committee time talking about sandwiches he had for lunch instead of debating how Parliament should respond to threats that Jewish communities are facing in his own riding. This is not serious parliamentary work. Canadians expect so much better from all of us.

Let me be clear. The government has made every effort to constructively work with colleagues across the aisle. When concerns were raised that Bloc Québécois amendments proposed in committee might create uncertainty around the freedom of religion, we listened. We worked with colleagues to introduce a “for greater certainty” clause, making it absolutely clear that preaching, teaching one's faith, reading scripture, delivering sermons, praying and discussing religious texts in good faith would never be criminalized by this legislation.

Religious organizations from across the country welcomed that clarification. Groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Hindu Alliance and the Christian Legal Fellowship, pretty much all religious groups, expressed their satisfaction with this additional clause to Bill C-9 and are now waiting for it to move forward. In other words, when legitimate concerns were raised, we addressed them. This is how Parliament is supposed to work, but even after that collaborative effort, the obstruction has continued.

Parliament has already spent more than 35 hours debating and studying this bill. Witnesses have testified, amendments have been examined and every clause has been reviewed. For a bill of eight pages, that is thorough scrutiny, by any reasonable standard. At some point, debate must give way to decision. Democracy does not function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely. The communities affected by hate cannot wait forever while Parliament argues about procedure.

That is why the motion before us is necessary. It would simply ensure that the committee can complete its work and that the House can finally vote on Bill C-9. Let the legislation come to a vote. Let every member of this House make their position clear to Canadians. Those who support confronting hatred will stand up and vote for it. Those who oppose it will have to explain their choices to the communities that are asking for protection.

Here is what is at play. Across this country, people at synagogues have been shot at. Those at mosques have been threatened. Churches have been burned, people at temples have been harassed and children have arrived at school with hateful or terrorist symbols waved outside their school gates. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a troubling pattern that communities across Canada are experiencing. Law enforcement, community leaders and human rights organizations have told Parliament clearly that the measures in Bill C-9 would give them stronger tools to address these threats.

After six months of delay, it is time for Parliament to move forward. It is time to rise above partisan politics. It is time to listen to the voices of Canadians and send a clear message that hatred and intimidation will never define our country.

Religious Freedom

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the words “Bill C-9” are words that I think are known well right across this whole nation. I have multiple petitions here today that I will present to the House from the citizens and residents of Canada. The petitioners indicate that they are very concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 that would be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, which would literally criminalize individual people for sharing and talking about their faith in the scriptures. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights in Canada and they have to be preserved.

Therefore, these individuals are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, not attack it, to uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and to prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians who are concerned about the amendments to Bill C-9 that would put religious leaders and people of faith at risk of political persecution.

Petitioners note that this amendment would make it possible for a religious leader to be jailed for expressing beliefs in religious texts. A member of the government even shared this view, stating that there are passages in the Bible that were “clear hatred” and that there “should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”

The petitioners call on the government to repeal this amendment and to protect freedom of religion for Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights concerns with an amendment to a Liberal bill, Bill C-9, that would criminalize situations in which an individual might read a passage of a sacred text such as the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc. The petitioners are saying that the state has no place regulating the reading of a religious text or the teaching of a faith community. They highlight that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved in this country. They are against the efforts of Bill C-9 to infringe on those fundamental rights.

The petitioners are asking the government to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue to stand in the House, as are many on this side of the floor, in support of residents and citizens of Canada who are very concerned about the amendment put forward by the Liberal and Bloc parties to amend Bill C-9, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.

The state, they say, has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights, and we need to preserve them.

Therefore, they, the individuals, the undersigned, call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley, who have put forward this petition about the troubling proposal of the Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 that would put the religious freedoms of Canadians at risk.

Petitioners are deeply troubled that the amendment would remove the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code of Canada, which would lead to the criminalization of passages from the Bible, from the Quran, from the Guru Granth Sahib, from the Torah and from other sacred texts and expose individuals to prosecution when expressing sincerely held religious beliefs that the government may deem offensive.

According to this, the Government of Canada is being called on to withdraw Bill C-9, to protect religious freedoms and to defend the right to read and share sacred texts free from the government's interference.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of petitions that I want to present this morning, and there are so many coming in that I cannot do them one by one. They are all in regard to Bill C-9.

These citizens and residents of Canada draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following issue. Canadians are concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9, which could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place, the petitioners say, in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach in matters of faith.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a British Columbia school board trustee was fined $750,000 for the egregious crime of saying there are two genders. These are the same kangaroo courts that the Liberals' online harms act would empower. It is the same regulation of emotion that Liberal Bill C-9 would supercharge.

The Liberals claim they will uphold freedom of expression, but they still have not said whether they will acknowledge and accept the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that they violated the constitutional rights of Canadians by invoking the Emergencies Act.

Will the Liberals commit now to giving up on their censorship agenda and letting Canadians live their lives and speak their minds?

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it true? Did we just heard the member say that Bill C-9 is unnecessary? That is our hate crime legislation. Worshippers in Canada today have felt intimidated and threatened going to their place of worship. We are trying to protect Canadians from that threat, that fear for their lives.

The Jewish community has been asking for this bill for a long time, and it seems like the member does not care.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not to get too far into the weeds, but the committee is the master of its own domain. The committee members could have decided that Bill C-14 was the priority.

Canadians decided that Bill C-14 was the priority. They have been demanding bail reform for eight years, since the initial changes by the former, well the same, Liberal government that caused this entire mess. The Liberals decided to put a divisive issue, the removal of the protections that are inherent to religious expression in Bill C-9, forward instead of bail reform.

Liberals should stop politicizing it, but I am glad we have finally been able to move forward. They should also drop Bill C-9 while they are at it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech the delays that happened at committee, and I hope he can elaborate a little more, because the Conservatives have constantly been trying to get Canadians to somehow believe that the government would table legislation and then obstruct our own legislation. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.

Bill C-9 first went to the justice committee. Therefore, it was under consideration. Bill C-14 came after, and because of the filibuster on Bill C-9, that delayed C-14. Is that not correct?

Religious Freedom

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry to table a petition on behalf of residents of all faiths who have reached out with concerns and signed this petition about Bill C-9, specifically the attempts by the Liberals and the Bloc to ban religious teachings or texts of faith communities. They, too, believe that hate speech is wrong and should not be tolerated, but believe the Liberal government's efforts are misguided. I have heard from Christians, Muslims and other religious organizations, and I appreciate that they have reached out with their concerns. They state the government has no place in the religious teachings or texts of faith communities, and I hear this in the community at large too.

Preserving the right to free speech means defending it when others are threatened with losing that freedom. The petitioners call on the House to protect religious freedom and the right to access, read and share religious texts, and to limit government overreach in matters of faith. It should not be up to the government of the day to freely decide what beliefs are appropriate. I am glad to table this in the House of Commons today.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition that raises important concerns of Canadians about amendments made by the Liberal government and supported by the Bloc to Bill C-9. Petitioners fear that the change could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. They believe that the state should not interfere in religious teachings or scriptures and that doing so risks government overreach into matters of faith. At the core of this petition is a call to protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression as fundamental rights in Canada. They urge the government to ensure that Canadians can continue to read, to share and to practice their faith without fear of being criminally charged.

Motions in Amendment

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by referring back to the response I received from the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas when I asked him how we came to be debating Bill C-14 at the report stage today.

As mentioned, there has been a lot of talk about Bill C-9 in committee but, unfortunately, nothing has come of it because the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment that sought to remove the religious exception as an excuse for promoting hatred. This frustrated the Conservatives, to use my colleague's wording, and as a result, we wasted a lot of time on this bill.

As also mentioned, Bill C-14 was a bill that the public wanted, that the Conservatives wanted, and that the Liberals wanted. Bill C-14 had to be passed quickly, which is why the two parties reached an agreement to speed up the process of getting it passed. I would say that this is where the problem lies. Corners were cut for political purposes, and I find that more than unfortunate.

This bill is important, not to mention substantial. At 40 pages long, it contains 84 clauses pertaining to both the Criminal Code and the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Some of the amendments, those that cleared up legal uncertainties and filled in gaps, were entirely welcome. Others, however, touched on crucial aspects of criminal law, including the presumption of innocence.

Following an agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives, we ended up finding a way to set aside the debate of Bill C-9 on hate speech in order to discuss Bill C-14 at lightning speed. We ended up studying this hefty bill in committee, where we heard from witnesses during just two two-hour sessions. After that, we conducted a clause-by-clause study that took just one sitting. From 5 p.m. until about midnight we got through the whole thing in one go, because that was all the time we had. The decision had been made that it would be a short study.

I would argue that this is a shameful way of doing things, because it kind of invalidates the whole purpose of the role of MPs, which is to do a good job as legislators, in favour of something that is much more political and partisan. Both sides were determined to come out ahead. They wanted to be able to say that Bill C-14 has been passed, and too bad if we did it quickly, too bad if we cut corners, too bad if we have to redo the work later because we overlooked certain aspects, and even too bad if the Supreme Court eventually has to review certain provisions because we did not have time to analyze them properly and, more importantly, to properly discuss them with the people on the ground who will be applying them on a daily basis.

There are several aspects of the bill that affect what lawyers, Crown prosecutors and criminal defence attorneys do every day. I find it very unfortunate that more time was not taken to hear from them to find out whether they had any additional recommendations that could have been implemented to improve the bill. In some cases, this could perhaps have been done unanimously in committee. Some recommendations would probably have been very interesting to hear, but we did not have that opportunity because everything was done so quickly.

Nevertheless, I would like to make another point. When it comes to criminal law, we sometimes tend to fall back on wishful thinking, imagining that everything can be done through legislation and that this will solve problems that should really be solved through prevention or rehabilitation measures, which generally require more funding, more money. We are content to pass cosmetic legislation, which only gives the public a false sense of security.

I will give a very basic example. Increasing a sentence from 10 years to 15 years for a given crime will not necessarily reduce the incidence of that crime. Before committing a crime, no one considers the fact that the sentence is now 15 years in prison when it used to be 10, and then decides not to commit the crime because 10 years would have been fine but 15 years is too long. We might have a tendency at times to think that everything can be solved through legislation.

That being said, Bill C-14 is not all bad. We are voting in favour of it. We managed to improve it through amendments. One of those amendments addresses something that is at the heart of our new daily reality, namely the issue of firearms. Unfortunately, in recent years there has been a rise in gun crimes, particularly among young people. They are getting younger and younger and this is happening earlier and earlier in the continuum of violence whether the crimes are committed with firearms or the individual is in possession of firearms.

One of the Bloc Québécois's proposed amendments was accepted. It sought to broaden the definition of violent offence in the YCJA to include when an act is committed with a firearm. This has a major advantage in court. The problem we had before this inclusion was that a judge could not, in a case involving an offence committed with a firearm, order the detention of a young person unless the Crown prosecutor pleaded an exceptional provision. It was therefore necessary to plead an exception in order to have a youth detained for committing a crime with a firearm. By including firearms in the definition of violent offences, we are opening the door for judges to have greater discretion in ordering the detention of youth. This is a provision that will have a real and tangible impact on the ground and will be useful. We are very pleased that the Bloc Québécois amendment was adopted.

Another amendment that was adopted called for the bill to be reviewed in five years. This was done so a committee could review the implementation of the bill and any issues that may have arisen. The committee could then make recommendations on new provisions or amendments in light of the rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are being amended by the bill, particularly, as I was saying, the presumption of innocence, since there is a reverse onus in certain cases for certain crimes. We believe it is important to have an obligation to review the bill again and within a relatively short period of time. The five-year review of the bill is a very welcome idea.

However, I want to come back to what I was saying earlier, which is that a little more time would probably have been useful. Some people may have held back from tabling amendments that might have seemed minor in order to focus on the major amendments, knowing that the deadline was quite short and that we might not have been able to study them for lack of time.

I will give an example that may rather trivial but that could have been discussed had there been more time. It again has to do with the YCJA. One of the legislative gaps in the YCJA had to do with the retention period for youth records. There were already provisions stipulating that, in the event of an absolute discharge, for example, a young person's record had to be kept for one year. The record is no longer retained after one year. After an acquittal or the dismissal of a charge, the record is kept for two months. However, there was no time frame for retaining records in cases where no charges were laid. The retention time for records was established by case law, and there seemed to be some ambiguity in that regard. Bill C-14 corrected this by stipulating that the retention period would be two years, but this still creates problems. The record is kept for two years if no charges are laid, but the legislation also already provides for a retention period of two years if an extrajudicial measure is imposed on the young person. The retention period is also two years if no charges are laid at the end of the investigation, so we have the same retention period for very different situations. If we had had more time, we could have discussed whether to review these retention periods so that a retention period might be 90 days in one case, one year in another and two years in a third case.

Because of time constraints, we were unable to have this discussion on issues that may seem trivial but that actually do fill in some legal gaps. Once again, I find it so unfortunate that parliamentarians were forced to work against extremely tight deadlines for purely partisan reasons, given that both sides of the House wanted to pass Bill C-14 quickly.

Unfortunately, some corners may have been cut a bit.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on how we got to the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

As a result of a mutual agreement between the Liberals and the Conservatives, only two sittings were held where we could hear from witnesses, followed by one sitting for a clause-by-clause study. Due to the Conservatives' filibuster, in part, of Bill C-9, it was a way forward to get to Bill C-14.

Does the Conservative member think that having only two sittings to hear from witnesses is enough for such a substantial bill?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government for 10 years has been soft on crime. It was not until the public put the government on notice that it decided to pretend to do something about it and came out with this bill. The member across the way said it wanted to have it done by Christmas, yet it put the controversial bill, Bill C-9, in front of it to try to take away the religious rights of people across this country. It is obstructing getting this through, so I am frustrated. This needs to keep going.

Religious Freedom

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from residents of Canada about Bill C-9, a bill that would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-9 would allow the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts and to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs with a punishment of up to two years in prison.

Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be protected, so the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9, protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into faith.

Opposition Motion—Serious crimes and refugee claims

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the same sentiment as my colleague from the Bloc. It has always been a pleasure working with him. I certainly enjoy all of his interventions and his contributions to the justice committee.

I think our party made it abundantly clear where we stand on Bill C-14. We wanted to prioritize Bill C-14. We tried desperately at least 19 times before Christmas to prioritize it. Unfortunately, the government chose not to agree with us.

On Bill C-9, there are still some issues that need to be hammered out. There are still some fundamental philosophical differences with respect to the Bloc amendment. We are going to work in earnest to try to overcome those differences. I have reached out to the government, offering some solutions, and I am waiting to hear back from the government.

We desperately want to get to Bill C-16 because that is what stakeholders want us to do. We will work diligently to ensure its passage.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I commend his energy and his passion for the rule of law.

That said, we do not agree with today's motion. That is obvious. I have said so several times already.

My question relates to his passion for justice and the rule of law. Bill C‑14 is coming back to the House on Friday, I believe. Will our Conservative colleagues vote in favour, since I heard them say several times that it is a step in the right direction? Can we also hope that they will support Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, which will be studied in committee tomorrow? Afterwards, we will be looking at Bill C‑16.

Do I take it, from this surge of passion for the law, that we will be able to make progress and pass Bills C‑14, C‑9 and C‑16 in the coming weeks?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact and in reality, the government has been very ambitious in bringing forward a crime package to ensure the security of Canadians. We have heard time and time again of what is happening on the streets, and so we have been very bold in our approach, bringing forward Bill C-5, Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and soon Bill C-16.

We are very much looking forward to the Conservatives' co-operation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I also really enjoy working with her on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I have, of course, read the Conservatives' motion. As I have said a few times since this morning, I am a bit disheartened by the motion because I do not think it is going anywhere.

Still, I always try to find something positive, and I believe I have. I want to know whether my colleague agrees with me on something. We get the impression from this motion that our Conservative colleagues want to work on justice issues. That tells me that we may finally see an end to the filibustering and get some bills passed. Bill C‑14 passed. Tomorrow, we will be working on Bill C‑9. Then, if all goes well, we will move on to Bill C‑16 next week.

I see it as a good thing when I hear that members want to work and will stop filibustering. Does my colleague agree with me?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Conservative motion presented today on public safety, extortion and our immigration system. While this is an important conversation, I have been following the language used by the Conservative members very closely. Unfortunately, it is based on flawed assumptions, misinformation and political posturing, rather than a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to justice in Canada.

Let me be clear: Our government is committed to a justice system that protects victims, punishes repeat violent offenders and is rooted in evidence, not political ideology or fearmongering. In the face of partisan attacks, we are going to set the record straight.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I will specifically focus on parts (c) and (d) of this motion. First, let us talk about part (c) of the motion, which seeks to bar judges from considering some collateral consequences at the sentencing stage. For those unfamiliar with our sentencing framework, judges can consider a wide range of collateral consequences when imposing a sentence. These include impacts on employment; travel restrictions; loss of professional licences; mental health; housing; firearm rights; inclusion in the sex offender registry; family responsibilities, such as care for sick relatives; and immigration status.

Here is the question: Why are the Conservatives complaining only about judges' considering immigration status when deciding a sentence? Why are they not raising the same concern when judges consider the loss of a firearm licence, even in cases involving firearm-related offences? If their goal is truly to remove one type of collateral consequence from judicial consideration, then logically they should be advocating to remove all of them. This includes the very ones, like the loss of a firearm licence, that directly affect public safety. However, the Conservatives focus solely on immigration status. This tells Canadians everything they need to know. Rather than addressing collateral consequences that impact public safety directly, the Conservatives are choosing to stigmatize immigrants.

The reality is clear: Judicial discretion considers all relative factors, and selectively targeting immigration status is both misleading and dangerous. This is not the Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney, who worked to ensure that we did not stigmatize immigrants or portray them as criminals. This is not even the Conservative Party of former prime minister Harper. In fact, the practice of judges considering immigration status as collateral damage and consequence actually started under former prime minister Harper's government.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Pham ruled that judges could consider immigration status only if so doing ensures that the sentence remains proportionate to the crime committed. Former prime minister Harper was fine with that, because it allowed judges the necessary discretion to evaluate all relevant factors. Even the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Calgary Nose Hill, who were in cabinet at the time, said nothing. I suspect they knew it was not a problem then and know it is still not a problem today. However, they are now exploiting the issue to scare Canadians, score political points, cater to the far right base and portray all immigrants as criminals.

This is shameful, and anyone who supports the motion should be equally ashamed. The Conservatives are once again pushing for a failed approach that undermines judicial independence and ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. Rather than interfering with judicial discretion, let us focus on the facts. The courts are not misapplying sentencing guidelines or reducing sentences inappropriately. If the Crown believes a sentence is too lenient, it has the right to appeal. It is just that simple. I dare the members opposite to point to a single case in which the Crown has appealed a sentence for a non-citizen based on immigration status. They will not find one.

Now let us turn our attention to part (d) of the motion, which calls for the repeal of Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. These bills were critical reforms designed to modernize the criminal justice system, protect victims and address the realities of today's world.

Let us take Bill C-75. This bill strengthened protection for victims of intimate partner violence, which is something every member of the chamber should be concerned with. Under Bill C-75, we defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners for all Criminal Code-related purposes, and we created a reverse onus for repeat offenders of violence between intimate partners, making it harder for them to get bail. Repeat offenders, the ones who are the most likely to reoffend, are being targeted.

However, the Conservatives are so blinded by their obsession with headlines that they refuse to see the facts. They claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety, but the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association has made it quite clear that this claim is a false narrative.

Let us talk about Bill C-5. The Conservatives have tried to make it sound like we were somehow soft on crime, but that could not be farther from the truth. They have raised concerns about house arrest for extortionists, but what they fail to say is that conditional sentences are not available for serious crimes like extortion when the sentence is two years or more, or when the offender poses a threat to public safety. Therefore, Bill C-5 did not give criminals a free pass. We actually maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving illegal firearms or criminal organizations, the kinds of crimes that concern Canadians most.

While the Conservatives play politics, our government has a comprehensive agenda to combat organized crime. Bill C-14, for example, would introduce over 80 targeted Criminal Code reforms aimed at tackling violent offenders and organized crime, including extortion, yet what did the Conservatives do? They blocked the bill at committee. Their members wasted valuable time at the committee. They are on record talking about their love of cats and puppies, instead of focusing on bail reform, sentencing reform, gender-based violence and extortion.

Let us not forget Bill C-16, which tackles the growing menace of sextortion, a horrific form of online exploitation. The Conservatives have done nothing but block it. They are even asking the government to split the bill.

While the Conservatives stand in the way of very important public safety reforms, we are pushing forward with real solutions. We have introduced targeted reforms, including lawful access, which would, with Bill C-2, give law enforcement the tools it needs to catch the extortionists before they even commit the crime.

With Bill C-14, we would create new reverse onus provisions for people accused of extortion involving violence, making it harder for them to get bail. We would require that a sentence for extortion be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for arson, not concurrently. We would prohibit weapons at the bail stage for people accused of extortion and organized crime. We would even strengthen bail conditions for extortionists in organized crime, such as geographic limitations. What are the Conservatives doing? They are obstructing.

Let us be clear: Our new Liberal government is committed to protecting victims. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have chosen to play politics with the safety of Canadians. They have obstructed every meaningful reform we have tried to pass, and now they are using partisan rhetoric to undermine our justice system. Canadians deserve better; they deserve a justice system that works for everyone, not just for the politicians who want to score political points.

Let us pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. Law enforcement and Canadians are waiting for this critical legislation to secure our borders, our streets and our communities.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have already had the debate in this chamber between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 in good faith. The Liberals' attempt to bring up another issue that was not related to their election platform in the amendments they made in Bill C-9 disrupted a lot of good work that we could have done collaboratively on behalf of Canadians. Instead, when it was right before Christmas, in December, the Liberals chose not to work with us and to put a wrench in the notion of what freedom of religion means in Canada, when we could have been debating these issues in more detail.

What police also need and what they have been calling for are additional resources and for the Liberals to make sure there are no judicial vacancies.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Manitoba is going to sit there and heckle, and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is just going to heckle. He has nothing to add. He has been part of this obstruction from the start. He has been here for 10 years, but he has brought nothing to the table in terms of this problem, except yelling, screaming and pounding his desk on a non-binding motion. He has an opportunity. He is still yelling.

He has an opportunity to go to his leader's office. His leader sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying he's ready to co-operate. These are words on paper. Yes, on one of the pieces of legislation, the Conservatives have moved forward. On Bill C-14, we have seen some movement. After months of holding it back, after months of filibuster, we have finally seen some movement on that. My understanding is it finally passed committee after, again, mayors and chiefs of police begged the Conservatives to let these pieces of legislation through.

We still see a lot of work ahead of us. We can look at Bill C-2. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stated that Bill C-2 is “a timely and necessary step as part of a sustained commitment to modern laws, modern tools, and modern collaboration.” This will give law enforcement the tools they need to dismantle and prosecute increasingly sophisticated organized crime networks threatening our communities.

Again, the chiefs of police are calling for action, and what do the members have on the other side? They have a non-binding motion, a non-binding resolution. Where are they in their committees? When are they saying to their leaders, “We need action on this. Our chiefs of police, our police associations are demanding action on this. They are demanding action on lawful access.” They will get up and say that terrorism and child exploitation are problems, but they have concerns with the bill. They will not examine it in committee. They will fight it here. They will go back to their constituents and say they supported a non-binding motion. Where are they? They say this is their issue. They talk about it time after time.

I would like to believe the Conservatives have some legitimacy in this space, but where are they? If these bills are so terrible, why are they not getting them to the committee to amend them and make them better in their minds? They are just leaving them here on the floor of the House of Commons. They are not speaking to the Conservative members of their caucus in the Senate to make sure the bills are expedited.

Premier after premier is screaming to get these pieces of legislation passed, whether it is Bill C-2, Bill C-8 or Bill C-9 on combatting hate. The Conservatives are just fundraising off their obstruction of Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16. We even heard the member wanting more mandatory minimums. At the same time, he is obstructing Bill C-16. It is unbelievable, but again, they have a non-binding motion. That is their solution. I am sure that when they meet with chiefs of police and with mayors, they are going to say, “Well, we have this piece of paper.” When they are asked why they would not support other legislation that we have been calling for, they will have no answer. They have had no answer here.

The only thing the Conservatives do have, which I am sure they have not mentioned, is that crime is actually down, but who are they going to blame? They have a non-binding motion to blame immigrants and refugees for the problem. At the same time, they are clutching at their pearls.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the whole crime package that the Conservatives continue to filibuster, I think of Bill C-2 on lawful access; I think of Bill C-9 on combatting hate; I think of Bill C-14 on bail reform; and I think of Bill C-16 on mandatory minimums being reinstated, along with leading on femicide.

These are all important pieces of legislation that Canadians are expecting the Conservatives to pass, not to mention bills like the budget implementation bill. These are the types of legislation that even Canadians in Conservative ridings want passed, but the Conservatives continue to filibuster.

When will the Conservative Party stop thinking about the interests of the Conservative Party and start thinking about the interests of Canadians, and allow legislation to pass?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we asked Canadians today, the vast majority of them would say they are concerned about public safety.

I am very proud of our government. In a very short period of time, we have introduced a whole series of measures and legislation taken directly from key stakeholders, victims groups, police associations, municipalities and provincial leaders to address the major safety issues that concern Canadians today. We have Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-16 and Bill C-14. All of this legislation collectively needs to pass through the House of Commons and be made into law so that it can protect Canadians.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be as passionate an intervenor as my dear colleague from Winnipeg North, but nonetheless I have a few very important things to say about the opposition day motion today.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and as someone who has heard testimony from legal experts, law enforcement and settlement organizations over recent months, I rise to speak to the motion with a perspective grounded in both evidence and our government's principled approach to public safety.

As members may know, I am the daughter of immigrant parents who fled their respective countries due to poverty, war and discrimination. They came to Canada to find a safe place to raise their children, so I very much understand on a personal level what our immigration system means to families, but I also understand that public safety must always be paramount.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: Claiming asylum cannot and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Conservatives would have Canadians believe that our asylum system provides a safe haven for criminals. This is simply not true. Our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already establishes that a claim is ineligible to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board if the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality or by reason of a conviction in Canada for an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their case goes through the criminal justice system. If they are found guilty, their asylum claim is terminated. Their authorized period of stay in Canada ends, and they will face removal. In cases of serious inadmissibility, removed foreign nationals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. Making a refugee claim does not exempt lawbreakers from the consequences of their actions.

I want to address the calls in the motion to repeal Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. The Conservatives claim Bill C-5 allowed house arrest for serious crimes like extortion. This is simply incorrect. Conditional sentence orders are never available where the sentence is two years or more, which is typically the case in serious extortion offences. They are also unavailable where an offender poses a threat to public safety. Furthermore, we maintained mandatory jail time for extortion involving restricted or illegal firearms or extortion connected to criminal organizations, precisely the types of extortion cases Canadians are most concerned about today. The Conservatives should do their homework before repeating slogans.

On Bill C-75, the Conservatives' central criticism is that it codified the principle of restraint and bail, but what they refuse to acknowledge is that Bill C-75 actually strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence. It formally defined “intimate partner” in the Criminal Code to include ex-partners. It created a reverse onus for repeat intimate partner violence offenders, making it harder for them to obtain bail, and it now requires judges to consider prior intimate partner violence convictions and imposes stronger penalties for repeat offenders.

The president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Canada has stated clearly that the claim that Bill C-75 weakened public safety is a false narrative. Canadians deserve a debate grounded in facts. If the Conservatives want to repeal a law that made it harder for repeat intimate partner violence offenders to get bail, then they should say so directly.

Just last week at the immigration committee I chair, we heard from Professor Audrey Macklin, chair of human rights law at the University of Toronto. She confirmed that under Canadian law as it currently exists, individuals convicted of serious crimes are ineligible to seek refugee protection. When asked about individuals who claim asylum after being charged with crimes, she was clear that if they are convicted of that offence, they will be ineligible because the eligibility requirements make them ineligible.

She also noted that those who receive custodial sentences tend to be removed, because they are in custody. Also, CBSA has historically prioritized people serving criminal sentences because they are, frankly, easy to find.

We further heard from representatives of the Refugee Centre, who told us that, in the first nine months of 2025, the acceptance rates for refugee claims reached 78%, of which less than 1% were fraudulent claims. This tells us that the initial decision-making is generally sound and that our system is working. Yes, it is overloaded, but it is working.

Everyone deserves to be and feel safe in their communities, and that is why Canada's government is taking real action to keep Canadians safe, not through slogans and divisive rhetoric but through comprehensive, evidence-based reforms. We have introduced several major bills: Bill C-2, the strong borders act; Bill C-12, the immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which has introduced over 80 targeted criminal code reforms, many directly addressing extortion.

Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for individuals charged with violent extortion, making bail significantly harder to obtain. It would require sentences for extortion to be served consecutively to sentences for related offences like arson. It would prohibit weapons at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime offences. It would strengthen bail conditions for organized crime-related extortion, including geographic restrictions.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has endorsed Bill C-14, stating that it reflects their own recommendations. Police leaders called for broader reverse onus provisions and tougher penalties for organized crime, and Bill C-14 answers all of those calls. We have also made the largest single investment in Canadian border security, $1.3 billion. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers and 1,000 new RCMP personnel. On top of all that, we have created a financial crimes agency to combat money laundering and organized crime.

What deeply concerns me about the motion before us is its intent. The Conservatives are not genuinely seeking to strengthen public safety; they are seeking to create division within Canadian society by suggesting that the federal Liberal government is making it easy for criminals to stay in Canada. This is absolutely false.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill proposed an amendment to Bill C-12 that she claims would have prevented non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making asylum claims. However, in reality, our law already does this. Her amendment would have created more operational and administrative procedures and likely resulted in significant litigation, not greater safety.

While Conservatives rely on slogans and ideological proposals, many of which are imported from outside of Canada, our government is delivering thoughtful, targeted reforms that strengthen public safety, protect victims and ensure that our justice system responds to the realities Canadians face today. While Conservatives are holding important public safety bills hostage in committee, we are working across party lines to ensure that we are delivering for Canadians.

Instead of looking backwards with motions designed to divide Canadians, our government is looking ahead. The criminal justice reform agenda being implemented by the government is principled, responsible and will meaningfully address the public safety challenges that communities across Canada are facing today. The reforms contained in Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-12, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 have been informed by significant engagement with stakeholders right across this country. The federal government is doing its part. We need the provinces to do their part and the cities to do their part.

In conclusion, I encourage all members to work collaboratively to improve our criminal justice system. Canadians expect no less. They expect us to be serious about public safety, not to play political games with their security.

The government opposes the motion before us because it is based on misinformation, would undermine Canada's sentencing principles, remove long-standing judicial discretion and offer no real solutions to the challenges we face. Instead, I urge all parties to support the passage of Bill C-12 and Bill C-14, legislation that is right before us. In doing so, we will make all Canadians safer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the truth.

By the way, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

However, it goes far beyond that. Let us look at Bill C-9, on combatting racism and hate. Once again, the Conservative Party is preventing that legislation from passing. Conservatives will not even let it out of the committee. It is filibuster after filibuster. They complain a lot to Canadians, but in reality, when it comes to actions, their only action is to filibuster to prevent legislation from passing and to try to frustrate the government. Bill C-9 is still in committee, with no indication that it is going to pass.

Bill C-14 is such an important piece of legislation that I have asked the House to sit until midnight. I have asked, for weeks, for unanimous consent for us to continue on, to try to get the Conservatives to acknowledge the importance of bail reform legislation.

That is what Bill C-14 is: important bail reform legislation that every provincial and territorial premier has indicated they want passed. Law enforcement agencies and Canadians as a whole are demanding bail reform legislation. The only reason we do not have bail reform laws today in Canada is the Conservative Party of Canada, and the leader tries to imply that we are being obstructionist. What a joke that is. The Conservative Party has consistently been filibustering important legislation.

We can talk about Bill C-16. It was not that long ago that we introduced it for second reading. I listen to what the Conservatives have already indicated. They do not like the bill. Bill C-16 would reinstate mandatory minimum sentences in law. With respect to the issue of femicide, the bill is something that I think would put Canada on the front line in terms of dealing with that very important issue.

Where are the Conservatives on it? They say we have given ourselves only a couple of days of debate, and they want more debate. Nothing prevents them from allowing legislation to at least get to the committee stage. We can have extensive debates and all sorts of presentations, and hear from Canadians. We can still have debate when a bill comes back for third reading. The Conservatives use this as an excuse; it is not real or legitimate in terms of their filibustering.

The Conservatives say they want democracy inside the chamber. I love and support democracy; that is the reason I have asked on many occasions to allow us to sit longer hours so more members would be able to speak to issues. That is why I have argued that some of the silliness, such as some of the concurrence reports that the Conservatives have brought, has been to prevent the government from passing a legislative agenda dealing with crime.

The Conservative Party is not consistent. The only thing it is consistent on is self-serving. Conservatives prefer to serve the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada than to serve the interests of Canadians. They make a pile of money through fundraising, generating millions of dollars by trying to preach through emails and so forth that the government is not doing anything. The ultimate irony is that the Conservative Party would actually prevent legislation from passing, then say the government controls the legislative agenda and that it cannot pass anything.

Given a dozen grade 12 students from any public school in Canada, I can filibuster indefinitely too. It does not take much to filibuster legislation, and the Conservative Party has actually demonstrated that. I have witnessed a destructive force from the Conservative Party in dealing with legislation. The Conservatives talk about other commitments and ask why the government has not brought them forward.

The budget implementation bill is legislation that the Conservatives continue to filibuster. There is no indication whatsoever. If the leader of the Conservative Party were true to his words, the Conservative Party would come forward and say, “Here is the legislation we will pass. Let us get it to committee. Let us get things to third reading. Let us deliver for Canadians.”

That is what we should be striving to do. That is why there is a great deal of frustration coming from the government benches. Because of a minority government, we need to have more co-operation coming from opposition, and that is just not happening. We are not getting the co-operation required in order to pass the legislation that Canadians deserve. That was legislation that was made in the form of an election platform.

Even though it is platform issues that we are talking about, commitments that were made to Canadians, the Conservative Party of Canada continues to filibuster. That is the reason I ultimately believe that the Conservative Party needs to start listening to what Canadians are saying and responding in kind here on the floor of the House of Commons. They can do a whole lot better on delivering to Canadians by listening to Canadians and actually giving more co-operation in passing the legislation.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

Let me begin clearly: Extortion is a serious crime. It terrorizes families, threatens small business owners and undermines confidence in public safety. In Surrey and across British Columbia, I have met with constituents who are living in fear. They deserve real solutions, not political theatre.

The Conservative motion claims to be about fighting extortion, but it relies on misinformation and proposals that would weaken, not strengthen, our justice system.

In British Columbia, the federal government has provided significant resources to combat extortion. We have committed $4 million to strengthen the B.C. extortion task force through the regional integrated drug enforcement team. In addition, the federal government and the Province of B.C. have jointly provided $1 million to support victims of extortion. The federal RCMP will deploy up to an additional 20 RCMP officers, along with helicopter resources, to support on-the-ground enforcement efforts in Surrey. Further funding is being delivered through the federal gun and gang violence action fund to disrupt gun and gang violence linked to extortion networks.

We have also taken decisive action by listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist organization. The RCMP and the CBSA are actively supporting investigations, laying charges and, where appropriate, also pursuing removal orders against foreign nationals who are inadmissible due to criminality or to non-compliance with Canadian law.

Once passed, Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act, would modernize immigration enforcement and crack down on transnational organized crime, including extortion networks, making it harder for violent offenders to exploit procedural delays.

Now let us address the Conservative proposals directly. They are claiming that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes can make refugee claims to avoid consequences. That is simply false. Claiming asylum does not and will not prevent criminals from being punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal matters take precedence over immigration matters. When CBSA believes a claimant is inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality, their claim is put on hold while their criminal case proceeds. If they are found inadmissible, their asylum claim is terminated, their lawful status ends, and they face removal.

Foreign nationals already subject to a removal order cannot make a refugee claim. In cases of serious inadmissibility, those individuals are permanently barred from re-entering Canada.

CBSA is aggressively pursuing the removal of criminals attempting to misuse the asylum system. Where credibility issues arise, CBSA prioritizes those files, presents evidence to the Immigration and Refugee Board and seeks dismissal or admissibility hearings leading to deportation.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a claim is already ineligible if the person is inadmissible for serious criminality or has been convicted in or outside Canada of an offence punishable by at least 10 years. Adopting the Conservative proposal would not close a loophole; it would create new administrative layers and invite litigation.

Paragraph (b) of the motion would bar asylum claims for those with active criminal proceedings. That, too, has already been addressed. CBSA officers may suspend eligibility reviews when a claimant is charged with a serious offence. Once the criminal case is resolved, the officer resumes the assessment and may deem the person ineligible. Canada's system already prevents asylum claims from advancing when serious charges are pending.

In paragraph (c), the Conservatives call for an end to so-called leniency to avoid deportation. What they are really proposing is to prohibit judges from considering immigration consequences at sentencing. Judges may consider immigration consequences to ensure that a sentence remains fit and proportionate, but never to reduce a sentence below what is appropriate. There is no evidence that the courts are improperly lowering sentences to avoid deportation. Any rare adjustments are reviewable on appeal and often reflect the joint positions of the Crown and defence. Eliminating judicial discretion would weaken, not strengthen, the justice system.

The Conservatives are also demanding the repeal of Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Canadians elected this government with a mandate to strengthen public safety and modernize the justice system, and we are delivering. We have tabled more than six major public safety and criminal justice bills designed to crack down on violent and repeat offenders. Conservatives have delayed them, while premiers, police chiefs and municipalities have called for their urgent passage.

Bill C-75 did not weaken bail. It strengthened protections for victims of intimate partner violence by defining “intimate partner” to include former partners, creating a reverse onus for repeat offenders and requiring courts to consider prior convictions. Bill C-14 would go even further by clarifying that restraint does not mean automatic release, yet the Conservatives have blocked it. I have seen that in the House. The other day, speaker after speaker from the Conservatives did nothing but block Bill C-14, which would strengthen the bail act.

Bill C-5 did not allow house arrest for serious extortion. Conditional sentences are unavailable when sentences exceed two years or offenders pose a public safety threat. Mandatory jail time remains for extortion involving firearms or criminal organizations, which are exactly the cases that Canadians are most concerned about.

Our current legislation agenda targets extortion directly and effectively. Bill C-14 would create a new reverse onus for violent extortion, require consecutive sentences for related crimes like arson, prohibit weapons at bail and strengthen geographic restrictions. Together with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, these reforms would strengthen border enforcement, cybersecurity, hate crime laws and immigration integrity. These are evidence-based measures supported by law enforcement and municipalities across Canada.

Extortion is not a street-level crime; it is driven by organized networks and money laundering. That is why the response must be comprehensive. Fighting extortion requires evidence-based policy and firm endorsement, not false promises, and it requires a justice system that is tough on crime while still upholding the rule of law.

The Conservative approach is to blame immigration and repeal laws. Our approach is to dismantle criminal networks, strengthen enforcement, protect victims and uphold the rule of law. Victims of extortion want results, not slogans. This motion would divide communities, undermine due process and distract from real solutions.

For those reasons, I will oppose this motion and support the serious, targeted reforms needed to keep Canadians safe.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that would be a great speech if it were not for the fact that Bill C-12, which was already passed by the House, deals with just about everything that is in the opposition motion.

I heard the member stand up and talk about everything that the Liberals are not doing right. What about the fact that the Conservatives have held up Bill C-2, on lawful access, and prevented components of that bill from going forward? What about Bill C-9, a bill on hate speech, Bill C-14, on bail reform, or Bill C-16, which reinstates mandatory minimums? The Conservatives have routinely held up these bills. They obstruct Parliament from being able to pass very important pieces of legislation, and then they come in here and try to profess that they have the solutions in opposition motions like this, which serve as nothing more than to act as dog-whistle politics on immigrants.

I think it is absolutely shameful that the member and Conservatives would operate in this manner. If he does not know, he should educate himself. Everything they are looking for in the motion has already been passed by the House in this Parliament.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, I would say that perhaps he should ask our Conservative colleagues that question.

He is right about the fact that there has been some filibustering on Bill C-9. I find that unfortunate, as I always do. Such tactics can be really harmful and prevent democracy from taking its course. I understand that we want to debate and make submissions and that we may spend one, two or three meetings hearing from witnesses and presenting arguments against a bill. That is fine. However, I find it unfortunate when members engage in filibustering, because it does not get us anywhere.

I hope that we will not have to deal with such tactics when it comes to Bill C-16. Until I have proof to the contrary, I will trust in the good faith of our Conservative and Liberal colleagues, and I invite everyone to work hard on these bills.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to Bill C-16 and that he is looking forward to it ultimately going to committee. I too want to see it go to committee, but if we look at what we have witnessed in the past, and I reference Bill C-9, which deals with hate crimes, the Bloc have come up with an amendment, and as a direct result we have seen a great deal of filibustering on that piece of legislation coming from the Conservative Party.

Does the member believe the Conservatives would, in fact, if we get to it at some point, allow it to go to committee and continue to do a bit of filibustering on it, given that the members of the Bloc have some ideas they would like to share in terms of amendments? There just seems to be a lot of filibustering.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that it is entirely valid and honourable to want to combat extortion. It has caused many problems in our society and, unfortunately, I suspect that we have not seen the end of it. However, we need to be clear-headed and make certain distinctions in order to be effective in our fight against extortion.

The fight against crime is currently the subject of much debate at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We studied Bill C-14 in a panic. We rushed it through in three meetings, which I thought was a shame because it gave us little time to seriously consider the different provisions. We did manage, I think, to come up with something that will be useful and I commend my Conservative colleagues and my Liberal colleagues on their collaboration on this bill.

Tomorrow, the committee will likely finish its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9. That is another good thing, fighting hatred. Immediately afterwards, we will begin studying Bill C-16. All of these bills will be useful in fighting crime, and I thank my colleagues from all parties for their work.

In this motion, however, the Conservatives are raising the issue of extortion and seem to be attributing it to refugee claimants or immigrants. This is where I disagree. That is going a bit too far. I am not saying that refugees or newcomers are angels or that none of them have ever done anything wrong. That would be a bit naive. There are people of good faith and bad faith among both newcomers and people who have lived in Quebec and Canada for generations. We have to keep things in perspective.

Among other things, a reference was made to the case law and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Pham. However, that decision did not say that the consequences of a court decision on a newcomer's status or application for status should not be considered. It said that the entire situation, all the consequences, must be taken into consideration, and that is how it should be. We cannot, as MPs, mandate how decisions should be taken in the future and what criteria to apply.

What our Conservative colleagues are proposing seems sort of like when someone gets AI to do their work. They can go on a computer, enter some conditions, criteria and reasons, and get AI to spit out the decision that will apply to so-and-so's case. That is one way to do things. I think it is unfortunate, but perhaps that is the way things are going. Personally, I much prefer human justice.

I would rather have a judge, or a few judges, getting to hear all the evidence in each case and make decisions that are humane, that meet the legal criteria and follow the rules we have set for ourselves as a society, but that also show a modicum of human mercy when it comes to tailoring humane decisions to each case. That is more or less what the Supreme Court said in the Pham decision in 2013. It said that, to determine if a sentence is fair, the court must consider all the consequences it would have on the individual, in terms of their employment, their immigration status, their family and so on.

Today's motion says that, going forward, no consideration will be given to all the circumstances of people who apply for refugee status and who have a criminal record or have been charged or convicted in their country of origin. With all due respect, I would say that is a bit lazy. I believe that the court needs to hear the entire case and take all the circumstances into account.

Earlier on, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean very aptly mentioned the case of Raif Badawi, who was recognized here in Parliament not so long ago. I do not recall the exact wording of that particular motion, but it recognized that he had a certain degree of credibility and was eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship. Raif Badawi was charged and convicted in his country of origin and was sentenced to lashes. He was sentenced to all kinds of punishments that he never would have received here in Canada.

Does this mean that, in the case of someone like Raif Badawi, too bad, so sad, the government does not care and would never let them in? Alternatively, is the government willing to consider each case on its merits and make informed decisions? I believe that is how the system works now, and I prefer this humanized system with all its strengths and weaknesses.

As a society, we decided that we would rather let a criminal go free than put an innocent person in prison. Yes, it would be easy to fill our prisons with suspects and say that is the way to reduce crime. That probably would reduce crime, but it would be a major step backward in terms of quality of life and respecting everyone's rights and freedoms. Let us steer clear of that trap, be sensible, trust our courts and avoid being too prescriptive.

In a similar vein, this reminds me of the mandatory minimum sentence issue. We have been talking about Bill C‑5. Our colleagues feel that Parliament should not have passed Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75. I remember voting in favour of Bill C‑5, but that bill had two components. First, it repealed mandatory minimum sentences. Second, it established diversion measures for simple drug possession.

The Bloc Québécois believes in rehabilitation. We believe that a young man or woman caught with a small amount of drugs in their pocket should face consequences. However, mandatory minimum sentences are a bit too much. I think such cases should be left to the courts to decide. Often, a diverted sentence better serves the interests of justice, the victim and society than sending someone to prison for the time prescribed by law. Diversion opens the door to measures other than a trial and conviction, which is a good thing. We supported that.

We had asked the minister to divide Bill C-5 in two, with diversion in one bill and the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences in another, since they are two separate matters. The minister at the time refused to split up Bill C-5. We had to work on the bill as a whole, and we ultimately passed it. I think the bill's benefits outnumbered and outweighed its drawbacks.

We had a problem with the mandatory minimums. We wanted to make some changes to those provisions, but unfortunately, we were unable to do so. I remember making some suggestions in committee, but they were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. That said, that is how democracy works, and that is what happened. Members will recall that we had no choice but to do away with many of the mandatory minimums because the Supreme Court found them to be unconstitutional. We had to sort of clean up the Criminal Code. The courts will never apply anything that is unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court said, so these sentences had to be removed from the Criminal Code.

I proposed a change at the time. I proposed adopting mandatory minimums for certain crimes, such as those committed with a firearm, but allowing judges to make exceptions to them in extenuating circumstances. That would have required judges to explain in their decisions what made the case in question unique and why the mandatory minimum should not be applied. However, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives agreed with my proposal, so unfortunately, we ended up with Bill C-5 as it now stands.

The new bills, and more specifically Bill C‑16, include a provision similar to the one I proposed. I look forward to its consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I hope we can improve the situation.

Once again, the Conservatives' proposal is rather unfortunate. Fighting organized crime, extortion and fraud is laudable. It is a good thing. However, the proposed approach, which is to lump everyone together and refuse to take into account each newcomer's circumstances, is not acceptable in the fair and democratic society we have created for ourselves.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I understand the Bloc is going to be voting against the motion. I see that as a positive thing. I really do believe there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Conservative motion today. If we take a look at it, the biggest barrier in terms of actually dealing with these issues today is the Conservative Party of Canada.

We have seen, whether it is Bill C-2, Bill C-14, Bill C-9 or Bill C-16, that all of those bills are there from a Prime Minister who was elected—

Religious Freedom

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that Liberal Bill C-9 would be an infringement on those rights. They therefore call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and to prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

I am honoured to rise and present a petition on behalf of constituents of the great riding of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North who are concerned about the Bloc-Liberal amendment to Bill C-9 that would threaten religious freedoms. The petitioners want the protection of religious freedoms, and the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge to table a petition to withdraw Bill C-9 and requesting that this government uphold and protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as these fundamental rights must be preserved.

Bill C-9 would allow the state to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs the government finds offensive. Citizens ask to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into faith.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition.

Citizens across this nation have been very concerned about the direction Bill C-9 is going and have indicated that they are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community.

Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Therefore, these individuals call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach in matters of faith.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition today in the House of Commons on behalf of concerned residents of Regina and southern Saskatchewan.

Signers of the petition are concerned about recent Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 that could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other religious texts. They feel that government censorship of these religious texts, especially in churches, temples and other places of worship, represents an unreasonable infringement of the charter rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and that the bill in its current form should never become law in this country.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, no, it is not in my riding. It is just south of my riding. It is greylisting hospital facilities because they are not safe. What that does is amplify what the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime mentioned in her question.

This is not just Ottawa passing laws. This is something for which the provinces need to step up, as well as municipalities, which are responsible for law enforcement. When we talk about the desire to protect first responders, it is important that all the stakeholders appreciate and understand that it is different levels of government coming to the table.

I like to believe that Ottawa is doing that, and tonight we are seeing both the official opposition and the government, in a very passionate way, expressing why we support our first responders. I am encouraged to see that sort of support coming from the official opposition.

We are not too late. This is second reading of this particular private member's bill, but there is an opportunity for us to have legislation that would take care of this issue before the end of February. I argued two or three months ago that it could have been done at the end of December. There is no reason we could not do it before the end of this month. All we need is co-operation from the Conservative Party to stop the filibuster on Bill C-14.

When we talk about Bill C-14, law enforcement officers, every provincial and territorial government, political parties in all areas, although I am not too sure about the Greens, but the major political parties are all behind Bill C-14. I do not know where the opposition to it is coming from, outside of the official opposition here on the floor of the House. That is why we hear the frustration from the government House leader or other members when they talk about how there is substantial legislation before us, and it continues to be filibustered.

The member spoke eloquently, passionately and emotionally about first responders, calling on the government to take some action. I would hope that we would see that same passion in the Conservative caucus when they talk about the government agenda dealing with some of the crime legislation. In particular, I mean Bill C-14, but there is also the other crime legislation, such as Bill C-2; Bill C-9, the hate legislation; Bill C-14; and Bill C-16, which we recently debated. I suggest it would make us world-class in how it would recognize femicide by boosting it to first degree. It would reinstate many mandatory minimums. Whether it is what we are talking about tonight, bail reform or what Bill C-16 would do, these are ideas that Canadians as a whole support. Canadians in Conservative ridings support these initiatives.

As such, my appeal to members opposite is to recognize what the introducer of this particular bill has talked about, but to also do a comparison between Bill S-233 and Bill C-14. We would find that Bill C-14 would even go further than Bill S-233 in dealing with and supporting first responders. That is not to mention many other aspects of the criminal code, like that bail reform.

We do have an opportunity, a very real and tangible opportunity, but we need to see more co-operation and less filibustering.

Religious Freedom

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the contents of Bill C-9 and its assault on religious freedom. Their fear is that Christians and other religious individuals who believe in the Bible will be told they are engaging in criminal activity.

On behalf of these citizens, I urge the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect religious freedom in Canada.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the citizens of Cambridge to table a petition to withdraw Bill C-9. Petitioners request that the government uphold and protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech as these fundamental rights must be preserved.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to table a petition on behalf of the constituents of my riding who want to force the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-9 and block the Liberal amendment that was passed in committee to remove the religious freedom defence clause from the Criminal Code.

The petitioners believe that the government is going to criminalize passages from the Bible, Quran, Torah and other religious texts. If allowed, it would prosecute those who deeply express their religious beliefs. Punishment for such a crime is up to two years. The state has no business in people's religious faiths, teachings and the beliefs that they hold deeply within their conscience. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking for the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-9, protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government institutions from interfering.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of petitioners from Oxford County who are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community, and freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

They are calling on the Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Public Safety

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to look at what is in front of us right now, as we speak. We have a number of very important pieces of legislation that will address the issue that my friend opposite brought forward. There is Bill C-12, which is going through the Senate. There is Bill C-9. There is Bill C-14, which speaks to bail reform, as well as ensuring that there is consecutive sentencing. There is also Bill C-16. Again, I ask the members opposite to pass the legislation and make sure it becomes law.

Religious Freedom

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, calling on the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect religious freedoms in this country. Petitioners note that the Liberal and Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 that passed at committee would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code, therefore criminalizing sacred texts like the Bible and punishing and prosecuting Canadians for expressing deeply held beliefs.

Petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are embedded in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They form the bedrock of western democracy and led to the flourishing of societies for thousands of years. We must not drift into the postnational woke Millism of the far left.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know there was a secretary of state for revisionism, but here we are. From the party of the charter that was just found a couple of weeks ago by the Federal Court of Appeal to have trampled on the civil liberties of Canadians, I find that a little rich.

When the parliamentary secretary dismisses the concerns about Bill C-9's attack on religious freedoms, she is actually saying that the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the Canadian Council of Imams and the National Council of Canadian Muslims all know less about religious freedom, their values and their ability to uphold and preach these values than the Liberal government does.

Will she say right now that she knows better than all of these people who have lined up to denounce Bill C-9 in whole or in part, particularly the removal of long-standing protections for religious speech?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, all of whom have seen first-hand the rise in crime that has taken place over the last 10 years, aggravated largely by Liberal reforms to bail and Liberal reforms to criminal justice that have made it easier for repeat, often violent, offenders to be out on the streets.

This is why I spent much of the summer engaging with members of the community, members of municipal governments and members of law enforcement, to hear their concerns and bring them to Ottawa, not just as a member of Parliament but also as a member of the House of Commons justice committee, a committee I was tremendously honoured to be appointed to because I wanted to have a hand directly in addressing some of these issues.

I was quite frustrated when the very first bill that came before this committee from the government was not a bill fixing the bail system. It was not a bill reforming sentencing. It was not a bill that was beefing up mandatory minimum sentences. It was, in fact, a bill that took aim at freedom of expression and religious liberty. I am talking, of course, about Bill C-9, the very first justice priority identified by the Liberal government.

This is a bill that I have spent a lot of time on, engaging with representatives of faith communities and, basically, all communities that feel it will infringe on their rights. I have had round tables in my own riding with faith leaders, and I have had round tables and town halls across the country. Thousands of Canadians have come out personally to these to share their concerns. Countless more have phoned our offices, emailed or dropped by. I believe one group said 40,000 phone calls were made by their volunteers to Liberal members of Parliament, urging them to withdraw Bill C-9.

I cite that now to show the priority issue that we have seen from the government when it comes to justice. In my question to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I said that Canadians wanted action on real crime, not thought crime. I am pleased that between then and now, finally, my Liberal colleagues on the justice committee have agreed to do what we tried, I believe, close to 20 times to get them to do in December, which was to set aside this divisive and toxic Bill C-9 and focus on bail.

I am very pleased that, right now, the justice committee is working on Bill C-14, a bill that, despite not going far enough, is at least a response to some of these concerns that we have heard. We similarly have a bill that just today was referred to the committee, Bill C-16. Again, I believe it has flaws, but at least it is tackling the real criminal justice priorities that Canadians have identified.

The question that I was asking the Secretary of State, a question that I reiterate tonight to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, with whom I have the great privilege of serving on the justice committee, is whether the Liberal government has truly heard the concerns of Canadians, whether its justice priorities are in dealing with the revolving-door bail system, acknowledging the role that Liberal laws have played in making that problem what it is today, and whether it will commit now to focusing on these real criminal justice priorities and not on this bill that countless Canadians have said will infringe on their rights.

Can we get that commitment from the parliamentary secretary right now?

Religious Freedom

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of Canadians, including those in my own constituency, who are alarmed by what the Liberal government would do through Bill C-9. They are concerned that in spite of claims that Bill C-9 would protect communities from hate, in actuality it would expose faith communities to harm from the government for daring to express their faith and to quote religious texts.

Petitioners are very concerned by this proposed infringement on religious liberty, which was aggravated of course by comments from the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who argued that there should be prosecution for citing certain religious texts.

Petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and focus on upholding freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of members of my community, Canadians who are concerned with Bill C-9 and the attack on religious freedom and freedom of expression proposed by the Liberal and Bloc members, and in particular their proposal to amend the Criminal Code to remove long-standing safeguards for the good-faith expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and the preaching and discussion of religious texts such as the Bible, the Quran and the Torah.

Petitioners in my community therefore request that the government withdraw the proposal and instead promote and protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today on behalf of Canadians across this country who have been tuning in to the committee study of Bill C-9. They are concerned that the Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages of scripture.

The state has no place in the religious texts or teaching of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights; therefore, the petitioners call on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach in matters of faith.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of Canadians in regard to Bill C-9.

The petition calls on Parliament to support people of all faiths so they can live according to their beliefs without discrimination or government interference. People who signed the petition are calling on the government to uphold and protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights in our democratic country.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and present a petition from the folks in my riding who are really concerned about the Liberals' Bill C-9. The petition says Canadians are concerned that the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize scriptural passages, that the state has no place in the religious text or teachings of any faith community and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach when it comes to matters of faith.

Protecting Victims Act

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that I have been. Let us talk about that.

Where was the member on Bill C-14 when we were at committee studying Bill C-9, which is a highly contentious bill that I bet the government does not have the guts to bring forward again? It was so contentious and so divisive that we, as Conservatives, asked to shelve Bill C-9 so we could move to Bill C-14, a bail bill. We actually asked the government to move forward on that bill. What did the Liberals do? They stuck with Bill C-9. How are we filibustering bills, when we are asking them to bring forward bills?

I am the last of four speakers today. We are debating the bill. Last time I checked, in the House of Commons, we debate. We could put up more speakers, because I bet no one else is going to rise to debate it, so again, why is there a narrative about filibustering? At the end of the day, we are actually saying that Bill C-16 has elements we are agreeable to and elements that we do not necessarily agree with.

However, in a democratic society, it is so important to debate these ideas, such as mandatory minimum sentences, which I have been quoted on. It was quite complimentary to hear that, and I would love to further debate the idea of a mandatory minimum sentence with a safety valve for cruel and unusual punishment, and what that means.

Would we adopt the common law definition of “cruel and unusual”? Would Parliament itself legislate something about cruel and unusual punishment, to do exactly what we need to do, which is to say that mandatory minimums should apply 99.99% of the time, and this is what the other 0.01% of the time looks like? That is what we want to do. That is why the bill would go to committee.

I really hope the Liberals stop with their rhetoric, because it is wrong and it is incorrect.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I want to dispel the canard that is coming from the Liberal side. The Liberals say the Conservatives want to filibuster bills. However, when the Liberals were debating Bill C-9 in committee, a highly divisive bill, the Conservatives said no fewer than 20 times that we wanted to talk about bail. The Liberals have the audacity to stand up in the House and say that we are filibustering crime legislation, when we begged them to talk about crime legislation, not just in December in committee but for the last 10 years.

When will the hypocrisy end? What does my friend think?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important for all members of all political parties to realize that when we talk about the issue of crime, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in an election platform, and we have substantial legislation before us.

We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-9, Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, the debate that we are having today. Bill C-14 is bail reform legislation. Bill C-16 reinstates mandatory minimums. All of these are important pieces of legislation, and the Conservative Party, for whatever reason, continues to not allow that legislation, as a package, to pass. The Conservatives want to filibuster it. If the member is genuinely concerned about fighting crime in Canada, why are Conservatives filibustering this important legislation—

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite seems to be quite angry, but I must say that the Liberals have had almost 11 years to resolve this. The committee tried 19 times to put it ahead of Bill C-9, and it was refused. That was our positive, collaborative way to try to bring this forward in a timely way.

However, the bill would take away mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated assault with a gun and for human trafficking. It would take them away for multiple violent offences, including extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings with a restricted or prohibited firearm, and many others.

The point of my speech, and my answer for the member opposite, is that we would ensure that those mandatory minimum penalties, which are focused on the victims, are in the legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member has it wrong. Bill C-16 would reinstate numerous mandatory minimum penalties, something Canadians want to see, yet the Conservatives are opposing it.

We have a series of crime legislation. We can talk about Bill C-29, Bill C-9 and Bill C-14, which were popular pieces of bail reform legislation, or about the legislation we have today. The Conservative Party continues to deny the passage of this type of legislation, and then the Conservatives try to say they are not filibustering. That is just not true. The reason we do not have bail reform legislation passed in Canada today is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the truth; they cannot change the facts.

Will the member not agree that it is time that the Conservative Party started listening to Canadians, those in Conservative ridings too, and allow important legislation of this nature to pass through the system? The legislation needs to get to the committee. Will the member commit to having the entire legislative agenda in terms of the crime file pass before the end of February?

Religious Freedom

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition from concerned Canadians who are worried about the Bloc and Liberal amendments to Bill C-9. They are urging the government to protect free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of Canadians concerned over Bill C-9. Canadians believe that the state has no business involving itself in matters related to sacred texts or religious teachings and that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be safeguarded.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to bring forward this petition in support of a group of people who want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to some of their concerns surrounding the Bloc and Liberal amendments to Bill C-9. The petitioners are urging us to look at this and understand that it could be used to criminalize passages of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran and other sacred religious texts.

Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights in Canadian society. The petitioners are urging the government to protect freedom of expression and religious freedom in this country, and I stand with the petitioners in their request.

Justice

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from 11,500 Canadians who are asking that the Liberal government no longer proceed with Bill C-9 but enforce existing laws to protect Canadians. Among other things, they say Bill C-9 lowers the legal standard for hatred with a vague definition, which is confusing and unmeasurable, threatening freedom of speech and expression; that it removes important safeguards, such as requiring Attorney General approval for hate speech charges; and finally, that it will undermine constitutional rights to freedoms of religion, conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression, and the freedom of press and other mediums of communication.

Protecting Victims Act

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have become very familiar with Liberal rhetoric on public safety, unfortunately. We hear their words about combatting crime, standing with victims and protecting women and children, but words are not results, and rhetoric does not keep communities safe, unfortunately. Bill C-16 is a case study in the government's approach to justice: announce the right intentions, borrow Conservative ideas, and then quietly undermine accountability in the fine print.

We will admit that this bill contains provisions that will genuinely help victims, provisions Conservatives have long supported, proposed, and defended in this House. However, it also contains structural changes that would weaken sentencing certainty, expand judicial discretion and erode Parliament's authority, all while violent crime continues to rise.

Make no mistake. Conservatives are ready to get to work, and we will work with the Liberals. They are more than welcome to take our ideas, as they already have, but Canadians deserve honesty, not more Liberal spin. We cannot claim to be tough on crime while systemically weakening consequences for the most serious crimes.

Where C-16 is grounded in reality rather than the same old Liberal ideology, it deserves some recognition. The creation of a Criminal Code offence targeting intimate partner violence is an important first step, because we know violence rarely begins with a single act. It begins with patterns like control, isolation, intimidation, surveillance and financial pressure, all designed to dominate another person. By recognizing this behaviour as criminal before physical violence occurs, the law can intervene earlier. This approach aligns with Conservative principles of protecting victims, taking threats seriously, and deterring violence before it escalates. If the Liberals are serious about addressing intimate partner violence, Conservatives stand ready to strengthen this provision, along with this bill, not just more Liberal announcements.

Much of what the government is now promoting as progress in Bill C-16 is, in fact, a long-standing Conservative policy. Let me start by saying that making the murder of an intimate partner automatically a first-degree offence was first advanced by the Conservative member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Expanding protections against the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, like sexually explicit deepfakes, also came from Bill C-216, from the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill, which the Liberals expressed opposition to before they finally embraced it. Mandatory reporting of child sexual exploitation material was built on the laws enacted by the previous Conservative government.

We are glad that the Liberals have finally recognized the value of these Conservative proposals. They are welcome to take our ideas, because Canadians are safer every time they do so, but this record also exposes a contradiction that Canadians are noticing. If Conservatives were right about protecting victims, why does the government continue to be wrong on sentencing, bail and accountability?

This is at the heart of the problem with Bill C-16. Buried inside this omnibus bill is a so-called safety valve that would afford judges with significant discretion on sentencing for nearly every serious offence in the Criminal Code. We have seen how this has played out in several instances where the Liberals have enabled judges to give discounted sentences based on the race or immigration status of the accused. Parliament would explicitly authorize courts, because of Bill C-16, to impose sentences below mandatory minimum penalties whenever a judge concludes that applying the minimum would be cruel and unusual for that particular offender. That is not a narrow exception. It applies to nearly every mandatory minimum in the Criminal Code, excluding only murder and treason. In other words, judges could ignore mandatory sentences for crimes like various sexual offences, robbery with a firearm, weapons trafficking, child sexual abuse material offences, robbery and extortion.

We know that mandatory minimums exist for a reason. They ensure the uniform denunciation of serious crimes. They provide a predictable and baseline consequence for the most dangerous crimes. They provide deterrence and incapacitation of dangerous offenders.

Bill C-16 replaces legislative certainty with subjective offender-specific assessments, thereby fragmenting sentencing across cases, courts and jurisdictions. It is another example that the Liberals are putting criminals first. If a mandatory sentence could be ignored whenever a judge disagrees with Parliament, then Parliament would no longer be setting sentencing policy. Judges would still be left to fill the gap. That is not progress, as Liberals like to describe it; it would mean a quiet erosion of democratic accountability, leaving the criminal justice system unaccountable to the Canadian electorate. The result of this is that Canadians all across the country will live with rising violence, and victims will ultimately pay the price as mandatory minimums are not enforced.

We need to take a step back and look at how we got here. Perhaps the clearest measure of the government's priorities is what it has not done. It is impossible to ignore that it has been nine months since the last election, and still, in those nine months, despite daily headlines, police warnings and community fear, the government has delivered no meaningful bail reform to scrap the weak Liberal bail and no serious action targeting repeat violent offenders, and shown absolutely no urgency in restoring public safety.

Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, not a single public safety bill has been passed so far, despite multiple attempts by Conservatives to make concrete proposals after months of work to fix the justice system that the Liberals broke in the first place. This has resulted in violent crime being up 55%, sexual assaults up nearly 76% and human trafficking up 84%. These are not just abstract statistics. Behind these numbers are victims, families and neighbourhoods that no longer feel safe all across the country because the Liberals set into motion this catch-and-release system not too long ago.

Police officers, prosecutors and premiers have all said the same thing, that the Liberal bail system, which they are responsible for, is now broken. Repeat violent offenders are being released again and again, sometimes within hours, only to offend again. What is even worse is that, instead of scrapping the weak Liberal bail and fixing the bail system for good, the government first focused its attention on Bill C-9 back in the fall, repealing long-standing and important Criminal Code safeguards that protect religious freedom made in good faith. Without these long-standing safeguards for individuals acting in good faith that is reasonable and without malicious intent, core freedoms are put at risk. The preaching of religious doctrine or the reading of sacred texts could be swept into criminal law if a government of the day deems it objectionable.

At the same time, the proposal introduces a vague and elastic definition of “hate”, one that invites abuse and risks criminalizing lawful expression that has always been protected in a free society. Fixing bail should come before policing beliefs, and protecting communities should come before restricting liberty. Conservatives will always defend freedom of religion and expression, especially when government overreach hides behind these so-called intentions.

Conservatives are not here to obstruct. We are here to stand ready to work with the Liberals to strengthen victim protections and scrap the weak Liberal bail system, which the Liberals set in motion. We are here to restore sentencing certainty, reassert Parliament's role and make communities safer. The Liberals are more than welcome to take our ideas, as they already have, if it delivers real results for Canadians, except we know the Liberals always water down our ideas and then take the credit for it. They are free to take the credit for it if it delivers for Canadians, but rhetoric must finally match reality.

Canadians do not want speeches, Canadians do not want photo ops or press releases, and they certainly do not need another public safety summit so the Liberal government can figure out what is wrong after 10 years. They want safety, they want accountability, they want action and they want a justice system that puts victims and law-abiding Canadians first. Conservatives stand ready to deliver that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how the member wants me to commit to a series of things that his own House leader has most of the control over, which is when a bill is going to pass in this place.

I do not know when the Liberals are going to call the bill. We have already seen what they have done at the justice committee with Bill C-14, which was expeditiously referred to the committee only to languish there while they played politics with Bill C-9. The member is determined to blame the opposition for the Liberals' inability to manage the parliamentary calendar.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the hon. member for his comments, although they seem to be derived from an alternate universe. The facts on the ground are that Conservatives have always supported and advocated for tougher sentencing laws and have wanted the government to get tough on crime.

Bill C-14 was introduced on October 23. We advanced that bill to committee on November 18 with the understanding that it would be moved quickly through committee so it could be passed into law. The government then decided to ram Bill C-9 through and support a Bloc amendment that attacked freedom of expression. All this is to say that, because we are defending freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform.

Conservatives have always been in support of tougher crime laws, and what Canadians need to ask themselves is why. The Liberals broke the bail laws to begin with. We are here to—

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that statement, although, unfortunately, much of it is placed in some alternate universe that must exist out there. As everyone is well aware, Conservatives have been advocating for a tough-on-crime agenda for years at this point.

We supported sending Bill C-14 to committee for study, yet it was put behind Bill C-9. Then the Liberals decided to use their time to try to ram through attacks on freedom of expression. Why? We called for that bill to be moved ahead [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to recognize Waves of Changes for Autism, a charity in Vaughan that is celebrating its 10th anniversary. I would like to congratulate Ellen Contardi and her entire board for all their efforts over the years.

Waves of Changes for Autism helps families that have children with autism. It helps them offset the cost of therapies. It has funded over 700 applications and has raised over $2.5 million since 2016. Since its inception, it has made sure that every single dollar has had an impact. In 2026 we dedicate this milestone by marking a decade of hope, a decade of opportunity and a decade of giving. Again, I congratulate Waves of Changes for Autism.

It is an honour to rise today to discuss a very important issue in our country related to public safety. Canadians expect Parliament to approach criminal law with seriousness and humility. Our decisions have the utmost real-life impacts on Canadians. They determine how we protect victims, how we hold offenders to account and whether people feel safe in their home and in their community. That responsibility demands clarity, discipline and honesty. Bill C-16 would meet that standard in many important respects. In others, it would not.

I want to be clear from the outset. I have witnessed, upon returning to Ottawa in this winter session, the falsehoods coming from the Liberal government: that Conservatives are obstructing legislation on public safety. Many of the victim-focused provisions come directly from legislation introduced by my Conservative colleagues prior to the introduction of Bill C-16.

Making the murder of an intimate partner automatically first-degree was a measure first proposed by my Conservative colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola in Bill C-225. Expanding the offence prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images to capture sexually explicit deepfakes draws directly from my Conservative colleague's bill, the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill's bill, Bill C-216. Of course, updating the mandatory reporting requirements for child sex exploitation material legislation was originally enacted by a previous Conservative government and later modernized through Conservative initiatives.

We support these measures. We have supported them consistently. We have called for them long before the government had decided that public safety had become politically inconvenient to ignore. That context matters because Canadians are being told a story by the Liberal government. They are being told that Conservatives are blocking progress. They are being told that we are unwilling to move legislation forward, and they are being told that democratic debate amounts to indifference toward victims. That narrative collapses under even modest scrutiny.

Allow me to highlight the case of Bill C-14, the Liberals' bail reform legislation. We all know that for years Conservatives have been calling on the government to get tough on crime and tough on repeat offenders. Bill C-14, while not going far enough, is better than what we have now. It would not address the underlying issue of removing the principle of restraint from Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, which is leading to the catch-and-release issues we are plagued with today.

Since the Liberals are making their rounds in the media, suggesting we are obstructing bail reform, for the people watching at home let me highlight how the Liberals play politics with crime. The Liberals finally introduced their bail reform legislation on October 23. On November 18 they went to committee. Instead of advancing the legislation at committee so it could get expert testimony and be sent back to the House of Commons for a vote and be passed, from November 18 all the way to January 27 they chose to prioritize a different bill, Bill C-9, and support a Bloc amendment that attacks freedom of expression and religious freedom, an amendment they knew we could not support.

We asked 20 times before the Christmas break for bail reform to be moved ahead, but this was denied. Why? The Liberals did so in order to advance a narrative that because we are fighting back against Bill C-9 and their attacks on freedom of expression, we are therefore obstructing bail reform. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how Liberals are playing politics with public safety.

Conservatives have been calling for stronger responses to violent crime, which is up 55%; to human trafficking, which is up 84%; and to sexual assaults, which have gone up 76% in this country since the Liberal government took office. We did so when the government dismissed rising crime as a perception problem. We still have former Liberal members of Parliament, like the one from Vaughan—Woodbridge, suggesting that crime is just a perception problem by using year-over-year statistics instead of a multi-year average to look at the actual trends. We did so while Liberals repealed mandatory penalties, expanded constitutional sentences and pursued a bail framework that has left communities, including Vaughan, less safe.

Bill C-16 combines measures that strengthen public safety with a sweeping restructuring of sentencing law that is fundamentally weakening Parliament's role. That is the problem and that is why the bill should, indeed, be split. The creation of coercive or controlling conduct offences within intimate relationships is a serious and necessary reform. Earlier intervention before abuse escalates into severe violence or homicide is very important. Conservatives support this approach. The expansion of deepfake offences is necessary to respond to modern forms of sexual exploitation. Conservatives support this as well. The procedural reforms aimed at reducing trial delays deserve careful study. Justice delayed serves neither the accused nor the victim. Conservatives are prepared to engage constructively on those provisions.

However, embedded within the bill is a sentencing provision that does not belong with the rest. It is a provision that would transform mandatory minimum penalties into discretionary suggestions. It is a provision that would apply across almost the entire Criminal Code. It is a provision that would fundamentally alter how Parliament expresses denunciation for the most serious crimes. Under Bill C-16, judges would be required to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum whenever applying the minimum would amount to cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. That provision would apply to nearly every mandatory minimum in federal law, excluding only murder and high treason.

In practical terms, mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory at all. That includes offences such as aggravated sexual assault with a firearm, human trafficking, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, drive-by shootings and multiple other firearms offences. Parliament set these penalties deliberately, not casually or symbolically, because certain conduct is so dangerous, so destructive and so harmful that incarceration was deemed to be the baseline, not the exception.

The Supreme Court has never held that mandatory minimum penalties are unconstitutional per se. It has never stripped Parliament of its authority to impose them. Section 12 of the charter prohibits punishment that is “grossly disproportionate”. The House should pay close attention to what the court actually said, particularly in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville. In that case, the court was sharply divided. The majority relied on hypothetical scenarios to invalidate mandatory minimum penalties for child sex exploitation offences, but the dissent, led by Chief Justice Wagner, issued a warning that Parliament would be reckless to ignore.

That dissent reaffirmed a foundational principle. Hypotheticals must be reasonable. They must have a real, factual and legal connection to the offence before the court. Parliament is not required to legislate for the least serious imaginable application of an offence. Using remote or extreme hypotheticals to dismantle sentencing floors risks undermining democratic accountability itself. Those words matter.

Bill C-16 ignores that warning entirely. Instead of responding to Senneville with discipline by clarifying offence definitions or crafting a narrow and targeted safety valve, the government chose the most expansive option available. It used a contested decision as justification for wholesale retreat from Parliament's sentencing authority. The government will point to law enforcement organizations and victim advocacy groups that have welcomed parts of the bill. Conservatives respect those voices. We listen to them and we agree with them on many of the reforms contained within the bill. However, broad support for certain provisions does not mean Parliament should abandon its duty to scrutinize the whole.

Millions of Canadians voted for the official opposition to do precisely that: Hold the government to account, improve legislation and demand excellence, especially on matters of public safety. Conservatives stand ready to work. We stand ready to improve this legislation. Of course, we stand firmly on the side of victims, communities and public safety.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the intervention from the member for Winnipeg North requires a little more unpacking.

I will put it to the member for Peace River—Westlock that it is in fact the government. The member for Winnipeg North is the parliamentary secretary to the House Leader. The government House leader has tremendous control over the agenda of this place, and the fact that the government cannot get or have not yet had Bill C-14 approved says everything about the priorities of the government, which was more content to have protracted debate around Bill C-9 than to get on with Bill C-14.

Would the member for Peace River—Westlock like to further unpack where the responsibility is for the absence of meaningful bail reform to fix the system that the Liberals broke?

Religious Freedom

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of Canadians, many of them in my riding, raising very severe concerns with the way that the Liberal government is, through Bill C-9, attacking the religious freedoms of Canadians.

The petitioners are concerned in particular about the amendment adopted by Liberal members of Parliament that would remove long-standing protections for religious speech.

Petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw the divisive and toxic Bill C-9 to stand up for the fundamental freedoms of Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today from constituents who are concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 passed at the justice committee. The amendment would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada, allowing the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts, and resulting in punishment of up to two years in prison.

Petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into their faith.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is from Canadians who are expressing great concern about the assault on religious freedom and freedom of expression contained in Bill C-9, which would remove the long-standing good-faith safeguards for religious expression, raising the risk that Canadians could face investigation for expressing sincerely held beliefs on a religious subject or for citing certain religious texts. The petitioners remind the government, and particularly the Liberal members and Bloc members, that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are listed as fundamental freedoms in our charter.

Therefore the petitioners ask the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect the freedom of religion for all Canadians so they can discuss their faith and share their religious texts in the public square without fear of government investigation.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition from concerned Canadians today. They are concerned about the Liberal government's assault on freedom of expression and freedom of religion contained in Bill C-9, particularly the Bloc and Liberal amendment to remove protections for people of faith to have open discussions about truth in this country.

The petitioners remind the government that it has no place policing the religious texts of Canadians of faith, and they ask that the government withdraw Bill C-9.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition about Bill C-9.

Canadians are concerned about the erosion of religious freedoms, as contained in the legislation. They are also concerned that governments are intruding on faith. These petitioners are calling for the withdrawal of Bill C-9, and I am pleased to present these views on behalf of the many proud Canadians who signed.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who call on the government to withdraw Bill C-9.

Canadians feel that religion is under attack, and they ask the government to respect and protect religious freedom and freedom of speech as fundamental rights that Canadians expect Parliament to uphold, as the state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Petitioners are saying that they have a right to free speech and a right to religion and freedom of expression. They are concerned that the amendments to Bill C-9 presented by the Liberals and the Bloc would be used to criminalize passages from the Torah, the Quran and the Bible. They are asking the government to uphold the right to read and share these sacred texts.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians concerned about Bill C-9. Faith, as we know, is a matter of conscience, and the petitioners are worried that the state is interfering with their religious texts and teachings, will impinge on religious freedom and lead to government overreach in matters of faith. They are calling on the House to prevent government interference in faith, religious belief and practice.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, I would like to present a petition about Bill C-9. The Liberal-Bloc amendment to Bill C-9, passed at the justice committee, would remove the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-9 would allow the state to prosecute people who express deeply held religious beliefs the government finds offensive.

Therefore the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-9, protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government intrusion into faith.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from people from across Canada who want to draw to the attention of the House concerns around Bill C-9. They are concerned that pieces of the Bible could be criminalized, and they are insistent that the state has no place in recognizing or refusing religious texts.

The petitioners are concerned that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are under attack, and they call on the Liberal government to protect freedom of religion and uphold the right to read, share and promote religious texts.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding.

The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that the Liberal bill, Bill C-9, is an infringement on those rights.

As such, petitioners call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

Protecting Victims Act

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague thinks it is very important to pass these bills, which will help make our streets safer. I am referring to Bill C-9, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.

I would like to ask him whether we can count on him and his colleagues to stop obstructing our work at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and allow us to adopt these three bills quickly, because we have a lot of work to do and a lot on our plates.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing at times. I question whether the Conservative Party of Canada today, which is so far to the right, has any shame at all, with the types of things its members say and how far away from reality they actually are.

Back in December, which was not that long ago, I challenged the Conservative Party to pass Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. I virtually pleaded with the Conservative Party and asked for unanimous consent to sit for extra time here in the House of Commons. The government went out of its way to try to accommodate it. There was no reason not to have passed bail reform back in December, but there is one reason, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Conservative members talk as if they are genuinely concerned about the crime file. We heard it in the last federal election, but we also heard the current Prime Minister and Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast talk about the issue of crime and having safer communities.

We have, I believe, just over 60 new Liberal members of Parliament. We also have a new Prime Minister, who talked about and is initiating the hiring of hundreds of new RCMP officers and hundreds of Canada border control agents, which was brought forward by the minister and the government. We have seen participation from Liberal MPs from every region of the country, who are sharing concerns about the crime file. We have a government that has focused a great deal on the crime file because we understand that this is an issue on which our constituents want to see action.

Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see action on this file, and the only action they are getting from the Conservative Party is filibustering. The Conservatives are not allowing legislation that even Canadians in Conservative ridings want to see passed. I listened today when they talked about Bill C-16, and based on the comments I heard, I question whether they have any concept of what judicial independence or jurisdictional responsibility is.

The Conservatives want to talk about minimum sentencing. Liberal members of Parliament support minimum sentencing. All one needs to do is read the legislation. It is restoring numerous minimum sentences. The Conservatives say that they support minimum sentences, which is exactly what this bill does. It reintroduces many aspects to change the law and reinstate mandatory minimum sentences.

Taking a look at the bigger picture, I could talk about Bill C-2. The Conservatives absolutely refuse to pass the bill. They will not even let it pass out of second reading. Lawful access is a major part of that legislation. Talking about issues such as extortion, which they like to talk about, we see we need Bill C-2. They will not even allow it to go to committee.

We also have Bill C-9, which is to combat hatred. The Conservative Party has made the decision that it can probably make more money fundraising by opposing the bill than seeing it become law.

When I talk about lawful access under Bill C-2, I would point out that Canada is the only country out of the Five Eyes that does not have lawful access.

I can tell members that a piece of legislation combatting hate, saying that one should not be able to harass people or prevent people from being able to go to a church, a mosque or a gurdwara, to prevent the religious hatred that is being spread, is an important piece of legislation. I have spoken to it, as I spoke to Bill C-2.

I already talked about Bill C-14 and how important that legislation is. The only thing I would add is that, much like with Bill C-16, the Conservatives do not realize the amount of support that is out there in our communities. I can tell members that it is substantial. It comes from every region of the country. Whether it is for Bill C-14 or Bill C-16, there is support from provinces, municipalities, law enforcement agencies, victim advocacy groups and individuals.

The people we represent want the type of legislation we are bringing forward in the House, even, as I said, Canadians living in Conservative ridings. Conservatives need to listen to their own constituents. What they will find is that there is substantial support for changing and making our laws better, so we can deal with things such as violent repeat offenders, which is dealt with in Bill C-14.

It seems to me that the leader of the Conservative Party had a flash, or at least a thought, that the Conservative Party of Canada would co-operate with the government in passing the legislation it feels is important. I appreciated what the Attorney General had to say earlier when introducing Bill C-16, which is that the legislation is not about one political party. It is here because this is what Canadians want. When I was listening to the Attorney General, he was challenging all members of the House, members of all political entities, to recognize the phenomenal effort and work that has been put into the legislation for the benefit of Canadians.

I honestly thought he was being very apolitical in bringing it forward, encouraging members to get onside with it, recognizing that, if one has issues with the legislation, there are alternatives. We can allow legislation to go to committee, where it can be further debated. We are not saying we have to pass it today through second reading, committee, third reading and so forth, but given the legislative agenda, there could be some value, and I would suggest to members, a great deal of value if one puts Canadians first, in seeing Bill C-16 pass.

When I read the article from the leader of the Conservative Party, I had a little flicker of hope that we will maybe see some co-operation. Maybe we will see a different Conservative Party in the year of 2026. It does not mean one has to concede to everything the government of the day wants, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing legislation to go to committee.

What we heard today from the critic for the Conservative Party, who they call the shadow minister, was that they want to take the bill and split it into two parts. That is the problem with Bill C-2 today. They did not want to do anything with Bill C-2 unless it was broken into two parts, yet there are substantive issues being addressed within Bill C-2 that could not be addressed because of the Conservative positioning.

Once again, I am seeing the Conservative Party coming up, through back doors, with ways they can ultimately try to justify their emails that spread information that we do not have a legislative agenda that deals with crime. Let us be very clear that there has been a substantial effort made by the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, since the election, to bring in substantive legislation to reform our Criminal Code and other pieces of legislation to make the communities we represent safer. There has been a great deal of effort in bringing forward this legislation.

I will quote some of the individuals or the lobby groups on the type of support that is out there if I have enough time towards the end.

The theme coming from the Conservative Party today, and why it is that the members are so offended by this legislation, is mandatory minimums. Let us be very clear that this legislation would reinstate mandatory minimums in a number of different areas. It is not taking them away. The Conservatives tell us that it is taking them away.

I want to read a quote, and I have it here on my phone. The font is a little small for me, but I will try. What is important about this quote is that it is actually from a Conservative member of Parliament, and it is not just any Conservative member of Parliament. It is the member who often talks about justice and the issue of crime.

This member has private members' bills dealing with these issues, and he often says he wants his private members' bills passed lickety-split. He has even stood up to ask for unanimous consent to get everything all the way through the system, to heck with any debate in second reading, committee stage or third reading. He wanted it passed all the way through.

He sits on the front bench of the Conservative Party. Of course, Conservatives probably know who I am talking about. It is the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here is what he has to say, and I will put this into the proper context. The Conservative Party—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he tried on 19 separate occasions to work on Bill C-14 on bail. With all due respect to my colleague, who usually works in good faith, I find that comment disingenuous. On the 19 occasions in question, the request was to stop our study of Bill C-9, which deals with hate. I know because I was there.

The Conservatives did not want us to continue working on the bill dealing with hate because they wanted us to focus on Bill C-14. However, the role of a committee is to study all bills and vote on each one. This is true for Bill C-9, just as it is true for Bill C-14 and Bill C-16.

My question for my colleague is this: Can he guarantee that the Conservative Party will act in good faith, that all filibustering at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will cease at once, and that the Conservatives will agree to work with us? They will vote as they see fit, for or against, but will they agree to work together rather than prevent the committee from functioning?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this, Mr. Speaker. Let me take a step back.

Conservatives tried, in December, at the justice committee 19 times for the government to let us focus on Bill C-14, to allow us to focus on bail. The Liberals on the justice committee denied that while this very member was speaking in this House of Commons asking why the justice committee was not focusing on bail. We tried. Finally, today, we were able to break that impasse and set aside the divisive Bill C-9 to focus on Bill C-14. If Bill C-16 is coming before the justice committee soon, this is also an issue that we agree is very important.

However, I note that we should not be taking our cues from the courts on matters that are so very clear to members of this chamber and to Canadians. We are the ones responsible. We have a tremendous honour to be in this chamber. I have not been here as long as the member has, but I appreciate the honour it is to be here and actually be able to respond to the concerns of Canadians on justice.

Religious Freedom

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians who are very concerned about the assault on religious freedom and the assault on freedom of expression contained in Bill C-9, particularly the possibility that people who express their faith and read their sacred texts will be subject to criminal prosecution.

The petitioners remind the government, and particularly the Liberal members and Bloc members, that freedom of religion and expression are listed as not only freedoms but fundamental freedoms in our charter. Therefore, the petitioners ask the government to withdraw Bill C-9 and protect the liberty of all Canadians to discuss their faith and share their religious texts in the public square without government interference.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9. These amendments are looking to criminalize speaking and teaching texts from the Bible and other sacred texts. This has no place in our society, which is protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are fundamental rights. The freedom of expression and the freedom of religion must be preserved.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on religious freedom on behalf of Canadians and, more specifically, the good folks of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Religious freedom is a serious issue, which Bill C-9 has overreached. Simply put, this petition is telling the government to stay out of places of worship and respect the religious freedoms of every Canadian citizen.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of Canadians who are expressing great concern with the recent amendments from the Bloc and the Liberal government in regard to Bill C-9. The petitioners are concerned about criminalization of the reading of passages from the Bible and other sacred texts.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in this country, and the petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent overreach by the government.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of Canadians who are petitioning the government to take special note of the Liberal-Bloc amendment that would affect Bill C-9. The petitioners want the government to recognize that the state has no place in the writings of any sacred text, including the Bible. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be protected.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the rights of freedom of expression and of Canadians to read and share the Bible and other sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today to present a petition signed by residents of Canada who are concerned about the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 that could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The state has no place in deciding what religious texts are proper for each faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that ought to be preserved.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of Canadians have been reaching out to members of Parliament over the winter break to tell the Liberals to set aside their divisive and toxic Bill C-9 and to stand up for the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

I am pleased to report that today at the justice committee, we were finally able to get the Liberals to agree to set aside the divisive bill and focus on addressing real crime affecting communities across the country. Canadians have been demanding real action: fixing the broken Liberal bail system, addressing the rise in car thefts and extortion and going after people who are wreaking havoc on streets in the country, not people who dare to express a religious belief the government finds objectionable. Conservatives stand ready as always and look forward to working to fix the broken justice system in Canada. I am glad the Liberals finally joined us.

Protecting Victims Act

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, first I want to say happy new year to everyone. It is a real pleasure to be back in the House with all my colleagues to do the important work for Canadians.

I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

I rise today to speak in strong support of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, one of the most consequential updates to Canada's criminal code in generations.

As the member of Parliament for Davenport, a diverse downtown Toronto riding with families from every corner of the world, I hear regularly from constituents who are deeply concerned about safety in their communities: parents who worry about their children's safety online, women who tell me they do not feel safe walking alone at night and survivors of intimate partner violence who share their stories of living in fear even after leaving abusive relationships. These are not abstract policy questions; they are lived experiences of people I represent. The legislation would respond directly to their concerns.

Bill C-16 is the third major piece of criminal justice legislation introduced by our Minister of Justice. Last year, in September, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which would protect communities of faith from hate crimes and intimidation. In October we introduced Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, which would ensure that repeat violent offenders face tougher bail conditions and stronger sentences. Both of these bills have received strong support from the local police in my hometown of Toronto, both from the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police Association. They have called for the bills' rapid passage to give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep our communities safe.

I hope members of the House will join me in supporting the swift passage of all three of these critical pieces of legislation. I did hear the good news earlier today that the justice committee is already moving very swiftly through Bill C-14. This is great news indeed. Together with Bill C-14, these reforms would send a clear message that our government is keeping Canadians safe, protecting the vulnerable and ensuring that criminals face the full force of the law.

The statistics around women and girls and gender-based violence are devastating. In 2024 alone there were 100 victims of intimate partner violence in Canada, an increase from the year before. Behind each of these numbers is a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend: someone whose life was cut short by violence that was driven by control and fear.

We know that intimate partner violence often follows a pattern. It begins with control: Isolating the victim from family and friends, monitoring every move or controlling their finances. Too often this coercive control escalates to physical violence, and too often it ends in tragedy. Bill C-16 would address this reality head-on by creating a new criminal offence for coercive control and recognizing that intimate partner violence does not begin the first time someone is physically harmed; it begins when patterns of controlling behaviour strip away someone's freedom and dignity.

The legislation also would treat femicide, the killing of women because they are women, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, as first-degree murder. When someone kills their intimate partner as part of a demonstrated pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour, that crime deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness, and I am so happy that we have elevated this to first-degree murder. I would say that it is about time.

Bill C-16 also would strengthen the criminal harassment offence by removing the requirement to prove that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Instead the test would be whether the harassing conduct would reasonably be expected to cause the victim to believe someone's safety is threatened. This change would recognize that victims should not have to prove their fear; the conduct itself should be the focus.

Bill C-16 would also address online forms of sexual violence. Technology has created new avenues for sexual violence that our laws must address. Bill C-16 would criminalize the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes, AI-generated images or videos that depict someone in sexually explicit scenarios without their consent. These deepfakes can destroy reputations, cause profound psychological harm and, in some cases, be used to extort victims. Our laws must catch up to this disturbing reality.

We would also increase penalties for sexual offences including the distribution of intimate images without consent, sexual assault exposure and voyeurism. These crimes cause lasting trauma, and our penalties must reflect their severity.

I have spent years working with families in Davenport, and nothing is more important to me than keeping our children safe. The exploitation of children, whether online or in person, is among the most horrific crimes imaginable. We know that child sexual abuse and exploitation material is proliferating online at alarming rates. We know that predators use the Internet to lure, manipulate and exploit children and that our laws have not kept pace with these threats. Bill C-16 would take strong action to reinforce mandatory minimum penalties for people who create, possess and distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material. This includes restoring 13 mandatory minimum penalties for child sexual offences that were previously struck down by courts.

I know that some people may question mandatory minimums, but let me be clear: When it comes to predators who prey on children, who create and distribute images of their abuse, there must be consequences. In the rare circumstances where applying a mandatory minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate, courts would still have the discretion to impose an alternate term of imprisonment, but jail time would be kept for people convicted of those heinous crimes.

We would also toughen laws to crack down on child luring and online sextortion, making it illegal to threaten to distribute child sexual abuse material. This directly responds to the devastating rise in sextortion cases where predators target children online, manipulate them into sending explicit images and then threaten to share those images unless the child complies with further demands.

Bill C-16 would also criminalize the distribution of bestiality depictions used by predators to manipulate and exploit children, and we would also create a new offence targeting adults who recruit, pressure or counsel children to commit crimes, protecting our youth from being exploited into criminal activity, something I hear a lot about in my home community of Davenport. Finally, we would strengthen the obligations on Internet service providers under the mandatory reporting act to combat the distribution of child sexual abuse material. Online platforms must be part of the solution.

For too long, our justice system has retraumatized victims. Bill C-16 would create new rights for victims, including the right to be treated with respect and to have timely resolution of their cases considered. We would make testimonial aids automatically available, improving access to information and raising the bar for defence attorneys to access the therapeutic records and personal communications of victims. As the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime reported, victims of sexual violence deserve better.

With respect to court delays, we are requesting courts to consider alternatives to stays of proceedings, while streamlining procedures. We are encouraging diversion for low-risk cases to free up resources for more serious violent crimes, because justice delayed is justice denied.

I want to bring this back to my constituents in Davenport. In my riding, there are women who are afraid to leave abusive relationships because they do not believe the justice system will protect them. There are children who are being targeted by online predators. There are seniors who have been victims of extortion and intimidation. These Canadians deserve a justice system that protects them, treats them with dignity and holds perpetrators accountable. That is what Bill C-16 would deliver, not perfectly, because no single piece of legislation can solve all of the challenges our justice system has, but meaningfully and substantively.

I recognize there will be debate about specific provisions. As the bill, I hope, proceeds to committee, I encourage all members to engage constructively and to propose amendments that would strengthen the legislation. We cannot do nothing. We cannot continue to read about women killed by intimate partners. We cannot continue to read about children exploited online and about violent offenders reoffending after release.

Bill C-16 is about values. It values victim safety over predator convenience, recognizes intimate partner violence as a serious crime and would ensure that children grow up free from exploitation. Every Canadian deserves to live free from violence and fear. Every child deserves to grow up safe. Every victim deserves to be heard and respected. The legislation would move us closer to that Canada. Let us send a clear message: Violence against women and children will not be tolerated, predators will face consequences and victims will be heard, respected and protected.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to this important bill today. I am torn between being happy and surprised by the speech by the colleague who spoke before me. He does remarkable work in many ways at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues have been slowing down the committee's work for months by filibustering Bill C-9.

They are against Bill C-9. We understand that and that is their right, but we still need to keep moving forward. They are holding up the work on Bill C-14. They are also holding up the work that we need to do on Bill C-16. These are three important bills and there are more. The committee is rather spoiled this year to have three major pieces of government legislation. They are being held up because our Conservative colleagues, who say that we need to pick up the pace, are actually slowing things down in committee.

I feel like picking up on what my colleague was saying in his speech: We need to put our money where our mouth is, or at least, set the rhetoric aside for a moment. We need action. I want to see my Conservative colleagues take action because I want to see Bill C-9 and Bill C-14 pass. I think that Bill C-16, which we are studying today, is just as important as the other two.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support passing Bill C-16 here at second reading so that we can study it in committee and pass it as quickly as possible. That is why our voters elected us, regardless of our party affiliation, and that is what the Bloc Québécois wants us to do.

Bill C-16 is what we might call a sweeping bill. If memory serves, I think it is 166 pages long and covers a wide range of topics. We have identified some that I think deserve the attention of the House.

To begin, the issue of coercive or controlling conduct has previously been the subject of a number of bills that, regrettably, were unsuccessful for all sorts of good or bad reasons. The most recent one died on the Order Paper last spring because of the elections in April 2025 before it could be passed in the Senate, where it went after being passed here in the House of Commons.

Now the government has come back with a bill that addresses this issue. I hope that this time, despite our Conservative colleagues' delay tactics at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we will be able to get to work and pass this bill. Quebeckers and Canadians, all our constituents, are asking us to do so, and they have a right to expect serious and diligent work on our part.

When it comes to controlling and coercive behaviour, we know that society is changing. It is changing for the better in many ways, but this also brings a number of new challenges. Intimate partner relationships have evolved over time for all sorts of reasons. I am not a sociologist, so I will not attempt to explain all the changes in society. In any case, this issue has evolved, and today we are seeing an increase in cases where one partner in a relationship exercises control over the other to the point of not only violating the other person's rights and freedoms, but also undermining their security and peace of mind, and sometimes even threatening their physical safety. This cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society.

I do not want to repeat what has already been said many times over the past few years on this issue, but I think it is high time that we exert a measure of control over this problem, that we criminalize this behaviour and deal with it as much as possible. Obviously, some of the work will have to be done by the executive branch and police forces. Provincial parliaments, such as the National Assembly in Quebec City, will all have to address these problems. The federal government can still send a clear message by amending the Criminal Code.

I am therefore very pleased to see that this issue is being addressed again. Bloc Québécois members agree that this is important, and we will support the bill.

There is also the issue of femicide. We will have to agree on a definition of what constitutes femicide. Dictionaries offer a definition that goes something like this: a crime committed against a woman for the sole reason that she is a woman. That obviously makes no sense.

Evidently, we are in favour of fighting against such a backward and narrow-minded attitude, which should in no way be tolerated in our society.

There is also the other definition of femicide, which encompasses all crimes against women. Obviously, the problem can be quite different. I have no solution to propose. I am just saying that we should consider calling a spade a spade. I am thinking of the Polytechnique tragedy, which happened a long time ago. Someone walked into a classroom and killed women who were strangers to him simply because they were women. In my opinion, this is clearly a femicide.

Now, there are other situations where people kill their female partners. This is often due in large part to a history of controlling and coercive conduct toward their partner. The individual feels like he is going to lose that power, so he kills her in a fit of anger, or for some other reason. That is not acceptable either. We need to address both of these behaviours. Bill C-16 will create clear, significant criminal provisions. However, there is also a problem, or at least a challenge, with regard to education in our societies.

My wife was a teacher for her entire career. People who see my grey hair will probably assume that she is retired, and they are right. However, she still has many years of experience. She told me that the way children relate to each other in the classroom and on the playground changed over the course of her career. I can say that in 2026, things are no longer the way they were in 1980 or even in 1960. Relationships are much more complex.

Social media is now an integral part of children's daily, even hourly, lives. Kids are suggestible, and they experience the repercussions, both good and bad, of this vast communication network that they access on their phones. They are being influenced. We have worked long and hard on legislation to control what circulates on the Internet. That work will have to continue. Bill C-16 proposes measures to protect intimate images, including visual representations, which are also a new phenomenon.

When we look at Facebook and similar sites on our phones and we see these short videos, we get really scared, but I found out that half of these videos, if not more, are fake. They are edited. If these videos can influence me and rile me up, imagine how a six-year-old girl, a 12-year-old boy or an eight-year-old boy feels watching these videos. It can have a significant influence on them and, unfortunately, it is often a negative one.

This bill would prohibit the distribution of not only intimate images but also visual representations showing an identifiable person depicted as nude. These are important measures in Bill C‑16. There are also all sorts of other measures that focus on control.

I would like to return to the issue of femicide. We need to crack down on femicide. Bill C-16 indicates that these crimes will be treated as first-degree murder. That is good news. If a person kills his partner because he has been controlling her for months or years and feels like he is going to lose that control because she wants to break up, for example, I think we can easily equate that with premeditation and consider it first-degree murder. I welcome this measure, and the Bloc Québécois as a whole welcomes this provision.

There is also the question of the definition of harassment. Previously, in order for harassment to be considered criminal harassment, it had to be proven that the victim subjectively feared for their safety. Obviously, this led to lengthy questioning and cross-examination of victims. It had to be proven that the victim had really been afraid or that she had not been afraid but had thought afterwards that she could have been afraid. Victims were subjected to lengthy cross-examination in an attempt to cast doubt on their fears.

I think that it is practically indecent to do that to a victim of a behaviour that can be likened to criminal harassment. I think there needs to be more compassion for victims. Under Bill C-16, if the conduct of the individual in question can reasonably be interpreted as harassment or if it could cause the victim to believe that their safety or that of someone known to them is threatened, this constitutes evidence of criminal harassment. In our opinion, this is also good news, and we will fully support this provision.

There is also the issue of recruiting people under the age of 18. That is a major problem and another issue. Bill C-16 could have been split up into several bills. Our Conservative colleague said that it could have been split. I agree to some extent, but we need to act quickly. We need to address these problems. We have already discussed them at length a number of times. It is time to act. I applaud the minister 's decision to take action on these issues.

The recruitment of individuals under the age of 18 was still being discussed last year. I have raised this issue with the minister on a number of occasions. We have seen cases of 13- or 14-year-olds, sometimes kids even younger, being recruited by criminal organizations to commit crimes. They are told that they can earn money easily, simply by committing a certain crime or doing a certain thing, and they will get paid. They are told not to worry if they get caught, because sentences for minors are less severe than adult sentences. Criminals do not have to face the consequences of the crimes they want to commit because they get young people under the age of 18 to commit them for them. It is despicable and unacceptable. We need to crack down on this. I suggested to the minister that individuals who recruit young people to commit crimes should face double the sentence that would have been imposed if they had committed the crime themselves. The penalties must be severe.

The bill does not go that far; the maximum sentence is five years. We will discuss this in committee. I may have some amendments to propose, but we are moving in the right direction. We must fight this problem. The Bloc Québécois stands with the minister in this fight, and we may propose even tougher penalties, as I said.

There is the issue of minimum prison sentences, which is a whole saga. I cannot speak to what happened before, but for the 10 years I have been here, I have seen a kind of conflict of values or vision raging between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals are in favour of releasing people accused of criminal offences at the earliest opportunity. I tend to agree with that approach. However, Conservatives argue the opposite, saying that the accused should be kept in custody until their trial, after which their guilt or innocence will be determined. I do not entirely agree with that.

Yes, we need to make our streets safer. Something needs to be done to make people feel safer on the streets of Quebec and Canada. The minimum sentences provided for in the Criminal Code can have an impact.

I proposed an idea that I heard from an expert witness I had asked to appear at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights two or three years ago. She was a university professor, and I had asked her a question. As we have seen, the Supreme Court prohibited or overturned the minimum sentences imposed by the Conservatives when they were in power. The Liberals abolished them, and rightly so, since the Supreme Court had told them to do so. Now, the government wants to reinstate them.

I asked this expert whether there was a middle ground, a compromise between the two. I asked her if we could set minimum sentences in situations where we think it would be a useful way to send a clear message to criminals that this is unacceptable, while allowing the judges and courts hearing the evidence to deviate from the minimum sentences in certain cases, but only in special circumstances that warrant such an exception.

This forces the court to defend its decision. If it deviates from a minimum sentence of five or 10 years, for example, it must give its reasons. In a few paragraphs or even a few pages, it has to explain why the minimum sentence is inappropriate in that specific case. I am very happy to report that the minister chose to go that route. The provision in the bill is is not exactly what I had suggested, but I think it is a good approach. The court will be able to make an exception if the minimum sentence would amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The concept of cruel and unusual punishment already exists, and now it is going to be applied to exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences. I certainly welcome that.

We will see how things go in committee. I will very likely have some amendments to suggest there as well. We will see what our Conservative and Liberal colleagues have to say because I think that, when there are good discussions at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the light often shines through. Perhaps after hearing from other witnesses and from our colleagues, we will come up with other solutions or approaches, and that will be a good thing. We will see. However, we need to work on it and I am really pleased to see that the minister is addressing this problem.

Then there is the issue of unreasonable delay. As we know, trials often used to take far too long. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided to put an end to the delays with the infamous Jordan decision. It ruled that a trial before the Quebec court must be held within 18 months and that a trial before a superior court must be held within 30 months. These standards were established by the Supreme Court, and they make sense. I will be the first to agree with those time limits. I think we owe it to both the victim and the criminal to resolve the question of guilt within a relatively short period of time, without being overly hasty. No one wants to charge someone with a crime and hang them the following week. There needs to be enough time to hold a trial, hear witnesses, gather all the evidence and render a fair and reasonable decision. However, that needs to happen within a fair and reasonable time frame.

When the victim of a crime sees the trial against their assailant drag on for three, four or five years, at some point, they have the right to say that justice has not been served. They have the right to say that, whatever the decision may be, it is not justice. Decisions must be handed down within a much more reasonable time frame. Individuals accused of a crime that they have actually committed and who are likely to be found guilty do not mind so much if the trial takes time, especially since, if they are detained during that period, that time will count towards their sentence. It used to count as double the time. Now it counts as two-thirds. In any case, that may suit the offender. However, let us imagine that an individual is charged with a crime they did not commit and that, at the end of the trial, they are found not guilty and thus acquitted. That individual could have had to wait three or four years, for example, before being found not guilty. That makes no sense either. It makes no sense for the victims, it makes no sense for the accused and it makes no sense for society. We need to work towards being more effective.

The Bloc Québécois proposed deviating from the reasonable time frame by using the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to override the charter. We must not forget that being tried within a reasonable time is a charter right. The Supreme Court established what a reasonable time frame is, but the concept of a reasonable time is in the charter. We therefore proposed using the notwithstanding clause for specific crimes that are more serious. The minister rejected our suggestion and said that, instead, delays would be calculated based on factors that might not always be taken into account, such as case complexity and other things.

My time is up, but I would like to close by saying that I welcome this proposal in Bill C-16. We will discuss it and try to find ways to ensure that the entire population of Quebec, the provinces and Canada can be proud of our work and feel safe in our society.

Business of the House

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Liberals have decided to allow for Bill C-14 to pass. We have, on 17 occasions over the last number of hours, asked for the Liberals to expedite Bill C-14 and to allow for consideration of the bill. The Liberals continue to obstruct this bill, putting forward limitations on religious freedom in Bill C-9. Conservatives will continue to oppose those measures but would like to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians by providing what we believe is a counterfeit version of what Canadians are demanding in terms of fixing Liberal bail. We believe that the provisions would at least provide some level of protection.

Will the House leader give us an update as to when that might happen?

While I am on my feet, it is now the Christmas season, and this may be my last opportunity to stand in the House to thank all members for their dedication and support to their constituents. As they return home, we hope they will have a safe holiday season.

I want to thank the pages, who have dedicated hours to the House and to our service. We want to thank the table officers, the interpreters and all staff who support us, both here in the administration and in the House, as well as in our Hill and constituency offices.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Merry Christmas to you.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state is pointing fingers because she does not want to look at the millions of fingers that have been pointing at the Liberal government for allowing these problems to fester. Even today, Liberal members of the justice committee said that the Minister of Justice would come before committee only if we agreed to wave through their divisive and toxic Bill C-9.

Why are the Liberals putting conditions on transparency and accountability, and obstructing their own legislation? Why will the Minister of Justice not appear before committee, and why will he not stand up now instead of pointing fingers?

Religious Freedom

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians with respect to the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9. I was in my riding on the weekend and was absolutely overwhelmed with the number of constituents who brought this concern forward to me with hundreds of signatures.

In a country that is hungry and hurting, the government has prioritized attacking freedom of religion and freedom of expression over dealing with the broken Liberal bail system at justice committee. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

The petitioners are calling on the government to protect religious freedom and stop the government overreach.

Climate Change

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, we open our days in prayer each day, which is a testament to the spiritual roots of this country. I am wondering if you can rule on whether our parliamentary privilege will protect us from prosecution if Bill C-9 becomes law.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As members of the House are aware, we open with prayer each day, and I am hoping you can rule on whether members will be protected from prosecution by parliamentary privilege should Bill C-9 pass.

Freedom of Speech

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what constitutes a free society? What are the identifying characteristics that separate nations whose people live in freedom from those whose subjects live under tyranny and fear?

I can think of no guiding principle more fundamental to this question than the existence, or lack thereof, of free speech and free expression: the legal ability to express oneself without fear of government coercion, oppression or use of force. This why I am so concerned by the Liberal government's Bill C-9, which would open the floodgates and abandon the guardrails on prosecuting and criminalizing speech in Canada, including the reading of sacred and ancient religious texts such as the Bible, the Torah and the Koran.

Make no mistake; once we cross this Rubicon, once we accept the premise that governments and politicians in the House have the subjective right to determine what we may or may not say, or what religious texts we may or may not read, we have lost the plot. Free speech is a western value, a Canadian principle and a human right, and we must always defend it.

Justice

[Mark Carney, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition member is referring to Bill C-9, which seeks to protect access to religious places, such as temples, synagogues, churches and mosques.

I know that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently discussing possible changes to this legislation.

Religious Freedom

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians alarmed that Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 would be used to criminalize passages of the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. A lot of this concern emanates from the fact that the man who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that prosecutors should be able to “press charges” for people citing scripture the government finds objectionable.

The petitioners believe that the state has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community and that the House must stand firm and protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Petitioners call on the Liberal government to protect these fundamental freedoms and reject any incursions on them in Bill C-9 or any other legislation.

Liaison

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was just such a Liberal question: “Why would they not just do what we want them to do?”

It reminds me a lot of Bill C-9 actually. The Liberals are trying to control what people say and how they express themselves. It is a continuous track record for people who do not agree with the Liberals, as they then do their level best to silence them. The Liberals try to control everything that people say, see and think. Can members remember when we could share news articles on social media in this country? What a time to be alive that was.

The Liberal government is all about control. It is not surprising to get a question like that, asking why we would not just do what they think should be done. No, we are not going to do that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my comment in terms of life was in relation to the work that is being done at the justice committee with respect to Bill C-9 and with respect to the bail and sentencing bill, Bill C-14. It is what I have been hearing from law enforcement and what I have been hearing from victims, so it was in reference to that. It is not to make light of anything. I take this issue very seriously.

In terms of what is being studied at the transportation committee, I think that is very important too. Safety on our roads is incredibly important. To a large extent, that issue is provincial. Provincial authorities can decide whom they license, whom they do not license and whether they want to license temporary visitors. I know Ontario is taking measures with respect to that. I would encourage all provinces to look into their safety measures for their roads because it is incredibly important.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to make this comment to my friend, the secretary. We are debating much in this place, but I am the lone representative of the Green Party and I was the lone representative of the Green Party in 2011. This current session of Parliament represents the time that I have felt the least respect, had the least opportunity to participate and seen the most anti-democratic measures to push things through.

In the case of Bill C-9, I did not get to speak to it at all before it went to a vote at second reading, and the vote at second reading passed on division. There are seven New Democrat MPs and me. In the past, the old days, we had rules that said five MPs could stand and force a recorded vote. That is no longer. The Bloc, the Conservatives and the Liberals decide when our constituents get to see how we would vote on a bill. Now we do not even get to do that.

I ask my hon. colleague to give us a chance to debate these bills in this place, in the House.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard rumours about dissent among the Liberals regarding the religious exemption in Bill C-9. I would like my colleague to tell me how many members of her caucus believe that we must protect the religious exemption defence for the offence of promoting hatred and the offence of promoting anti-Semitism.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cited an example of a time when the Conservative leader went to an event. At that event, he said that Bill C-9, currently, in the form that it is right now, would criminalize religions in this country. That is misleading. That is misinformation that is spreading online. It is, obviously, causing concern. I would be concerned too, if that was the truth.

It is our job as parliamentarians to set the record straight, to be responsible, to debate bills on their merits, on the facts of what is in a bill, and if a motion is put forward, then to debate that motion on its merits. We can also, of course, vote against those types of motions. Instead, what is happening is that a lot of fear is being spread into our communities, and then bills are being held up based on that narrative, which is irresponsible. I think Canadians do not appreciate that.

Canadians are being extorted. I was at a town hall this weekend. People asked me, “What is going on in Parliament? Why can't you get this done, when it's so important to us to be able to get the laws in place that would help give harsher penalties to criminals and make bail harder for them to get? What do the Conservatives have against that?” I am just flabbergasted. I am really shocked that those are measures the Conservatives are, all of a sudden, not supporting any more. I feel like things have been flipped upside down a bit. I do not know what's going on, but it is confusing.

I just ask that we work more productively together. It is great that the justice committee is going to be meeting. I encourage all the members of the justice committee to meet and to sort these issues out, to pass Bill C-9 and pass Bill C-14.

Also, at the the public safety committee, let us bring back Bill C-2. Let us bring back the provisions that were left behind by the Conservatives: lawful access provisions and being able to fill the gap of vulnerability we have through our mailing system right now. As it stands, even with a judicial warrant, we cannot search mail for fentanyl and—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

The Conservatives are angry, Mr. Speaker, because of the tactics I am pointing at and the clear pattern we have been seeing.

The powers in lawful access would help provide police the powers and the tools they need to catch extortionists, things the Conservatives bring up in the House every single day. They complain about a problem, but they do not want a solution. Also, it would help catch pedophiles.

Right now, even if the police know the IP addresses all across the country where people are downloading child pornography, they are unable to act on that information quickly because they need to go through procedural court orders, which takes a very long time. In many of these extortion cases, we are seeing the criminals go free and commit more and more extortions. Child predators are continuing their work because it takes up to six months at times to get judicial authorization. It is so important to give these modern tools to police.

Our Five Eyes allies all have these types of modern tools, but the Conservatives will not allow us to be able to give that to our police agencies. I think they are listening to an extreme base that they have right now and bending to its wishes.

Another pattern I have seen is really interesting, because the Conservatives used to be pro-police. However, we have heard the Conservative leader calling the RCMP “despicable” and then the co-deputy leader getting up in the House and saying enforcement is the problem in this country. Meanwhile, our law enforcement officers have been working incredibly hard, giving us the proper recommendations we need so we can put them into our legislation.

We presented this legislation, we have debated it in the House, but all we have seen from the Conservatives are stall tactics and misleading information being spread to Canadians about how the government is going to go after their data. That is absolutely false. That is not true. There is no interest in going after anyone's data. However, it is important for police to be able to narrow down the suspects they have, to rule out suspects they have in cases, so that they can act quickly and so criminals do not go on to commit other crimes. This is the important work that is being held up in the justice committee.

Like I said, for Bill C-9, there has been three hours and 30 minutes of debate in the House already, and eight hours in the committee that could have been 11, but the Conservatives filibustered. They heard from 23 witnesses, which should have been 33, but the Conservatives filibustered. Now they are saying the work is not done and we should let them take a fancy tour across the country, pack it all up, spend and waste taxpayer dollars to go and continue to spread disinformation across the country.

We have done it before in the House, where all parliamentarians from all sides have gotten together to do what is right, to work in the best interests of Canadians, not in the best interests of themselves or their fundraising campaigns. Let us pass these crucial bills, these urgent bills that victims are calling for and police are calling for.

That is why this work is so important. It is actually life or death right now. I would plead with the Conservatives to help us pass this—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting conversation we are having. I think the Conservatives are attempting to try to turn the tables, since I think that the message is getting out to Canadians that there have been delay tactics by the Conservatives to obstruct and stall legislation for some time in many committees. We have been talking about that for some time, so it is good that they are upset about some committees being cancelled this week. I would argue that this was due to the obstruction that the Conservatives have been leading for weeks and weeks.

I will give us an example. After weeks of blocking work that would have made our communities safer, the Conservatives were demanding that the justice committee pack up and hit the road to embark on an expensive, credit-card budget, cross-country tour with a fully staffed entourage that would burn through taxpayer dollars while accomplishing absolutely none of the urgent work that Canadians are expecting of our government right now. Conservatives moved two motions to paralyze the justice committee. It was nothing but bad-faith obstruction.

We were not going to let them hijack another committee meeting and that is why, when a new chair was appointed to that committee, he had to cancel one meeting in order to sort things out. For the previous several meetings, all that had happened was obstruction. I will give exact examples of how that was done.

Instead of hijacking the meetings and accomplishing nothing, it is better, at times, to pause. The committee chair in the House had also explained why that pause was needed: to gather parties together and come to a path forward so that we could work together more productively.

I would like to point out that in the justice committee, two major public safety bills, the combatting hate act and the bail and sentencing reform act, are both being stalled, even as provinces and territories, municipalities, police chiefs, police associations and victims groups have been pleading with parliamentarians for swift action. Blocking these reforms is really irresponsible. It is an affront to the public safety of Canadians.

Under the Conservative leader, what we have seen is that the Conservatives would rather stage political theatre on the taxpayer's dime than do the job that Canadians have sent them here to do as an official opposition. They are not serious about public safety. They are not serious about governing, that is for sure. Hopefully, they are not given the opportunity one day, because they are showing clearly where their interests lie. It is in gaining political power and not in what the opposition is sent here to do, which is to make constructive amendments, to make our legislation stronger and to make Canadians safer. That is exactly what they have not been doing.

In fact, I would argue that what they are doing is trying to make sure that the government is not able to accomplish its agenda and pass these reforms and pieces of legislation, so that Canadians would be upset, so that these community groups would be upset, and so that the Conservatives can continue with the rage bait that they do online. What would they do if we were to solve all of these problems with our legislation? What rage bait would they be able to carry on about at that point?

We have seen, in fact, that every time there is some type of impasse, the Conservative Party of Canada gets online and raises money at the expense of the serious issues that affect Canadians and the incidents that victims suffer from. They have no qualms or feelings about fundraising off those issues. That is why I would say that the Conservatives are absolutely not serious, not genuinely serious, about public safety. They are certainly not serious about listening to the people who are most affected by crime.

Communities across Canada have been calling for stronger protections in the face of rising hate and rising anti-Semitism. We had many community associations call upon the House to make changes in legislation, to make changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, and we are doing exactly that. Every Conservative delay means that those protections are also delayed in getting to Canadians.

The proposed combatting hate act could not be reviewed at the committee, and the amendments that were put forward were not considered. There is a lot of conversation happening right now as to whether the Liberals agree with the Bloc amendment its members were going to be putting forward, but that amendment was not even put forward and was not moved at committee. However, somebody leaked that information, which is a serious matter of procedure and a failure of the member who made that leak.

It is important to give committee members the opportunity in committee to debate these issues and come up with a sincere decision on those issues, but what we saw were complete delay tactics. For example, on Thursday, November 27, the committee's work was completely derailed when the Conservative member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South filibustered for two hours. All confidential amendments had already been submitted on November 24, and the Bloc amendment was scheduled to be introduced that day, but the filibuster prevented that from happening. In fact, the amendment was never debated at all, and so no consideration was given to that matter.

In the meantime, what the Conservatives have been busy doing is demonizing this piece of legislation and coming up with what-ifs, hypothetical scenarios that are not even in the bill. The Conservative leader is going to events and telling people they will not be able to read the Torah, the Quran or the Bible without being charged. These are complete falsehoods. It is not true. These are hypothetical scenarios that have been created, and I would argue that even with potential amendments, that would not be the case. Once again, it is all rage bait.

Like I said, after weeks of filibusters, procedural games and attempts to drag us backwards, the Conservatives have now moved two motions at committee to stop clause by clause and to send the committee on a national tour. This is after the bill has already been debated. Witnesses have come before committee, and I can let members know how many witnesses; I have a list right here. The work the committee was able to do has been impressive, but I just wish it was given the opportunity to continue this work to completion. Instead, the Conservatives are holding up two very important bills in that committee.

The committee had eight hours of time on this bill. It should have been 11 hours, in terms of the time that was scheduled, but due to the Conservative filibustering, those hours were not allowed for committee work. We were left with eight hours. In terms of the number of witnesses, the committee saw 23 witnesses on this hate crime legislation, but it should have seen 33 had the Conservatives not started filibustering the committee. It is quite clear that it is the Conservatives who do not want to hear from witnesses and experts who come to give their testimony as to the pros and cons of different aspects of the legislation, which is really important in a democracy. It is the work that committees are given to do, and it is incredibly important.

What shocks me is that the other day in this House, the co-deputy leader of the Conservative Party stood up, and she was referring to Bill C-9. Maybe she was referring to all Criminal Code changes; I do not know. I will say that when the issue was Bill C-9, she stood up in the House and said, “We do not have a law problem in this country. We have an enforcement problem”.

I am wondering, is the deputy leader saying the police do not know what they are doing? What we have heard from police agencies across this country is that hate crime charges have not been laid. What we have heard from Jewish communities across this country is that they are not seeing the law being applied, due to the lack of clarity that had existed, and so consultations had been done to create this legislation so communities could be better protected through our code.

Every time the Conservatives get up in the House, they want Criminal Code changes. All their private members' bills ask for Criminal Code changes. Every time they get up in question period to talk about crime, they ask for Criminal Code changes. We are doing all of the things the Conservatives have asked for, all the things that law enforcement, the communities and victims have asked for, and all of of a sudden, we are seeing this pattern. The Conservatives are trying to stop us and obstruct us from doing the work that is necessary.

The pattern we have been seeing is a very clear one. What we have been seeing is that the Conservatives are incredibly weak on crime this Parliament, and they are blocking bail reform. The proof is in their actions, and not in what they get up and say, because we cannot trust what they are going to say. One day they are asking for changes in the law, and the next day their deputy leader is getting up in the House and saying we do not have a law problem; it is an enforcement problem. If that was the case, then why are they asking for all these law changes?

There are changes that are necessary. We have implemented them in legislation. However, the pattern we are seeing is that the Conservatives are opposing all those changes. Therefore, they are blocking bail reform. People are being released today because of the Conservatives' failure to work with the government. They are blocking protections for peaceful protesters and peaceful worshippers. One thing we have seen that is very clear is that the Conservatives definitely will not allow the police more of the investigative powers they have been asking for so they can actually catch extortionists and pedophiles.

The second bill we tabled in this House was Bill C-2, the stronger borders act. In that piece of legislation, we had a lawful access regime, which is something that, once upon a time, the Conservatives agreed with. However, all of a sudden, once again it is their way to fundraise and rage farm. Clickbait and rage farming is the stuff the Conservatives are famous for doing.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this. I was very happy to learn that the Conservatives had moved the motion, because we are working on that right now. I have in hand reports on committee meetings held since the parliamentary session started. I have to say, the numbers are not great. We hear speeches about collaboration, yet 412 out of 468 meetings have been held as of today. If we include today and tomorrow, I know that at least one meeting is going to be cancelled. Apparently, there was some good news about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but we know that there will be others. In the past week, it has been happening more often, but that is not a good thing, because we are here to work. So that is going to increase again.

Taken all together, then, we are talking about 56 meetings that were not convened and 112 hours of work that was not done, which amounts to 12% of committee hours. That is before today. If I add today, that is another 12 hours of meetings that will not be held. I predict that it will go up to 20 hours, because there are several discussions and we are being told that, since we are just wrapping up studies, we are not going to start the next one and that everyone wants to go home. Those are the discussions that are taking place, but we are here to work. The sad reality is that for the six years I have been sitting on these benches, the House of Commons has unfortunately not been known for its efficiency. It is really sad.

We need only look at the debates we have here, where we spend several days on one bill. In theory, as the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan pointed out earlier, it is the members, representing the people in their ridings, who will come and speak. It is up to the government to win the support of a majority in a minority situation. Unfortunately, we often get here with our main points and our positions, and then we go on and on about our positions for three or four days. Ultimately, we end up voting the same way as if we had voted on the first day. That is often the case. Sometimes opinions change, but it is rare. In terms of efficiency, sometimes we wonder whether what we are doing is productive, whether we are moving things forward. Sadly, the hourly cost of our operations is quite high. That is the truth.

Committees are usually the best part of parliamentary life. A committee is supposed to be made up of people of good faith who want to advance a cause. They may have differences of opinion, of course, but they want to debate them in a healthy way, then sit down, get to work and study.

We are talking about filibustering. It is appalling how much time we are wasting. Earlier, I repeated one of my questions from last fall. In response, the member told me that it was not his fault, that the government that did not want to release the documents. In fact, both sides are right, and we find ourselves caught between the two major political parties, trying to move things forward. Unfortunately, far too often, if not almost always, we seem to be the only adult in the room. That is very sad.

We are here to work. If someone chooses to not work or not call a committee meeting the next morning or the next evening, they are not paid less; they receive the same salary. The work needs to be done, but it is not getting done. There are various reasons for that, but it is not right. The statistics I gave cover the 25 standing committees, but they do not include the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament or the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. In total, there are 29 committees, so the statistics may actually be even bleaker than the numbers I provided.

How does this happen? What possible reason could there be for a committee not to sit? The chair is supposed to consult with the vice-chairs. It may happen once in a while, once in a session or once every two or three sessions, that a meeting is cancelled because something is not working or because there is a problem with witnesses or something like that, but that is rare, and that is not what we are seeing in this session.

How is that possible? I have asked my colleagues in the House about this. How is it that we find ourselves talking about this today? It is not right for us to be compiling statistics to show how little the committee meets and why we need to sit down and look at how often this is happening. I would like to announce that I have planned some meetings with colleagues, including a colleague on the government side, with whom I want to discuss this issue.

Beyond that, I want to discuss the issue of filibustering. This is actually quite surreal. It is understandable for the opposition to sometimes use this approach to block debate, but why are government members blocking their own bill? They are filibustering their own bill. This is unbelievable. They introduce a bill and then, once in committee, they refuse to discuss it. Take, for example, Bill C-9, which we were debating earlier. When they realize that an amendment does not suit everyone, they no longer want to move forward. They do not know how to back down, so they choose to talk for hours and hours on end. I have identified three examples from committees.

First, at the Standing Committee on Finance on October 22, we witnessed the Liberals using appalling filibustering tactics to avoid debating the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois, which was next on the agenda. That is one of the games they play. People watching us at home should take note: This is what their elected representatives are doing. When they do not like the next item on the agenda, they prefer not to talk about it because they do not have any intelligent arguments to defeat it when it comes to a vote. They prefer to prevent discussion, so they take the floor and talk for hours. On November 19, the same thing happened. On December 8, they did it again during the study of their own bill, Bill C‑15. In total, there were 5.5 hours of filibustering at the Standing Committee on Finance alone.

Let us talk about the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which was mentioned earlier. There was supposed to be five meetings on Bill C-9, the law on hate speech, but two of them were not held. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives contributed to the filibuster. The Conservatives are good at pointing fingers, but they are even better at filibustering. I have noticed since I entered this place that they have a lot of experience with that. The Liberals cancelled the December 4 meeting. We still had meetings scheduled this week, but we were unsure whether they would go ahead. We thought they would be cancelled until a Conservative colleague gave us the scoop: He told us that the committee had been convened. We are very pleased about it, but in all, seven hours of work were lost. Those seven lost hours are no small matter. Sitting around the table are 10 members, two analysts, the clerk, the technical team and the interpreters. Every hour is expensive. That is the message I want to get across today: It costs a lot of money. Then they talk to us about budget efficiency. They want to cut transfers to the provinces. Something does not add up there. We need to be efficient for the common good.

Now let us talk about the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Bloc members raised the Driver Inc. issue in the House. My colleague asked some excellent questions about that today. Six meetings have taken place, and five more are scheduled, almost as many as the number of meetings that have already taken place. Sometimes, our members only find out the day before when a meeting is cancelled by a unilateral decision of the chair. I know that the Liberals like unilateral decisions. We talked about the Constitution recently, about “operation citizenship” and other things that have been done unilaterally. Bloc Québécois members are offering to collaborate, but under certain conditions: There needs to be an openness and a desire to work, instead of trying to corner us in uncomfortable positions. That requires an open attitude on the part of chairs. I mentioned it earlier to my colleague from Winnipeg North, who is paying close attention right now. I hope he will ask me a question about that, because things need to move along. Since November 6, there have been nearly 12 hours of Liberal filibustering at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Last week, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in passing a motion to summon a former prime minister to explain what this “operation citizenship” was all about. We were able to get it passed because, good news, the Liberals do not have a majority. Every once in a while, they are not the ones calling the shots. Since they were not happy about what happened, they cancelled all committee meetings this week, citing bogus reasons. We were told that there could be votes, so it would be impossible to hold a committee meeting. Give me a break. It is not as if votes never take place. We could simply start later. Then we were told that there were no witnesses, or that we have worked hard since the start of the parliamentary session so everything is fine; it is time to take a break. I was told that by email. It is appalling. People are asked to be thorough and do the work, but while the parties are blaming each other, nothing is moving forward. We were elected to study bills in committee and pass them in order to improve things for the common good.

I am a new whip. I must confess that I have been in shock since I began observing the 29 committees of the House of Commons, including the 25 standing committees. I am shocked because I realize that there is no co-operation in many of the committees. There is only obstruction, and many meetings do not take place.

I want to acknowledge the people who sit with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Although imperfect, they are much better than others because we work for the common good. That should be the case for all committees. That is what matters.

I have a tip for people who sit on other committees. Sometimes, even when we are working on resolutions or recommendations for reports, we talk to each other before the meeting. To save time, we talk to each other before the meeting. Rather than arriving at the committee meeting, filibustering proceedings and wasting everyone's time and money, we come to an agreement beforehand. We call each other to find out what the others are thinking. That way, when we arrive at the committee meeting, we are ready to go. It is very efficient. Instead of arguing for two hours, we pass resolutions and get things done.

We do not always agree, but most of the time we manage to find common ground. I dream of the day when this will happen at all House of Commons committees. Obviously, if we do that, there will be fewer clips to post on social media. I understand that some people think that is a shame. People want to have clips to show how they put someone in their place, but things should not be that way. That is how naive I am. That is what I would like to see.

I talked about witnesses earlier. As an elected official, there is something that I find completely unfathomable. When we get to committee, three or four witnesses are already seated at the end of the table. These people travel a long way. Their travel costs are paid for, and often their accommodation expenses are, too. They also come thoroughly prepared. After all, they are here to testify before the Government of Canada. These people are not stupid, they prepare, they show up with documents and they know they only have one shot at stating their position.

Then they sit down and people start filibustering. One member starts talking and never stops. Meanwhile, the witness at the end of the table is not really sure what is going on. He listens and looks at his watch. Finally, after an hour or two, two or three members quarrel and move motions. Sometimes, members move motions with witnesses present. After two hours, we apologize and tell them that there was not enough time to hear from them. We thank them for coming and ask them to send us their brief by email. Had they known, they would not have come.

The following week, the clerks tell committee members that they will have to cancel the meeting because no witnesses have agreed to appear. That is not surprising; it was to be expected. We need to be serious. We are bothering people, everyone from professionals and scientists to academic researchers and farmers, people who do not have time to appear. They have to be on their land, working. When they come here, it has to serve a purpose. Let us be serious.

It is important to respect witnesses. When they are sitting in a committee room, they should always be given priority. I know sometimes we have no choice, because of procedure, but that should be a rare exception. That is not what we are seeing in this Parliament, and it is incredibly sad to hear the comments. For example, at the beginning of a committee meeting, the chair decided to change the agenda and raised another subject. This allowed the Liberals to move a motion that undermined the one that another member managed to get adopted at the previous committee meeting. These are unfair tactics. The Liberals should talk to us if they want to change something, and they should talk to each other. Can we work seriously?

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary criticize the Conservatives for moving this motion, because we should be talking about Bill C-15, a 650-page omnibus bill. On page 300 of the bill, the fine print says that any minister can repeal any legislation whenever he or she wants as long as they can claim that it is in the name of innovation. Is that what they call co-operation? It is up to us to seek it out, find it, flush it out, and expose it in the media. The Liberals tried to sneak this through. Afterwards, they will come here acting all offended and say that we are preventing them from doing their job. If everyone acted in good faith, I think we could make progress much faster.

As for me, I worry a lot about resources and issues. The government tends to hide the issues.

I would like to take this opportunity to give another example that really worries me, and that is the situation of interpreters. I raised this issue at the Board of Internal Economy. We are talking about filibustering and keeping committees going until midnight, cancelling one meeting and then holding another, and so on. Who is being negatively affected when that happens? It is not just the MPs, their teams of advisors, the clerks and all those people. It also affects the interpreters.

Imagine how difficult their work is. Interpreters listen and speak at the same time in the other language. Imagine how complex that task is. I do not know what percentage of elected officials in the House are bilingual, but it is certainly not half. I know it is not 60%. I would guess that it is closer to 20% to 30%, and even that is generous. They cannot learn another language because that requires effort.

The interpreters are good enough to be able to listen in one language and summarize in the other at the same time. They do not translate word for word. They interpret, and to be able to do that, they need to see the speaker's face and hear how they express themselves. They have to be aware of the context, and they need a basic knowledge of the topic under discussion. It is a big job.

This year, however, the House of Commons let them know that it would be accepting the lowest bidder and that it made no difference if the guy interpreting a legal discussion was not well versed in the law. They could not care less. An interpreter only needs to give a rough idea of what is being said. People are even starting to talk about bringing in AI, but we need human beings to pick up on human emotions and listen to real people.

I have another chart that I am not supposed to show the House, but I can refer to it during my speech. It lists technical incidents involving interpretation. I have not yet pulled out the statistics, but what we notice on a daily basis with the whips' team is that, very often, when there are technical problems, it is because the interpreters were online remotely. There are delays, they cannot see people, they cannot see each other to take over, which means that when one of them stops talking, sometimes there will be a bigger gap in the interpretation.

Who pays the price for this? Apart from, of course, the interpreters who have to protect their hearing health, it is always francophones who pay. Mr. Speaker, you are one of the few who are truly bilingual, but you know as well as I do that it is always francophones who pay, because 80% to 90% of the discussions take place in English. So, the little piece of missing information is the one that francophones are lacking for their analysis, to make their representations, or to properly evaluate legislation.

However, the constituents of a francophone member are just as deserving as the citizens in an anglophone province. They have the right to be properly represented. I see some members who seem to want to object, so if they have something to say, they should stand up and raise a point of order. I think what I just said was very parliamentary. Every voter has the right to be represented with dignity.

Do my colleagues know why I am taking this opportunity to talk about it? It is because when I spoke to officials from interpretation services at the Board of Internal Economy, they gave me a bit of an empty statement that really said nothing. Then they barely addressed my questions and concerns about how the process for awarding future contracts is changing. They told me not to worry, that the certification exam is extremely rigorous and ensures top quality. They kept telling me that, but what did I learn last week? They changed the exam. They have said there will be no problem and no more shortages. They have added an external auditor to come and evaluate, and that individual's votes would count as much as those of the four House of Commons experts who used to do the evaluation. When there is a tie, the administration will decide. There will be no more shortages.

That is one example among many where I think the government is being somewhat insouciant and saying that it is going to fix things and that everything is going to be fine. However, we have to be serious and thorough, and the same goes for committees.

I have a message for the government. Being the chair of a committee is a privilege. The role of chair—and you are doing a magnificent job sitting in the chair of the House—is to be neutral and to be fair to everyone. However, I have some examples where that is not the case. Then people wonder why some members are not acting in good faith like others. If everyone acts in good faith, it can be a virtuous circle, but if there is bad faith, it can be a vicious circle. Bad faith on one side leads to bad faith on the other. Let us stop wasting time and get serious about working for the people.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that our motion is already delivering results. The Liberal chair has called a justice committee meeting for tomorrow to do clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9. It is an eight-hour meeting.

My question to the member opposite is very simple. Will the Liberals be voting with the Bloc to remove religious protections from the Criminal Code?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague. We have very different ideas on some of the things that are coming before the committee, but I always know where my colleague stands. I and my colleagues on the justice committee remain ready to deal with clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-9. We are 100% opposed to the assault on religious freedom that has been proposed and discussed, and it is shameful that the Liberals will not, in the House, state what their intention is on that.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

My colleague from Barrie South—Innisfil did a tremendous job explaining the breadth of Liberal obstruction right now. There is a logical inconsistency here that I do not believe should be all that surprising coming from the Liberal Party, but they are obstructing their own agenda. The Liberals are obstructing their own legislation.

I can speak specifically to what has been happening on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a committee I was honoured to be named to shortly after I was sworn in as a member of Parliament, and a committee that is very relevant to the people in my riding, for whom crime has been a top issue. I sent out a household mailer to the people in my riding a couple of months back, and it was about crime, justice and the revolving-door bail crisis. The police chiefs in St. Thomas, Aylmer and London, and officers with the Ontario Provincial Police, have all said the same thing, which is that they are tired of arresting people in the morning only to find them on the streets again, sometimes that afternoon.

We demanded action. Canadians demanded action on bail. We were told that the Liberal government would make bail a top priority. On the justice committee, we were expecting to be able to do incredibly important, timely work on this. We actually initiated a study on bail, and extended invitations, as part of that study, to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety. Shockingly, months later, neither has appeared on this.

Now, it is possible that the Minister of Public Safety is still hard at work getting his RPAL, and that is why he has not had time to come before the committee. The Minister of Justice said he would only come before committee to talk about Bill C-9, the Liberal government's anti-hate bill. The very first justice bill that the Liberal government put forward was not on revolving-door bail and it was not on mandatory minimums for child predators; it was on cracking down on freedom of expression, cracking down on what people post online. That was the very first priority of the Minister of Justice. I will get to how that is going for the Liberal government in a moment.

It was interesting that the Minister of Justice did not want to speak about bail. He did not want to come to committee, and has not yet responded to our invitation for him to speak to his mandate and priorities. We are seeing now that the Minister of Justice is providing the same level of excellence he delivered as the Minister of Housing and Minister of Immigration. He is bringing that to the justice file, and Canadians are suffering.

Let us talk about what has been happening in the last few weeks alone. There was a meeting at the end of November that the Liberals simply did not call. There was another meeting that the Liberals did not call, and another meeting that the Liberals cancelled. As of today, we do not know if the justice committee will be meeting tomorrow at a regularly scheduled time. No notice of meeting has been issued. The notice of meeting for our Tuesday meetings almost always comes on the Friday before, so I suspect we are not going to be meeting tomorrow, although I would love to be proven wrong.

It was interesting, just a couple of hours ago in question period, that the Minister of Justice stood up, facing questions from our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois about the government's bungling of Bill C-9. He would not give a clear answer as to what the Liberal government's view is of the amendment that we understand is forthcoming from the Bloc to remove long-standing religious free speech protections from criminal law. What the Minister of Justice said was, “Whoa, the committee will decide this.” How is the committee going to decide anything when the Liberals are either not calling meetings or are cancelling meetings on their bill?

Now, what we learned in the last couple of days is rather interesting. In fact, just this morning, there was an article in which we learned that the Minister of Justice initiated a secret deal with the Bloc Québécois, where the Bloc would support Bill C-9 in exchange for the Liberals supporting the Bloc amendment removing religious freedom protections, making it so that someone could be criminally prosecuted for expressing good faith religious beliefs or even quoting scripture.

This is the government that promoted the previous chair of the justice committee to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture after he said that prosecutors should be able to, “press charges” for people who quote verses of scripture that he deems to be hateful. It is good to know that falling upwards, the long-standing Liberal pastime and career trajectory, is still available.

This is so interesting because the Liberals, when they are faced with questions about where they stand on this, hide behind the committee process, yet members of the committee are saying, “Let us do our jobs.” Conservatives have stood ready at the last two meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to work until midnight, and resources have been available. On this issue that the government says is such a priority, to get through clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9, we have stood ready to do that even though, as I said at the justice committee and as I said in the House of Commons, we do not believe that Bill C-9 should have been prioritized above bail reform.

However, when the Liberals obstruct Bill C-9, which they are doing right now, when they obstruct their own bill, they are also obstructing every other justice priority they said they have. They have obstructed the committee's work on Bill C-14, a bail bill, which is very welcome in that it acknowledges how bad the bail system has gotten. Although, I believe there are a number of amendments that need to be put forward on Bill C-14 so that it does what we need it to do to fix Liberal bail in this country, we cannot do any of that, because the Liberals cannot figure out where they stand on Bill C-9.

When I mentioned the Minister of Justice's secret deal with the Bloc Québécois, the interesting tidbit that came out in the media today is that he forgot to tell the Prime Minister that he was making that deal. Now, the Liberals are in turmoil while they figure out where they stand on their own legislation and amendments to it, and Canadians expecting the justice committee to work on fixing the criminal justice system have to wait while the Liberals get their act together.

Similarly, earlier this fall, we passed a very critical report before the justice committee calling on the government to send a strong message that it will not tolerate judicial leniency for people convicted of peddling in and viewing child sexual exploitation and abuse material. What should have been a very quick, unanimous decision by the committee after the Supreme Court made an absolutely egregious ruling that a one-year sentence for those offences was “cruel and unusual punishment”, instead took two meetings. The Liberals filibustered this, preventing us from working on anything. We finally adopted that motion, and it came before the House. I am grateful for it, but we lost critical time to do everything else, again, because of Liberal obstruction and Liberal filibustering.

The Liberals do not know how to govern in a minority Parliament, evidently. They do not know that they have to work with other parties. I guess the Minister of Justice tried to do this, although his way of working with other parties was to launch a full-out assault on religious freedom. That is not what bipartisanship is supposed to look like.

We are still ready and eager to do the work. The reason I put forward a motion at the justice committee a couple of weeks ago to reset the committee's priorities was that it was clear that we were headed towards exactly the situation we find ourselves in: a bill where, in the words of the chair of the justice committee before this very House the other day, there is no path forward right now.

We still believe we should prioritize bail, and I would welcome the justice committee to actually call a meeting. We have two designated spots before the House rises for the winter break. I would certainly hope that Liberal members of Parliament do not want to face their constituents and say that they did not deliver on any of their justice priorities, because that is what is going to be happening now.

All the Canadians who are concerned about revolving-door bail and all of the frontline police officers, police chiefs and first responders who have been crying out for years for action have gotten nothing from the Liberal government. They have gotten a commitment from the public safety minister that they are going to go full steam ahead on the gun confiscation scheme, but nothing to put repeat offenders behind bars where they belong. Legislation, we understand, is forthcoming from the government to perhaps deal with the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual predators. However, again, no action is possible on that, because of Liberal obstruction on committee.

I am a new member of Parliament. I came here with a mandate, and I came here to get to work. The Liberal government, if it does not want to co-operate, needs to get out of the way. Right now, the Liberals are getting in their own way and the way of Canadians, and we will not stand for it.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek concurrence on the first report of the Liaison Committee, which details the work of the standing committees of the House. I am doing so to sound the alarm over the systematic obstruction we are witnessing on multiple committee fronts, perpetrated by the Liberal government.

I will split my time, as well, with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

In addition to my work as chair of the ethics committee, I serve as the Conservative caucus committee coordinator. As part of my responsibilities, I make a point of observing a wide cross-section of standing committees and can report that Liberal obstruction tactics include purposely not scheduling meetings, intentionally withholding ministers from facing accountability at committee, preventing witnesses from testifying, lengthy filibusters and breaking procedural rules to their advantage.

In a phrase, the Prime Minister treats Parliament like a corporate boardroom meant only to rubber-stamp his agenda. I have news for him and his government: This is a G7 democracy, not a meeting of shareholders.

This is a minority Parliament. Committees are composed in such a way that the Liberals must work with at least one opposition party to advance the government's agenda. It also means that when opposition parties unite to hold the government to account, the government must comply with the will of the committee. However, rather than working constructively with opposition parties, the Liberals prefer to take their ball and go home.

Allow me to cite some examples of Liberal obstruction.

At the justice committee, after Conservatives worked productively to receive witness testimony on Bill C-9, the Liberal law on hate speech, the committee got bogged down by a Liberal filibuster on a Conservative motion that called for the strongest legislative response possible to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory prison time for those convicted of possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

That is right. Rather than prioritize legislation on hate crimes or bail, the Liberals ran cover for an egregious court decision that eases sentences for perverts in possession of child pornography. They filibustered three meetings: November 6, November 18 and November 20.

Following a filibuster on December 2, after it became clear that the Liberals were not serious about their hate crime bill, Conservatives moved that the committee prioritize the bail bill, Bill C-14. Given the daily news reports of violent crimes being committed by repeat offenders, I would think the Liberals might have wanted to work with us to pass that bail law. Conservatives are of the view that, while the bill does not go nearly far enough to fix the broken bail system, a partial measure is better than nothing.

What did the Liberals do with our offer to work quickly on Bill C-14? They voted to adjourn debate. Instead, the Minister of Justice went rogue and made a deal with the Bloc to remove religious protections built into the Criminal Code as part of the hate speech bill, leading to division in their own caucus and a stalled agenda at the committee.

Nevertheless, Conservatives agreed to work constructively through the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The Liberals secured committee resources through to midnight on December 2, but after passing just one clause that day, they quickly adjourned the meeting, preventing the committee from dealing with the amendment on the religious exemption.

Since then, the chair refused to schedule a meeting on December 4 and has yet to put out a meeting notice for this week. While the Liberals obstruct their own agenda, the victims of crime are the ones who suffer.

I will reiterate our offer: Conservatives would be pleased to set aside other work before the committee to see that Bill C-14 becomes law.

Liberal obstruction goes far beyond just the justice committee. At the transport committee, the Conservative Party worked constructively and efficiently on Bill C-5, the so-called Building Canada Act. I note that, since its passage, not one project has been listed in the national interest, and the promise the Liberals made to approve projects and build Canada remains unfulfilled.

Conservatives secured several amendments to that bill, which included protections for indigenous people, as well as ethics and oversight provisions. One might think this would have created some goodwill among parties at the committee table. It did not.

The committee conducted a study on the Driver Inc. issue and examined ways to improve highway safety. Opposition members proposed extending the study by two sessions in order to hear from victims of trucking accidents and obtain related documents from the government. The Liberals are determined not to show Canadians that the government is unable to keep them safe, so they have launched a procedural war against this motion.

To prevent debate, the Liberal chair cancelled meetings scheduled for November 18 and 20. The members of the opposition used an extraordinary tool to force an emergency meeting through Standing Order 106(4), which began on November 25. If members consult the parliamentary website, they will see that the meeting that began on November 25 is still ongoing.

As of now, this is a 13-day meeting. The Liberals began by filibustering for hours, which was followed by a multi-day suspension, another Standing Order 106(4) letter to force the recall of the committee, another four-hour filibuster by the Liberals and another multi-day suspension. At one point, the chair attempted to mislead committee members that a suspension would last 30 minutes, but then he exited out the back door and allowed the suspension to last for days.

Rather than get answers for victims or prepare recommendations for expanded road safety, the Liberals are obstructing the work of the transport committee. We are seeing similar obstruction tactics by chairs at other committees, such as at the finance, science and research, health, and human resources committees, and more. I am pleased to begin this important debate to allow members of the House to air the grievances they have with the conduct of the chairs of these committees. It is a committee Festivus, if one will.

Unfortunately, Liberal chairs are not the only ones obstructing committee work. Ministers of the Crown are also direct participants in this obstruction. We have seen multiple absent ministers. The justice committee invited the Minister of Justice to appear in relation to his mandate and priorities on September 23. He has yet to appear. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety were also invited to participate as witnesses in the justice committee study on the bail system. Both ministers declined to participate.

This dynamic duo was repeatedly invited to the status of women committee to participate in its study of section 810 of the Criminal Code and women's safety. Again, they have ignored that invitation. The Minister of Justice was also invited to the national defence committee as part of its study on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, given that he would be responsible for the civilian process to deal with sexual harassment in the military. Again, he obstructed the work of the committee and refused to appear.

The finance minister refused the request of the industry committee to appear with respect to the Stellantis contract, despite the fact that he was the minister who signed the deal and the contract in the first place, which has yet to demonstrate any form of job guarantee for Canadian workers. The public safety minister refused to appear at the transport committee as part of its investigation into security concerns around the decision of the Infrastructure Bank to fund the purchase of new vessels from China for BC Ferries.

The Liberals have run interference to prevent the Minister of Industry from appearing at the public safety committee on Bill C-8, even though their proposed law would give her sweeping powers to remove the Internet from citizens. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence has failed to appear at the ethics committee, despite 11 requests to do so, or the status of women committee as it conducts studies on the various impacts of AI on Canadian life.

The Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature has ignored three invitations from the environment committee related to the industrial carbon tax, the global carbon tax on marine transport and the EV mandate. The Minister of Indigenous Services has failed to appear at the indigenous affairs committee to respond to the Auditor General's report on progress for indigenous communities.

The Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance have all failed to appear before committees on the supplementary estimates.

Billions of tax dollars are going unscrutinized before they go out the door. The list goes on. There is a lot more to say on the Liberal attack on and decline in our democracy, and the attack on committees, but I am short on time. In conclusion, we demand, on behalf of Canadians, that the Liberals end their obstruction and start being accountable for every dollar they spend, law they propose and incursion of freedom they attempt to do.

Justice

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were set to vote on repealing the religious exemption. However, the Liberals cancelled the committee meeting, and it looks like they are going to cancel it again tomorrow and Thursday.

The Liberals are walking away from their agreement with the Bloc Québécois and turning their backs on Quebeckers. They are giving up on Bill C‑9. The Prime Minister rebuked his justice minister for siding with Quebec over the religious right. The Liberals' chief concern is combatting hate, but that is falling by the wayside.

How can the Liberals justify this about-face after so many broken promises?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we propose measures to combat hatred across the country. It is very important that the House pass Bill C-9 to ensure that the Criminal Code protects communities.

When it comes to the religious exemption, we need to work with the various parties to understand their perspectives, but the decision will be made by the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I look forward to hearing what they have decided after the next committee meeting.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks, the Conservatives have been trying to sabotage Bill C-9 and the Bloc Québécois's amendment to put an end to the religious exemption for hate speech in the Criminal Code.

We have learned that the Prime Minister's Office has also been been quietly sabotaging the work of the Bloc Québécois and the Minister of Justice. If we want to know where the Prime Minister stands on any issue, we just need to look at the Conservatives' position.

Why would the Prime Minister rather sabotage his own bill than put an end to the religious exemption?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Yesterday the Liberals got up in question period and accused Conservatives of obstructing work on Liberal Bill C-9, which takes aim at religious freedom and freedom of expression. The Liberals said they wanted to conduct clause-by-clause review today, but this morning, the Liberal chair cancelled the meeting, obstructing the Liberal government's own agenda and denying our right as legislators to do our work.

Why did the chair cancel the meeting, and will he commit to calling our scheduled meeting on Tuesday, so we can get to work?

Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passion about Bill C-9.

When we serve on committee, we are doing really important work for Canadians. That is currently where the legislation is: in committee, where we work on and review legislation. Conservatives are working in committee right now to protect the religious freedoms of Canadians. On this side of the House, that is what we are trying to do.

Can my colleague please explain how the Liberals are blocking the work we are trying to complete in committee?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the chamber today to address Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

The bill matters; it is an important bill. Canadians deserve clarity, fairness and honesty from their government. Conservatives believe deeply in protecting every Canadian from hate, intimidation and violence. We stand against hate crimes in every form. We stand with the communities that feel threatened. We also stand for the fundamental freedoms that define this country.

Canada is a plural society. People of every faith, every culture and every tradition live side by side. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and indigenous spiritual communities all contribute. Everyone belongs, and everyone deserves safety. We believe that every Canadian should feel safe walking into a temple, a gurdwara, a church, a mosque or any other cultural or religious centre. Canadians deserve the freedom to pray, celebrate and gather without fear.

Religious freedom is essential; it is not secondary. It is a core Canadian value. It is protected by the charter, and it must never be undermined by vague or politically motivated legislation.

However, protecting freedom requires responsible drafting, and responsible drafting requires clarity. Bill C-9 unfortunately does not provide that clarity. The bill would expand definitions of hate propaganda, without precise thresholds or constitutional safeguards. Experts raised concerns. Legal scholars raised concerns. Law enforcement raised concerns. The National Post reported extensively on these flaws, highlighting how language risks selective enforcement, how investigators lack operational guidance and how Canadians risk being silenced rather than protected.

When the country's major newspapers and legal experts sound alarms, any responsible government would pause and fix the issues, but the government did not. Instead it pushed ahead, prioritizing political messaging over legislative quality. It rejected Conservative amendments. It ignored community advice. It disregarded charter warnings.

When the government proposes amendments to the Criminal Code on something as sensitive as hate propaganda and hate crimes, the language must be exact. The law must be carefully crafted to target the people who promote violence and genuine hatred, while shielding Canadians from the risk of being criminalized for expressing opinions, beliefs, criticism, satire or religious teachings that are part of legitimate democratic discourse.

Then the Liberals tried to block scrutiny where Canadians expect accountability most: at the justice committee. Liberals filibustered. They obstructed meaningful debate. They prevented witnesses from fully presenting concerns. They treated legitimate questions as inconveniences. Incredibly, they disrupted the committee process to such an extent that the committee clerk informed members that today's meeting has been cancelled because the government simply refused to let the work continue.

Canadians deserve better than a government that filibusters its own bill and grinds committee work to a halt. What kind of confidence can Canadians have in the law when the government is afraid of its own committee hearings?

Canada's strength is its pluralism, not in slogans but in real, lived experience in neighbours of different faiths supporting each other, in families practising different traditions under the same roof, and in communities celebrating their culture without fear. Pluralism requires trust, and trust requires laws that are fair, clear and constitutional. Bill C-9 would threaten that trust, because vague laws do not protect our society; they weaken it.

When religious groups, cultural organizations or ordinary Canadians wonder if their speech or practices could be misinterpreted, fear begins to replace confidence, and when confidence erodes, the foundation of a pluralistic society cracks.

Conservatives support protecting places of worship: temples, gurdwaras, churches, mosques, synagogues, and cultural centres, every sacred space. We support the right to worship freely and without intimidation. We support strong penalties for hate-motivated attacks, but we also support laws that work. Communities want real protection. They want scrutiny and resources, not flowery commitments. They want policing tools, not political theatre. They want faster responses, not confusing legislation.

Instead of developing a precise, enforceable, community-informed framework that strengthens prevention, enhances police capabilities and sharply targets people who spread real hatred and violence, the government drafted a bill so broad, so unclear and so poorly defended that experts, communities and law enforcement alike cannot confidently explain how it would be applied. This is not good governance. This is not how we protect religious freedom. This is not how we protect or support a pluralistic society.

Conservatives will always stand against hate, but we will also always stand up for the charter. We will defend due process, we will defend clear constitutional law and we will defend the right of every Canadian to worship freely, speak freely and live without fear.

Bill C-9 would not meet these standards. It would fail to give police clear tools. It would fail to deliver confidence to religious communities. It would fail to reflect the society we are proud to be. It fails the test of transparency, especially when the government cancels committee meetings rather than face scrutiny. Canada deserves laws that work. Our society deserves what is real. Every Canadian who values both safety and freedom deserves better. Parliament deserves legislation that respects rights, freedom and common sense.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we put forward a motion to travel and discuss Bill C-9. At the heart of the request to travel is the agreement between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois on paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which provides an exemption, “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”.

My question to the member is very simple: Does he believe that Bill C-9 will be strengthened by the elimination of this clause from the Criminal Code, or will it be weakened, yes or no?

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found most of that member's speech totally unnecessary. I will explain it very succinctly. Conservatives are here to oppose bad laws. Bill C-9 has become a bad law because of this bad amendment that the Liberals have agreed to, clandestinely with the Bloc, as reported by the National Post.

When the former chair of the justice committee said that he thinks some religious texts are hateful and should be banned, we found that appalling. We thought he was on his way out. He has since been elevated to cabinet, and apparently it is now the position of the government and the Prime Minister that some religious texts are hateful and need to be banned in Canada.

I have a very simple question for this member: Who was the Prime Minister when the religious exemption was put into section 319?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate, which the Conservatives tossed onto the floor at the last minute. It is an attempt to do what I have become witness to the Conservatives doing for the better part of 10 years now, which is to obstruct and prevent government business from occurring. They look for opportunities to participate in preventing the government from doing anything. The member before me said he was going to speak professionally about everything and talk about the politics of this. I am just going to lay out what has occurred to this point, so the public can be the judge of whether what is going on is suspicious or not.

Bill C-9 was formally passed by the House at second reading and went to committee. There were three meetings at committee. There was over eight hours of meetings with witnesses where all political parties, the government, the opposition and the Bloc, were able to ask questions. What happens after that, typically, is that we would go into clause by clause. This would have been an opportunity for members to start looking at the actual bill with the perspective of what they had learned through their deliberations with the witnesses over eight hours and three meetings.

The chair of the committee said that he would like everybody to submit their amendments to the bill, and everybody had until November 24 to submit their amendments. The amendments, by nature of the way that our committees work, are submitted in confidence and kept in camera until the committee reports out. If I were to move an amendment at committee, nobody would know about it. If it were an amendment that did not make it through to the bill, in theory, nobody would ever find out about it because it all happens behind closed doors in camera. November 24 was the deadline.

By November 24, when the amendments were distributed to all members on the committee, the Conservatives would have become aware of the amendment that was put forward by the Bloc. Three days later, on November 27, the committee met again. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South decided he needed to filibuster the whole committee. The only new information that member would have had between the preceding meeting and the meeting on November 27 would have been all of the amendments that had been put forward by the members of the committee.

That is how we get to where we are now. The committee had this filibuster instead of clause by clause. The committee had listened to 23 witnesses, which would have been 33 witnesses if there had they had not filibustered. The minister even attended and answered questions directly. Then we get to this point. Now I hope the public understands.

The bill went through second reading here. The bill went to committee. The bill was studied for over three meetings and had over eight hours' worth of witnesses. The minister appeared. The request went out for amendments. Everybody submitted their amendments to the committee.

After all that happened, suddenly and out of nowhere, the Conservatives showed up today, during Routine Proceedings, to say they would like to ask the House for permission to tour the country to get feedback on this bill. The ship has long sailed on feedback. The committee, the pre-committee and the subcommittee would have met to determine what the goals were in studying this bill. The committee members would then have had opportunities, before the witnesses even showed up, to say that they thought the committee needed to take this on the road to go to visit various communities throughout the country.

The committee members could have asked any of the witnesses, or the minister for that matter, if it would be helpful for the committee to tour the country to ask about this. Do members think any of that happened? It did not happen once. The only time the Conservatives suddenly demanded to now delay the committee and clause by clause to go tour the country came after they became aware of the amendment put forward by the Bloc.

The question is why.

What I said was all completely objective. It is all information that happened. It just occurred. Now I will share my opinion as to why the Conservatives are suddenly trying to put the brakes on this. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me brought this up too. She made a very good point. She said they are divided.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about Liberal colonizers and Liberal imperialists, just to clarify the record.

To my colleague from Quebec, what I would say is that the Bloc Québécois has represented their efforts here in this chamber as pushing back on the encroachment of the federal government. In this situation, with Bill C-9 and the amendment, the Bloc Québécois is actually asking the federal government to have more power over the lives of Quebeckers and all Canadian citizens.

I would think that would be an area where the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives would agree: no abuse of federal state power.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of my constituents of Bowmanville—Oshawa North to oppose Bill C-9 and to support efforts to further scrutinize and study the legislation.

I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

There are many problems with Bill C-9 and the Liberal attempt to amend Bill C-9 to criminalize the reading and sharing of Bible verses in this country. We oppose this for many reasons, but I do want to draw attention to an area that has not gotten enough attention: the efforts of the Liberal Party to enact a form of cultural imperialism on Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country.

I want to share an academic definition of “cultural imperialism” because I am sure many members of the House probably are not used to hearing that term to describe what the Liberal Party is attempting to do to citizens of our country. This definition comes from EBSCO, a research database. Published in 2024, the definition reads:

Cultural imperialism refers to the imposition of one culture's values, beliefs, and practices over another, often leading to the erosion of the latter's unique cultural identity.... It manifests through various mediums, including education, religion, and media, where dominant cultures often shape and redefine the social and ethical frameworks of less dominant societies....

Cultural imperialism causes changes that are usually faster than would otherwise occur, and in a direction that benefits those from the dominant or influencing culture. The faster pace can mean that the changes have a destabilizing effect on other aspects of the culture, and the association of the changes with benefits accruing to members of the dominant culture, taken together mean that one party is benefiting from actions that are harmful to others.

I share this definition to provide some context for what I believe the Liberal Party is doing right now. It has been in power for over a decade and has tried its very best to exercise influence over every institution in this country. It has abused the power of the federal government to impose its values, beliefs and practices on as many institutions in our country as it possibly can. Today we see evidence of that through Bill C-9 and the Liberal effort to amend Bill C-9, an effort to exercise that cultural imperialism over churches, mosques and synagogues.

I have provided an academic definition of cultural imperialism, but I would also like to provide a pop culture reference. In the hit song from last year, Kendrick Lamar's Not Like Us, Lamar uses some language to describe colonial thinking, in his diss track to Drake. He says:

...you not a colleague,
you a...colonizer

That is precisely what the Liberal Party is attempting to do to Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country. Liberals are not treating the diverse communities of our country with any degree of respect. They are not treating them like colleagues, listening to them, working with them and respecting their traditions and faiths. Instead they are behaving like colonizers, attempting to abuse state power to exercise undue influence by attempting to criminalize things that families in this country have believed in since the very founding of this nation by the English and the French.

The Liberals will make, of course, as they have made throughout this morning and afternoon, efforts to characterize our concerns over the legislation as theatrics, but I bring it back to the actual language used by the now Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who was promoted by the Prime Minister after he made the following comments. As chair of the justice committee, on October 30, he said that three books of the Bible, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, are hateful.

The minister used the language of hate to describe verses in the Bible that people have prayed over, read to their children and shared in communities all across this country for a very long time. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal Party pretends, and I emphasize “pretends”, to care about, enshrines the right to religious freedom precisely as a sign of respect for the fact that there are things the government should not have its fingerprints on.

The government should not make its way into churches, mosques and synagogues in an effort to bring Liberal values, nor use the criminal justice system to enforce Liberal values on the private religious lives of Canadian citizens, but that is precisely what a colonizer would do. That is precisely what a cultural imperialist would do. They would look at churches, mosques and synagogues and ask how the federal government can make its way in there. It is wrong, it is unethical and it is against the traditions of this country. It is an insult to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One thing I have observed in the relatively short time I have been a member of Parliament is that the Liberal Party does something that I do not know what to name; perhaps it is mind games or false presentation. It is making an effort to convince Christians, Muslims and Jews of various cultural backgrounds that they respect them. The Liberals make an effort to show they want to hear them and welcome them into Canadian politics.

I have seen with my own eyes Liberals in the Toronto area running around at cultural events and holidays, eating samosas and jerk chicken and pretending they respect people from diverse community backgrounds. They run around offering people DEI slogans like “Diversity is our strength.” They say all kinds of funny things, like “diversity, vote for me”. I know the kind of attitude they bring around our communities.

What do they do when they come to Ottawa? They want to culturally imperialize the people of this country and their children. They actually have no respect for diversity at all, and any Christians, Muslims, or Jews whose ancestors come from any part of the world must be able to unite in recognizing that the Liberal Party has no respect for our religions, our traditions or our values. The Liberals believe that the federal government is superior to us, and they believe they have the right to impose their values on our churches, mosques and synagogues.

When we talk about the language of colonizers and cultural imperialists, we have to recognize that when they attack scripture, when they attack the Bible, when they attack our religions and when they try to justify bringing the criminal justice system into our places of worship, they are trying to strip away the things that make us well-rounded people. To them we are simply economic inputs. We should have no culture. They believe we should have no meaning in our lives.

They offer us nihilism. They offer us the chance to be a column on a spreadsheet used to calculate GDP. That is all they think of us and of the efforts we make to be well-rounded people, to be part of a community, to believe in something, to have conviction and to be connected to the traditions of our fathers, our mothers, our grandfathers and our grandmothers. They ridicule and they insult. They call it hateful to believe that we come from something.

However, we stand on the shoulders of giants who sacrificed for us to be here. They sacrificed for us to have the life we have today, and we will not denounce the very people who have made our lives possible. We will not denounce the cultures and traditions they come from. We will not sit here quietly and idly while the Liberal Party seeks to call our ancestors hateful. We will not accept that. We will reject their cultural imperialism. We will call them colonizers when they behave like colonizers.

In closing, I will suggest that one of the reasons the Liberals denigrate Canadian history, one of the reasons they keep the Canadian flag at half-mast for a year, and one of the reasons they support teaching our children in this country that our country should be ashamed of its own history, is that they are embarrassed by what they see in the mirror. They have not learned the lessons from history, and they repeat the mistakes made in history of colonizing and imperializing over other people.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, and I will not take any lessons from the Liberals on safeguarding the Jewish community.

I am also tired of the other side accusing the Conservatives of slowing this down.

I would like to ask the member a very clear question. Last Tuesday, the justice committee was ready to sit and listen with respect to bail or to Bill C-9, and the Liberals cancelled the meeting. This morning, after I woke up, I was sipping on my cup of coffee and getting ready for Bill C-9 tonight, when I learned that the justice committee meeting tonight had been cancelled by the Liberal chair.

If the Liberals are so determined to move forward with this terrible piece of legislation, why did they cancel tonight's justice committee meeting? I would like an answer, please.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a short question. The member opposite listed a number of groups that supported Bill C-9. Does that same list she recited in her speech support the amendment that was just proposed?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, many faith leaders and individuals in my community have reached out to me with concerns about Bill C-9 and the infringement on freedom of speech, and, in particular, the amendment that was brought forward that would remove the religious exemption and potentially target pastors while reading passages out of the Bible. The chair of that committee, who has since been promoted to Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, said that passages like those in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans would be considered hateful.

Does the member agree with the past committee chair's representation of those passages?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak very forcefully against Motion No. 219, which was brought forward by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, that seeks to instruct the justice committee to drop its work on the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, and instead launch a taxpayer-funded, cross-country tour as a means of delaying the committee's work.

Let us be clear from the start that this motion is not about hearing from Canadians. This motion is about delaying justice. It is about freezing the combatting hate act.

After weeks of Conservative obstruction, after hours of procedural games, after filibusters, points of order and challenges to the chair, when clause-by-clause analysis of the combatting hate act finally began, Conservatives panicked and pulled the emergency brake on this study and the committees work. This motion is that emergency brake.

Canadians deserve to know exactly what has been happening at the justice committee. For weeks, members opposite have used every trick in the procedural playbook to stall this bill, including points of order, challenges to the chair and attempts to reopen settled motions, which were efforts to drag the committee backward every time it tried to move forward. They were wasting time to block participation by witnesses, who wanted to testify to this bill. When the very first committee meeting on this bill was scheduled, when Canadians expected serious debate, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South shamelessly filibustered for hours, talking for two hours about dogs and cats, not about hate crimes, not about anti-Semitism, not about attacks on LGBTQ Canadians and not about threats against women.

While Canadians are being targeted by hate, Conservatives are entertaining themselves in gumming up the work of this committee and stalling the progress of this bill. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now that this procedural stalling has finally failed, Conservatives are trying a new tactic. They want Parliament to authorize a nationwide tour with flights, hotels and staff entourages, with no timeline to return to the bill and full authority to shut down the clause-by-clause analysis.

Let us call this what it is. It is not consultation. It is not accountability. This is instead a taxpayer-funded Conservative road show that is designed to kill the bill through delay. Canadians have asked us for protection from hate and intimidation. Conservatives have answered with a travel itinerary and an invoice.

I think about the reasons behind Bill C-9 to combat hate, and why this was one of the first bills the government brought forward in this parliamentary session. It is because of the imperative of addressing hate in Canada.

I have heard from people across my community about the importance of this issue and about how hate is on the rise. We have seen 5,000 hate crimes reported in 2024, almost double the number from 2018. Those numbers are probably under-reported compared with the number of Canadians who are actually facing hate crimes in this country. Why are these crimes going under-reported? It is because Canadians believe that the criminal justice system is not currently equipped to deal with the type of hate crimes we are seeing in this country. That is what the bill seeks to address. That is what the committee should be working on, ensuring that we get the bill back into Parliament to pass it so we can increase public safety for Canadians.

Hate is not an issue that is felt by a single community. Jewish Canadians, Muslim Canadians, the LGBTQ community, women and many other communities have all been subject to this rising tide of hate and bigotry, but particularly over the last two years, the Jewish community has felt this acutely and disproportionately, especially in Toronto—St. Paul's and other major cities. Religiously motivated hate crimes are the most reported category of hate crime in Toronto. Of those, 81% were committed against Jewish Canadians last year. Taking action against this rise in hate was a central promise that I made to the people of Toronto—St. Paul's in the recent election.

I firmly believe that the legislation we are debating, which we should be debating and moving forward, will be a critical first step in that direction. Where does that lead us? We are overdue for a conversation in this country about the legitimate boundaries of free expression.

We have seen protests turn more violent and hateful in recent years. We have seen this in Sikh and Hindu temples. We have seen it on the streets with people protesting on Israel and Palestine. We have seen it during COVID with the trucker protests and protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. We are grappling with an explosion of hate online that is moving off-line onto our streets and into our communities. Our right to free expression as Canadians is never, nor should it ever be, a shield against accountability. Canadian law has long distinguished between protected speech and wilful harm.

It was under the leadership of our 14th prime minister, Lester Pearson, my favourite, that the government of the day struck a special committee to review hate propaganda in Canada. That committee, which included a little known associate professor of law from the university of Montreal, subsequently our 15th prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, set out in its unanimous report a passage that our Supreme Court has cited:

This Report is a study in the power of words to maim, and what it is that a civilized society can do about it.... every society from time to time draws lines at the point where the intolerable and the impermissible coincide. In a free society such as our own, where the privilege of speech can induce ideas that may change the very order itself, there is a bias weighted heavily in favour of the maximum of rhetoric whatever the cost and consequences. But that bias stops this side of injury to the community itself and to individual members or identifiable groups innocently caught in verbal cross-fire that goes beyond legitimate debate.

When harm is done and injury occurs or violence ensues, we have an obligation to act on behalf of all citizens. The bill in front of the House and in front of the Standing Committee on Justice is a blueprint for action.

We have heard from communities, from law enforcement and from Crown corporations that first we need clarity in our law surrounding hate and speed with how it is enforced. To this end, our bill on combatting hate proposes to create new offences that would target exactly the sort of expression that is meant to terrorize a community rather than express policy or political disagreements, which are healthy in a democracy.

First, the obstruction offence would specifically go after behaviour that harasses users of community spaces belonging to identifiable groups. Blocking access to places where communities gather, such as schools, houses of worship and community centres, is not a form of free expression; it is bullying with the intent of terrifying a community into agreeing with one's views.

As I heard during a round table with community leaders that I hosted in my riding, hate is not limited to the steps outside a local school or synagogue. It can happen anywhere, as we learned in the hate-motivated stabbing of a Jewish woman in a grocery store right here in Ottawa.

Second, the intimidation offence in this bill would criminalize conduct that is done with the intent to intimidate. Speech in a vacuum is often innocuous, but recently we have seen groups of protesters, who are masked, yelling violent insults and hate at members of a targeted community. This is not free expression in a civil society. This is intimidation, pure and simple. Our laws are intended to prevent this. It must be stopped. Police must be empowered to intervene and make arrests before this hateful rhetoric turns into violence.

Third, this bill would create a new hate crime offence, one that could be applied against every offence in the Criminal Code or any other federal law. It would serve to explicitly denounce all criminal conduct motivated by hate.

Fourth, a new hate propaganda offence would prohibit the display of certain symbols associated with the Nazi party, such as the hakenkreuz and the Nazi SS bolts, as well as any symbols associated with a listed terrorist group, such as the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Proud Boys. Importantly, this is an offence against the spreading of hate. It is not criminalizing symbols in an academic setting such as a text book. Our laws are sophisticated; they can distinguish between these things. For many communities, these symbols are deeply traumatic, and the public display of them is not only offensive, but also dehumanizing and terrorizing.

When a terrorist entity in the country is listed by the government and by Parliament, Parliament should prohibit the spreading of hate through the display of its symbols. The public display of these symbols is often done with the explicit intent, more often than not, of scaring people and spreading hate, leading to violence. Criminalizing the wilful public use of these symbols should be an opinion on which there is consensus in the House.

We introduced the combatting hate act alongside the bail and sentencing reform act to respond directly to what communities across Canada are demanding. They are demanding stronger protections against hate. They are demanding stronger consequences for intimidation. They are demanding stronger tools for law enforcement.

From day one, the Minister of Justice has said clearly that we remain open to constructive improvements to the bill in good faith. What we will not accept is bad-faith sabotage and delay dressed up as consultation, which is what we are getting from the other side of the House.

Canadians are not asking for a road show; they are demanding results. They are demanding that we not delay and that we pass the bill with expediency. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA, wrote publicly to the Conservative leader, urging him to work with the government to pass Bill C-9 in the spirit of collaboration. Police services, municipal leaders, religious communities and human rights organizations all want the bill passed now.

Let us be honest about what is really going on here. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition has a divided caucus on the bill. It is clear that he does not want this to go to a vote before his leadership review next month. I ask the members opposite directly why they are more interested in saving the Leader of the Opposition's job than in saving the lives of Canadians who are being targeted by hate and intimidation. Why will they not move the bill forward?

We are hearing something even more reckless from the opposition. They are calling the combatting hate bill a censorship bill. Let me ask them plainly. Do the members opposite think it is okay to see synagogues firebombed? Do the members opposite think it is okay to threaten and target LGBTQ people because of whom they love? Do the members opposite think it is okay to wave a terrorist flag in public and call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians? Of course not. That is why we need to get behind this bill. That is the type of egregious, hateful conduct that the bill targets. When the opposition screams about censorship, the real question is this: Which form of hate are they trying to protect?

Only Conservatives would call the bill censorship, while all of the following groups stand behind it. We have the Edmonton Police Service, B’nai Brith Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Hindu alliance and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is no surprise that this latest outrage comes from the same political wing that has previously minimized real-world violence and spread reckless rhetoric. Every single delay to the bill right now, including this motion for instruction before the House today, is a delay that belongs to the Conservative Party.

Conservatives talked for two hours about cats and dogs instead of starting the clause-by-clause review of the bill. They challenged the chair. They tried repeatedly to pull the committee off the bill. When clause-by-clause finally started, they dropped this motion to try to shut it down. This motion has one purpose and one purpose only. It is to push the combatting hate act into the deep-freeze. It is not to improve it, not to strengthen it, not to protect Canadians and not to address the rising tide of hate and anti-Semitism we see in the country, but to stop it cold in its tracks and put it off, so that they do not have to face the division in their caucus, take a vote on it and get behind a bill that organizations and communities across this country support.

We will not allow that. We will not stand behind that. Canadians want protection from hate. Conservatives want excuses to stall. Canadians want laws that keep them safe. Conservatives want a trip across the country with flights, hotels and theatrics that they will manufacture.

We will defeat this motion and this stunt, and we will do everything in our power to pass the combatting hate act despite this stunt. It is noise on that side of the House. It cannot distract us from the important issues that have plagued this country. This bill is an important, overdue step forward in combatting hate in the country. This will be a proud part of our Canadian history and the lawful boundaries on freedom of expression when it crosses into a territory that is intimidating and causes Canadians to be fearful in their streets and their neighbourhoods. That is the scourge of hate.

Let us put an end to this. Let us vote down this motion. I encourage the members opposite to put their money where their mouth is, get behind their principles and support a bill that combats hate in Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his brilliant speech and for his thorough work on this file, which he has been adeptly looking after for years. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code to be repealed for quite some time, long before this year and long before this Parliament.

Earlier, my colleague spoke about support for this measure that, as I stated before, the Bloc Québécois has proposed many times. According to a Leger poll conducted last year, 75% of Quebeckers support this measure. It also has strong support in the rest of Canada. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said the figure was at least 55%. Actually, 66% of Canadians support this provision. That 66% of Canadians are the 66% of Canadians who fully understand what this measure means, and they are not fooled by populist rhetoric aimed at making them fear for their freedom of religion, which I find appalling. I think it is appalling and I will say why. It is because, as politicians, as elected representatives, as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to be upfront with our constituents and to tell them the truth. We have a duty not to sway them into believing certain things that align with our personal views, our party's stance, or worse, the position that lobby groups are forcing on our parties.

I take this responsibility very seriously, and that is why, when people call my constituency office, as many did this morning, asking us to vote against Bill C-9 because it will allegedly violate their freedom of religion, like my colleagues, I tell my team to ask the callers to provide examples. We do not simply thank them for calling and tell them that we have taken note of their views and will take them into consideration. We ask them for examples of cases where, in the practice of their religion or faith or the practice of the minister, pastor, imam or priest delivering sermons in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, there is something that could require protection under the religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code.

No one is able to come up with an answer, and that is because any logical answer would be so awful, because this is so huge, because the people who call us in good faith, frightened by the Conservatives' narrative, think they are being told that their priest is no longer allowed to read the Bible or their imam is no longer allowed to quote the Quran or parts of the Quran because of this provision. That is not the case at all. Whatever reasons the director of criminal and penal prosecutions and the RCMP had for deciding that Adil Charkaoui's statements did not warrant charges being laid, I am going to repeat those words anyway, because they gave rise to much debate. They were widely discussed in Quebec and they are being discussed here as well, right now, in the House of Commons. At a pro-Palestine, pro-Gaza rally, Adil Charkaoui said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.”

Anyone who utters words like that is not sharing a religion of love or a message of hope and peace. Such a person is propagating hate. The fact that a decision was made by the prosecution service in Quebec, on the recommendation and evaluation of the report provided by the RCMP at the time, not to lay charges against a preacher like Adil Charkaoui, who had already had more than one run-in with the law, does not mean that we can set this aside and just move on and say there is nothing to see here. This is serious.

That is why we in the Bloc Québécois are here defending Quebec's values, and also the values of freedom of expression that are so precious to Quebeckers and Canadians alike, with measures like this one. It is a measure that simply says people do not have the right to say that, and additionally, they do not have the right to use religion as a shield to spread hate or call for violence or call for the extermination of anyone. The Conservatives are changing or redirecting or even embellishing the narrative in order to strike fear into their voters that their freedom of religion is under attack, and I find that to be irresponsible. I am going to stick with that word, although I could use other words that would not be as civil, and I do want to remain civil.

I also have a problem with how my Liberal colleagues have handled this specific file. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague from Winnipeg North a question, during the last Parliament, we studied Bill C-63, which sought to combat hatred. However, it did not work. The Bloc Québécois made what I felt was a very reasonable request to split the bill in two. One part of the bill had quite a bit of consensus among all the parties in the House. That part of the bill sought to protect vulnerable people from hateful content, including online content. As the Conservatives said at the time, that part of the bill was a matter of common sense. The other part focused on the concept of hatred and issues that were perhaps more suitable for debate and dissent. It needed to be discussed, but the Liberals did not want that. The Liberals were offering to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code in exchange for our support for Bill C-63 as a whole. That did not work because there were genuine concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and we could not go that far.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents. Yesterday, we heard from professor David Morin and professor Marie-Ève Carignan, two eminent scholars from the UNESCO chair in the prevention of violent radicalization and extremism. Their appearance helped us realize that had this part of Bill C-63 been adopted, we would already have made a big step forward in protecting vulnerable persons. This brings me to the point that sometimes we delay the implementation of necessary and urgent legislation for political games. The longer implementation is delayed, the longer vulnerable persons are put in vulnerable situations. These individuals, including children, adolescents and numerous other vulnerable groups whom I need not list are left in harm's way.

In conclusion, I am disappointed with the discussion we are having today. I wish we could have risen above political partisanship or pressure from religious groups. I would have liked for us to stick to the facts and take this Bloc Québécois proposal for what it is: an extremely sensible measure that perhaps warrants discussion on the basis of personal convictions. However, we must stop anaesthetizing people with falsehoods and make sure we are bringing true facts to light so that we can have a frank and honest discussion.

I have not set foot in a church in a very long time, and that is something I must confess, if I can be allowed a little play on words. It has been a long time since I last heard a priest give a sermon, but I was an altar boy as a teenager, and I do not recall a single statement from a priest, a single sermon in which violence was promoted based on what the Bible says. Never in a million years can I imagine a pastor, a priest, a preacher, a minister, engaging in hateful speech, propagating hate or calling for violence in a religious message.

I would be very curious to find out more about the places of worship my Conservative friends attend and the ministers there. What is being said in those churches? A Conservative member once told me they are very afraid that removing this provision will put their ministers in danger for something they might say about homosexuals. What could they possibly say about homosexuals that would make them fear being prosecuted? Are they calling for their heads to be chopped off? What can they be saying? I fail to understand what speech they are trying to defend by opposing the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code.

As a very important reminder, 75% of Quebeckers and 66% of Canadians are in favour of this measure. That is a pretty good consensus for at least having an honest discussion about the issue.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is indeed the case. We had an agreement regarding these provisions, regarding our amendment. I can also confirm that I, too, deplore this lack of courage that resulted in the cancellation of yesterday's meeting.

I urge the Minister of Justice and our colleagues on the committee to come to their senses and convene the committee so that we can work on these provisions and pass Bill C-9 as early as next week.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

That said, I too am having a hard time following my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North. He is saying that there is some sort of agreement between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to not sit. Well, wait a minute. I was here yesterday. I was prepared to work until midnight. I am prepared to do so again tonight. What we asked, and I personally asked both the minister and the Liberal representative on the committee, was for Bill C‑9 to be passed before Christmas. It could not be any clearer than that. When I hear the member say that the Bloc Québécois is against this, I say, “Wait a minute, that is not right”.

Now, what is the Liberals' real position? As my colleague from Drummond said, we do not really know what to think of them anymore. I need someone to tell me whether the Liberals are actually afraid of religious lobbies. Is that why they are refusing to rid the Criminal Code of a provision that allows people to spread hate and incite hate as long as it is based on a religious text? That would be crazy. If that is really their position, they should say so clearly.

I do not think that is their position. It is not what I heard from the Minister of Justice. It is not what I am hearing from the Liberals I speak to. However, it seems to me that, on this matter, we keep taking one step forward and two steps back, and it is not only this week; it has been like that for years.

The Conservative motion we are debating today asks that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties. We are not against democracy, obviously. Listening to people tell us what they think of a bill is a good thing. However, travelling around is not the only way to get a viewpoint across. Committee travel is one thing, but having witnesses travel is another thing altogether.

So far, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has received some 30 witnesses. They have come to give testimony and express their viewpoints on Bill C‑9. We have also received around 40 briefs on this bill from various groups, individuals and experts. I think the work has been done. Could we hear from more witnesses? Of course. We can hear from as many witnesses and read as many briefs as we like, but at some point, we are going to have to move forward. We cannot sit and listen to people endlessly without ever taking action. Our job in this House is to be parliamentarians and to make laws.

The government tabled Bill C‑9. At the outset, I was not in agreement with it. I said as much to the minister. Amendments were put forward. He did not agree. We discussed it and we came to an agreement on a certain number of things that we brought forward at committee and that we hope will be finalized before the holidays. Instead, however, we are being told that we are starting over. We are going to go back to hearing from witnesses, and this time, we are going to go travelling around to make sure it takes as long as possible. Personally, I am not on board. I find all this rather disappointing.

I have Conservative colleagues whom I respect greatly, and I am sure they want us to work and move forward. However, there is something childish about all this. We have to face up to the situation. There is pressure from religious groups, that is true. My assistant called me half an hour before I entered the House. My constituency office received over 100 calls this morning from organizations and individuals telling us that Bill C-9 is very frightening and that we must vote against it.

I am not alone. I am sure that there are other parliamentarians in the House experiencing the same thing. This adds pressure. It is not fun to be under pressure. However, there is an expression that I often hear in English: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Our job is to make laws.

We are being pressured by people who say one particular bill is great and another is not. That is normal. We have to stay the course despite that pressure or we are not worthy of captaining the ship. We represent people who expect us to take action. I like the idea of travelling around Canada, but I would be happy to do that next summer, during my time off.

For the time being, we are here to work, and Bill C‑9 is an important bill that deserves to be voted on and passed as quickly as possible.

Once again, religious pressure is the only explanation I have been given on that subject. As my esteemed Conservative colleague asked earlier, does this mean that we really want to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code? Yes, but contrary to what I have heard and what I often hear, this does not mean that people will no longer be able to read the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. People will still be able to read these texts. People will still be able to practise whatever faith they choose, where they choose and as they see fit, which is great. That is freedom, and we support that.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code does not say that people are free to read the Quran, the Bible, the Torah or any other texts. Section 319 says spreading hate is prohibited. That is what section 319 is all about. The part we want to repeal states that spreading hate is allowed if it is based on a religious text someone believes in. We are saying that that is not okay.

If a person's religion demands that they hate and spread hate, that will not work in Canada. I have a lot of respect for individuals, but that will not work. It will not work in Quebec, and from what I know, it will not work in Canada either. We do not condone that. Individuals are free to change their religion, practise it elsewhere or set aside certain beliefs, but no one in either Quebec or Canada has the right to spread hate or incite hatred. It is prohibited, irrespective of whether the person is relying on a religious text, a philosophical text or anything else, and this should not change. Allowing the spread of hate for any reason whatsoever is at odds with our legal system.

That said, I still have the right to read the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. I still have the right to practise a faith and to take inspiration from those texts. The three texts I am referring to and many other similar texts are full of grand principles and wisdom that we could learn from. Religions are normally a good thing. We can take inspiration from them, both for making laws and for living in society. However, they should not be taken at face value.

Life is very different today from what it was 3,000 years ago. I am sorry, but I do not approve of stoning women for adultery. If I was ever in favour of that in another life—if in fact I had another life—it is clear to me that this is totally wrong today in 2025. I have a lot of respect for Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son for God, but I would not sacrifice my own children for any religious belief. Religious wars were once fought by valiant soldiers and people who were fighting for their belief systems, points of view and religions. While that made a lot of sense at the time, it no longer makes sense today. I hope that neither I nor my children and grandchildren will ever live through religious wars.

All that is history, but it is something we should draw on for inspiration. The general principles are good. Seeking peace and love and promoting them is a good thing. However, the words in those texts were written 3,000 years ago by an unknown individual who was laying out their view of religion. Today, some people are taking the message literally and using these words not to spread lofty principles of love, peace and togetherness, but to say that religious wars were acceptable and would be worth starting again. No, we do not approve of that. It makes no sense to us. It has no place in the Criminal Code. We are asking that it be purged from our laws. I am asking for it, the Bloc Québécois is asking for it and roughly 75% of Quebeckers are asking for it. I cannot remember the exact figures, but I believe that over 55% of the Canadian population is asking for it.

I can confirm what was said earlier. The Bloc Québécois had reached an agreement with Liberal Party representatives, including the Minister of Justice, to have these provisions stricken from the Criminal Code. I hope that we will be able to do so. I hope that we can get that wrapped up before Christmas and shake hands in peace and love before leaving for the holiday break, safe in the knowledge that people will be able to continue living in peace in both Quebec and Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what is in the Kool-Aid that the religious right is giving to the Conservatives. It must be pretty strong, because it is effective. The Conservatives seem to really believe what they are saying. They are claiming that this measure is directed at freedom of religious expression or freedom of religion. It is unbelievable.

My question is for the member for Winnipeg North, who seems to support removing the religious exemption in exchange for the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-9. In 2023, the Liberals did not support us on that issue. In 2024, I clearly remember that the minister at the time, Mr. Virani, proposed including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-63 to get the Bloc Québécois's support for the bill. We were already being pretty flexible. Now the same thing is being proposed once again, that is, including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-9. However, the Liberals are facing a bit of resistance, so now they are getting cold feet, so to speak, and have decided not to convene the committee so that they do not have to move forward on this.

I would really like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me whether the Liberals are serious this time. Are they really going to move forward on this? If so, why is the committee not sitting in order to finally put an end to this religious exemption, which is truly a disgrace in the Canadian system?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, the election was at the end of April. We returned to Parliament at the end of May. We had approximately five to six weeks of sitting. We then broke for the summer. Approximately six months have passed since the election, and the very first piece of criminal justice legislation brought forward by the Attorney General is Bill C-9. The Liberals are prioritizing it. We had our debate. We got it to committee. Members heard, in my speech, about delays, cancelled meetings or meetings ending abruptly, which was all done by the Liberal chair at the time, who is now a minister. I listened to the member talk about obstruction and delays. He is a master of hypocrisy.

We were prepared to sit until midnight this past Tuesday. We are prepared to sit until midnight today to get to the heart of Bill C-9. Why did your government cancel the meeting abruptly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, wow, that is truly amazing. I just finished challenging them to sit until midnight, and they all jumped up to say that they would sit until midnight. I called their bluff and asked if there was unanimous consent to sit until midnight. What did we see? The people who were jumping up then said, “No, no.” This proves the point. Do we not see it? The Conservative line is, “Do not allow legislation to pass. Let us do whatever we can to prevent that from happening and continue to deny Canadians bail reform legislation.” This is what the Conservative Party's position is.

We have Bill C-2, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, all of which would make our communities safer, and all of which the Conservative Party of Canada is preventing from passing. Then, when I say, “We should debate it”, they say they do not have enough time because they have more members who want to speak. They cry us a river. When they are provided with an opportunity to have more time to debate, what do they do? They sit on their hands and say nothing except, “No, no, we do not sit past six o'clock.” Do they know how many Canadians work past six o'clock across the country? It is a whole lot of Canadians. Let me leave it at that.

I will tell the House something: The only thing here is a Conservative Party of Canada that does not see the merit. If they really want more debate, why would they not agree to unanimous consent? Seriously, why would they not do it? It is not as if all of them have to be present for it. It just means they have to debate it. After all, that is kind of what they wanted, but they avoid it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are supposed to be debating the budget implementation legislation today, but what we hear from the Conservatives is a bunch of crying: “waah, waah, waah”, to quote the member opposite.

The member opposite might not care, but every Canadian in every region of the country cares, because this is a budget to support Canadians. It is a part of a plan the Prime Minister has presented to Canada to build a country that is stronger and healthier and that works toward making Canada the strongest country in the G7. That is what the budget implementation act is all about.

If we factor in the efforts of the Prime Minister and the government in pursuing trade opportunities that can even go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border, members will find that they complement each other. All the members of the House, have a responsibility to co-operate and to actually serve our constituents first and foremost.

Time and time again, far too often, I witness the Conservatives' being more interested in serving the Conservative Party of Canada as opposed to serving Canadians, and we see that in their behaviour. Let me give a tangible example, dealing with Bill C-9. There is a committee that is supposed to be dealing with Bill C-9, but we have gone through hours of filibustering coming from the other side.

We cannot deal with Bill C-14 until we are finished with Bill C-9. Bill C-14 is the bail reform legislation. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation. Provinces, law enforcement, other stakeholders, and Canadians as a whole want bail reform legislation. The biggest roadblock, the only roadblock, in Canada today to prevent that from happening is the Conservative Party of Canada.

I say shame on each and every one of the members who continue to filibuster to prevent Canadians from getting substantial changes to our bail reform legislation. They should be ashamed of themselves, because that was in the election platform. Time and time again, Conservative member after Conservative member is preventing the passage of important legislation, whether it is at the committee stage or on the floor of the House of Commons.

This is the type of thing we see from the Conservative Party far too often. That is the motivation for today. Conservatives do not want to debate the budget legislation, again. It is not like this is the first time they have brought in concurrence reports. They cry, and they say they want more time and more debate on legislation. The other day I stood up and I said, “Well, Canadians work overtime. Canadians work past six o'clock in the evening.” I asked if the Conservatives would be prepared to sit until midnight. They said, “No, we do not do that.”

Conservatives do not like to work hard. They like to talk and complain. The next word I was going to use is a little unparliamentary, so I will not say it. At the end of the day, they do not like working for Canadians.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

I, too, share many of the concerns of my colleague who just spoke. We have seen first-hand, in my respectful opinion, a master class of Liberal hypocrisy.

On full display yesterday, during question period, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, who is a sitting Liberal member of the committee, said:

Mr. Speaker...after weeks of Conservative delays, the justice committee finally resumed its work on the combatting hate act, and we will continue that work on Thursday [meaning today].

Will the Conservatives make sure bail reform is passed before Christmas? Could the minister speak to the importance of keeping this work moving so Canadians can have these important justice reforms take place?

Clearly, it was a question posed to the secretary of state, who responded, in turn, by saying:

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been clear that they want stronger protections in the face of rising hate and that they want meaningful bail reform. After weeks of Conservative delay tactics and stalling in committee, I am really happy to see that they might move forward on the combatting hate crime legislation on Thursday.

Much to my surprise, and to the surprise of all my colleagues, I got to the office this morning at 8.30 a.m., looked at my P9 inbox and saw a message from the clerk of the justice committee announcing that today's important meeting was cancelled by the Liberal chair. It is probably as a result of the absolute split in the Liberal caucus over how to properly deal with this particular religious exemption defence.

At no time did the Liberal government ever project any intention of removing that religious exemption. Behind closed doors over the past weekend, they approached the Bloc Québécois member who has been steadfast in his position that this particular exemption needs to be removed. They worked out a deal that they would support this particular amendment, largely, if the Bloc Québécois would continue to support the eventual passage of Bill C-9. This is very dangerous, and hypocrisy at its finest.

We have experienced, as my colleague indicated, abrupt cancellations of meetings. We have had abrupt endings of meetings. We had allocated resources to go to midnight this past Tuesday, but the meeting abruptly ended at 5:30 p.m. as a result of religious leaders following this not only locally but also right across Canada. I, too, am receiving a lot of feedback expressing concerns about what the Liberal government is prepared to do. They abruptly adjourned, so I can only surmise that there is a lot of internal conflict between the justice committee and direction from the PMO on this particular issue.

At the heart of the Bloc Québécois amendment is something its members tried to pass through a couple of years ago that did not make it past first reading. They referred to an incident of a radical imam from Quebec, in October 2023, giving a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally.

He said:

Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don’t spare any of them.

That is what they are relying upon. As I will explain further in my speech, ultimately, the prosecution service in the province of Quebec declined to proceed.

Today, in the National Post, I read a very interesting article from Christine Van Geyn, one of the top constitutional lawyers in this country, part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The title of the article is “Changes to Bill C-9 aren't combatting hate—they're criminalizing faith”.

She wrote, “To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada's hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake...Throughout the justice committee's hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was” the example of the imam that I just referred to.

She continued:

Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted.

As Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under Sec. 3 19 of the Criminal Code.

One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence [under section 319].

That is a very important distinction that the Bloc never repeats and that the Liberal government has never cited. There was no indication for the prosecution service that the religious defence was an impediment to prosecute or that it was even considered.

Logically speaking, it is also true that anyone who thinks Charkaoui was not charged because of the religious defence must also believe that his speech was given in good faith and, therefore, was reasonable and delivered without malicious intent.

She wrote further that “even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.” That is what the Liberal government continues to do and has done, not only in this particular Parliament but in the 44th.

She continued:

The religious defence has also been essential to the constitutionality of the hate-speech prohibition itself. In R v Keegstra, the Supreme Court wrote that the offence is a minimal impairment on the right to freedom of expression, in part because of “the presence of the Sec. 319(3) defences.” The courts upheld the law because the religious exemption exists. Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses.

But even beyond constitutional risk, removing the defence is a profound moral and civil liberties mistake. We should not want, let alone empower, prosecutors to criminalize any form of prayer.

Religious texts across traditions contain pleas for justice against enemies, metaphors for divine retribution and expressions of anguish, symbolism and cosmic struggle. This is not the realm of the police. If the state begins parsing Psalms...line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all.

This is all the more reason for everyone in the House to support our motion to ensure that every major stakeholder who wishes to express an opinion to defend the religious expression that we have in the charter needs to be heard. If the Liberals will not do it on their own, we are asking collectively for the House to do it.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is another example of Liberals trying to silence and censor people they do not agree with. This is exactly why we cannot let in what they are trying to sneak in through the back door with Bill C-9 passing. This is a Liberal government that has taken every opportunity to put religious freedom and freedom of expression in its crosshairs. This is a Liberal government that freezes the bank accounts of protesters. This is a Liberal government that, under the guise of protecting children, tries to expand the Canadian Human Rights Act to block what Canadian people can say on the Internet. Absolutely, I will take no lectures from any member opposite when we are trying to protect the freedoms of Canadians of all faiths.

Incidentally, I will point out the fact that we cannot view any of this in isolation. These amendments to Bill C-9 must also be understood alongside the fact that the Liberal government would change the definition of hate in Bill C-9. In doing so, as civil liberties experts and advocates from the political left and political right have said, they are putting in a murky definition that would make it easier to prosecute people for their thoughts, their beliefs and, in particular, their religious expression.

If members want to know what the Liberals think about this, I would refer them to what the former Liberal justice committee chair said: Religious scriptures, and he mentioned three entire books of the Bible and Torah, are “hateful” at times. He said that it should be criminal to quote certain scriptures.

We have a pluralistic country. There are people in the House of Commons and the Liberal Party who have a range of views. It is possible that the committee chair was out of line and not speaking for the Liberal government. I am very grateful that, just a couple of weeks after the member chairing the justice committee said that people should be criminally prosecuted for quoting scripture, he was removed from his post. The Liberals removed him as the justice committee chair, but that was to promote him. He is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that prosecutors should be able to, in his words, “press charges” against people quoting scriptures that he finds offensive and that the Liberal government finds offensive.

This is something the Liberal government has demanded Conservatives go along with in its agenda. When we said to let us review, line by line, exactly what they are trying to do, they cancelled the meeting, so we do not know when the Liberal government will decide to get around to this. Perhaps they are dealing with some tumult within their own ranks over how to deal with this.

I have had a number of conversations with all members of the House, and I realize there are people representing a variety of faith backgrounds who are members of Parliament for different parties. Perhaps some Liberals who are members of religious communities, or who represent people who are, are starting to wonder why the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are trying to remove protections on expressing religious belief from the Criminal Code, opening faith leaders and individual people of faith to criminal prosecution if their religious beliefs do not conform to the Liberal government's.

We need to be able to do real work as legislators. The justice committee must be able to do real work on Bill C-9. If the Liberals stopped obstructing their own agenda and stood by or rejected this amendment, doing so publicly and clearly, they could do it right now. Any member can get up in questions and comments and say that they have listened to Canadians and are backing away from this. I invite them to do it this very second.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

We are moving this motion because we believe it is critical that the justice committee give Bill C-9 proper scrutiny, given the alarming details we have learned in the last few days that the Liberal government has reached a secret deal with the Bloc Québécois to have a full-out assault on the religious freedom of Canadians. There was a story in the National Post on the weekend, revealing that the Bloc Québécois desire to remove fundamental safeguards for religious freedom from the Criminal Code was going to be supported by the Liberals in exchange for Bloc Québécois support for Bill C-9.

In the days since this, the Conservatives have tried to do proper legislative scrutiny of Bill C-9. The Liberals dared to accuse the Conservatives of filibustering and obstructing, but I want to explain two critical things that have just happened.

The interesting thing here is that we had the resources to do our committee's work on Tuesday from 3.30 p.m., when the justice committee meeting started, until midnight. Conservative members were prepared to go line by line and clause by clause through Bill C-9, but the Liberals adjourned the meeting at 5:30, after we had agreed on and adopted only one clause as a committee.

Yesterday, in question period, one of my colleagues, who is a Liberal member on the justice committee, got up and demanded that we continue our work on Thursday, which is today. This morning, I looked at my email and I saw that the Liberal committee chair had cancelled today's committee meeting. The clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9, which the Liberal government said the Conservatives were obstructing, has been obstructed by the Liberals.

I do not ever make the mistake of accusing the Liberals of competence, but they are filibustering themselves. They are obstructing their own agenda. The Conservatives are ready to do the work.

What I suspect may have happened is that the Liberal government has been receiving similar calls and emails to the ones that have been coming in to my office from Canadians who are very alarmed by this amendment and, in general, by what Bill C-9 would mean for freedom of expression and religious freedom. People are alarmed by this. I have received calls from members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community and the Christian community and from Hindus and Sikhs. All of them are saying they do not trust that their religious freedom would be preserved if the Liberal government proceeded with this secret deal it has with the Bloc Québécois to remove fundamental religious safeguards from the Criminal Code.

The Liberal government could clear this up very easily. It could come out and say it is backing away from this and no longer proceeding with its plans to take aim at religious freedom. I would love to hear one of my Liberal colleagues over there say that. In fact, I hear a great deal of chatter from my Liberal colleagues now. If one of them could get up and say they will not be proceeding with these assaults on religious expression and freedom of religion, it would make this country a better place.

We need to do the proper work as a committee. We need to be able to speak to the Canadians who would be affected by this and who are alarmed by this. We need to be able to speak directly to the groups of people who have been excluded from the Bill C-9 study because of the Liberal government's desire to obstruct and filibuster its own agenda.

The reason I am rising with this motion is that we need to proceed with a proper study. We need to go into all of these communities in Canada and speak directly to those people who are so often excluded from the process. I am thinking specifically of people in ethnic communities, who do not necessarily consume mainstream media, and are likely better for it. I am speaking, of course, of people in remote communities, for whom accessing committee proceedings in Ottawa is a great challenge. In doing this, we would be able to have a full accounting of exactly what Pandora's box the Liberal government would unleash on Canadians with its proposed Bill C-9 and the amendments that would remove religious safeguards.

There are going to be, I suspect, some interventions from my Liberal colleagues, who will say, “No, we are not talking about freedom of religion in general. We are just talking about people who conceal hateful, criminal and violent rhetoric in religious language.” I have some news for those members: That is already illegal. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite genocide. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who threaten violence. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite hatred. These religious defences in the Criminal Code exist for only two particular charges: the wilful promotion of hatred—

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our job as the opposition is to make bills better. There are a number of bills that have come through us. We are talking about the budget right now, but we can talk about Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and a number of other bills that, quite frankly, are not in the best interest of Canadians.

Our job as parliamentarians is to make those bills better. I have no problem at all trying to do that. We were elected to represent our constituents, point out the flaws in these bills and try to make them better. That is what we will do. This is our job. This is our requirement. This is what we will continue to do.

Justice

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, victims' groups, police chiefs, police associations, provinces, territories and municipalities have all called for the quick passage of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. As hate crimes continue to rise, communities across Canada are urging us to move forward on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. However, instead of helping advance this important work, Conservatives have been filibustering the justice committee, blocking witnesses and delaying progress.

Can the secretary of state update this House on the impact of these Conservative delays and tell us what needs to happen so that we can get this done for Canadians?

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to the budget implementation act. As always, I have themes. Today I am going to pick up on these themes: things I am glad were not in the budget, things I am glad were in the budget, things I wish were not in the budget, and things I wish were in the budget. I will start with the things I am glad were not in the budget.

The first is the capital gains tax on people's house equity. This was a policy that had been floated in previous Liberal platforms. The Prime Minister said he was not going to include it. I am glad it is not there, because the equity people have in their home is typically part of their retirement plan. As we have an aging population, the government needs to keep its hands off our pensions and our home equity.

The second thing I am glad not to see in the budget is two of the recommendations that came from the finance committee: recommendation 430, which would have revoked charitable status for faith-based organizations; and recommendation 429, which would have revoked charitable status for pregnancy crisis centres.

There is no way the government could afford to provide the service and compassion that faith-based organizations are providing across the country, so I am really glad to not see recommendation 430 in the budget. I am just concerned that it was even supported by the Liberals to come forward from the finance committee. However, it is part of a continuing war on people of faith in this country, as we see playing out right now in Bill C-9, in which the government is co-operating with the Bloc to remove the protections, under the Criminal Code with respect to hate speech, for people of faith to be able to express themselves and read their scriptures.

I do not really know where the Liberal government thinks it is going with this, as 65% of Canadians are people of faith. To try to remove their charter rights to freedom of religion seems counterproductive. I hope the government will rethink that, but I was really glad not to see it show up in the budget.

With respect to revoking the charitable status for pregnancy crisis centres, I will say that the Liberals are always talking about a woman's right to choose. However, if women really have a right to choose, then some of them are going to choose to have babies, and they are going to need pregnancy crisis centre supports. Therefore I am glad to see that recommendation 429 did not make it into the budget.

The other thing I am glad we did not see a lot of in the budget is the huge spending we have been doing. Last year, $20 billion went to foreign nations for what I would consider to be frivolous and ideological stupidity: gender-just rice, for example. There was also $4 million sent off to Lebanon for multigender accessibility. Honestly, there are Canadians here in this country who are lined up at food banks and cannot afford to live. The priority has to be for Canadians, so I am glad to see that none of those things I mentioned made it into the budget.

Now I will talk about the things I am glad were in the budget.

The first thing I am going to say, and these are probably the only nice comments I am going to make today, is about the building communities fund: $50 billion over five years for a number of things that are supposed to build infrastructure to get us to build affordable housing. That will be really important in my riding. For example, we need storm sewer upgrades in Brooke-Alvinston; stormwater upgrades in Warwick, Watford and Arkona; potable water for Kettle & Stony Point First Nation; a stormwater system expansion in Lambton Shores; and waste water upgrades in St. Clair Township and for Point Edward. Our priority in Sarnia–Lambton is to build affordable housing; this is the infrastructure we need, so I will be petitioning the minister to try to get some of the funding we need in our riding.

That was one thing I was glad to see.

The other thing I would say I was glad to see is $600 million of stable funding for the status of women. If we look at the current situation in our country, which is especially important during the 16 days of activism for battling gender-based violence and as we approach the anniversary of the École polytechnique murders, we see that under the soft-on-crime Liberal policies, every other day there is a femicide in our country. Sexual assault is up 76%. Women make up about half the population, so absolutely there should be a priority on addressing that. I am happy to see some stable funding for it.

Now I will move on to the things I wish were not in the budget.

Let us start with the $78-billion deficit. I do not know how the Liberals cannot understand that every time this kind of deficit spending is put into a budget, it pours fuel on the inflationary fire and drives up the cost of absolutely everything. People simply cannot afford that.

It also results in having to pay a lot more to service the debt. We will be paying $100 billion a year to service just the interest on the debt. It is like lighting up that money every year. Let us think about it. That is more money than we put into our health transfers. Now think of what could be done if we were not paying off our debt, if we actually had some fiscal prudence.

The other thing I am not happy about is that we are going to build, build, build, but that what we are really building in the budget is bureaucracy. Instead of buying F-35s, we will build a defence procurement bureaucracy. We do not need that; we need to buy things that are going to help our NATO allies and put us in a place where we can defend our sovereignty.

We are also building a fourth bureaucracy. How many billions of dollars have we wasted creating housing bureaucracies that do not result in building houses? Housing starts are down again. I do not like that.

With respect to the major projects bureaucracy, I am a fan of building major projects, but the Liberals have not built a major project. There have been a lot of announcements about projects that were already under way, and now the Liberals are building a huge bureaucracy. The government has shown it is terrible at major projects. It took the $4.5-billion Kinder Morgan pipeline and delivered it for $30 billion, two years late. That is the kind of record the government has. It does not need more bureaucracy.

Then there is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The government decided to give it another $10 billion. It is a bank that took $35 billion from municipalities and has not really built many projects. In fact last year it spent $4 million building projects, $38 million on salaries and $9 million on bonuses, and it had $204 million in losses. Why would the government put more money into this kind of failing mechanism?

Another thing I was unhappy to see in the budget is that the government has put our Canada pension plan in the asset part of the government. Those are not government assets; those are the assets of Canadians. Canadians and employers have paid into that program. I really worry that when the government gets its hands on something like that, it is going to spend it, as it does with everything else.

I also want to highlight some of the frivolous spending I still see happening. It is happening with consultants. Even though the government said it was going to try to spend less, it is spending more. The government is still spending money on what I would call frivolous items, such as $150 million for gender awareness in other countries, $150 million to UNRWA that has been proven to be helping Hamas build tunnels and $500 million for the European Space Centre, 50% of which is owned by Brookfield. We are seeing lots of good deals for Brookfield and not too many good deals for Canadians.

With that said, here are some things I wish were in the budget. The first is something for seniors. In my riding, that is over half the population. We have an aging population in our country, but there is just a reannouncement of the new horizons program. How about an increase to OAS and GIS?

How about something for young people? There was just a small amount for training, after the government cancelled the apprenticeship program. We need more people in the trades.

I wish the government had actually put something in the budget to build houses and to buy the F-35s, as well as money for jails for all the criminals, including repeat offenders and violent people out on the streets.

I will wrap up by talking about spending less to invest more. The government is actually spending more. Public sector spending is up, and the cost of consultants is up. We know this is going to cause the cost of everything to go up. The government should instead be focusing on creating a competitive environment, on R and D, on reducing regulations, on getting certainty so investors will come invest here in Canada, and on getting out of the way. The government says it is going to build at rates never before seen, but sadly we have seen zero before. We do not need to see it again.

Public Safety

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want this Parliament to take action to combat a rising trend of hate crimes in this country. For our part, we have introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which seeks to protect Canadians by putting in place criminal penalties for those who would commit hate crimes against people, whether on the doorsteps of our religious institutions or in our communities more broadly.

This is an important day in the future of this legislation. The justice committee will be looking at the specific clauses of this bill after question period today, and Canadians will come to understand which parties are interested in protecting communities against hate and which are more interested in obstructing and delaying this legislation. When Canadians are watching, I hope we can demonstrate a spirit of collaboration and—

Criminal Code

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today to private member's bill, Bill C‑220, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to immigration status in sentencing, introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

This bill raises fundamental questions about our justice system, such as the individualization of sentences, proportionality, parity and, above all, the key role the judiciary plays in determining fair sentences that are tailored to the circumstances of each case. It also touches on the delicate but very real intersection between our criminal justice system and our immigration system.

However, far from improving this system, Bill C‑220 weakens it. It seeks to take away some of the critically important discretion judges have and to overturn, without justification or evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous jurisprudence. This should be of concern to us all.

According to the Conservative member who introduced this bill, the courts give preferential treatment or overly lenient sentences to non-citizens when they consider the consequences of immigration, such as the loss of the right to appeal or the possibility of removal from Canada.

The facts do not support this claim. No study, no analysis and no attorney general, either federal or provincial, has indicated that the courts are misusing the existing jurisprudence. When very minor sentence reductions occur, such as a one-day reduction, they are rare, transparent and entirely subject to appeal. The bill therefore proposes a heavy-handed and rigid solution to a problem that simply does not exist.

The bill creates a new section 718.202 in the Criminal Code that would explicitly prohibit judges from considering any immigration-related consequences when sentencing someone who is not a Canadian citizen. In other words, even if a sentence of six months, rather than five months and 29 days, automatically triggers the loss of the right to appeal a deportation order, the court would be legally obligated to ignore the very real impact and serious consequences this would have.

Citizens serve their sentence and return to their community. Permanent residents and people who came to Canada when they were children could be sent back to a country they do not know. Judges would be forced to pretend as though this reality does not exist. That is not justice, it is not proportionate and it is certainly not what our Constitution requires.

In 2013, under a Conservative government, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that some of the very real consequences of sentencing include consequences related to immigration status and, as such, they can be considered by the courts. The court made two key points on the matter. Yes, a judge can take into account immigration-related consequences to ensure that the sentence, as a whole, remains proportional to the crime committed. The court also said that, no, those consequences cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offence or the moral responsibility of the accused, no matter what Conservatives say. The framework we have is balanced, reasonable and constitutional, and it has been working for over a decade. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing to abolish that jurisprudence. They were in power when that decision was made. They had two years to do something about it, if they thought it was really a problem, but they did not do so.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill and the Leader of the Opposition, who was the member for Carleton at the time, were government members then. However, they did nothing at the time. That tells us that what they are trying to do today is not to correct an injustice, but to recycle a punitive policy that, at the time, had already been subject to constitutional challenges on a number of occasions.

Anyone familiar with criminal law knows that. Sentencing is based on a fundamental principle: individualization. Two people who commit the same crime will not necessarily have the same history, vulnerabilities or family responsibilities, nor face the same consequences. The courts already take a wide range of collateral consequences into account for all Canadians, not just for immigrants. Collateral consequences can include the loss of a job, the risk of homelessness, a lengthy family separation, mental health impacts and, in some cases, the inability to pursue an education. Why, then, single out only one category of consequences—immigration consequences—and prohibit judges from considering them?

This inconsistency clearly shows that Bill C‑220 is not founded on legal logic, but on political logic. In reality, the effects of a criminal sentence vary widely depending on the immigration status of the person convicted.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a sentence of six months or more means an automatic loss of the right to appeal a deportation order, and a sentence of more than six months or an offence punishable by 10 years means that it is possible to be deemed inadmissible on the grounds of a serious crime.

Those consequences are not part of the Criminal Code. They are the result of a parallel administrative regime created by Parliament. Prohibiting judges from considering those consequences means accepting or even institutionalizing the fact that two people convicted of the same offence will experience fundamentally different consequences. Yes, a two-tier justice system, that is what our Conservative colleague wants to set up with Bill C‑220, and it is the opposition's bill that would create that injustice, not the courts.

Our government opposes Bill C‑220, particularly because it is ill-conceived, because it is not based on evidence, because it violates the principle of proportionality, parity and fundamental justice, and because it would undermine judicial independence, a pillar of the rule of law.

When someone proposes measures to amend the Criminal Code, when they say they want to improve public safety, they need to approach it seriously in the House. They need to ensure that the proposed measures truly respect our Constitution. That is not the case here. Bill C-220 and other private members' bills introduced by colleagues from the official opposition would be struck down by the courts. This is simply a waste of time, a waste of resources and results in disappointment for Canadians.

On our side of the House, we understand that, and we make sure that we propose legislation that is truly tailored to the situations we are dealing with. We also ensure the proposed legislation is constitutional. For example, I am thinking of Bill C-14, which proposes a major overhaul of the Canadian bail and sentencing system. This bill proposes more than 80 amendments to the Criminal Code that are, I repeat, in line with our Constitution. We want to make it more difficult for criminals, particularly violent repeat offenders, to obtain bail and ensure that sentences are truly proportional to the crimes committed. We are very serious about safety in our communities. I invite my colleagues to support us in our legislative work on Bill C-14.

Other initiatives that come to mind are Bill C‑12, which aims to strengthen border security; Bill C‑9, which aims to combat hate crimes in our communities; and our commitment to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is also our strategy to combat fraud and financial crimes that typically impact vulnerable people such as seniors. Our government is serious. We are going to implement the first anti-fraud strategy, and we have allocated resources in the 2025 budget to support these initiatives.

I am also thinking of all the investments being made in the 2025 budget. This demonstrates how serious our new government is about public safety.

I am thinking of our border plan, the largest investment ever made Canada to ensure that our borders are secure. This is an important issue in my riding given that it has more than five border crossings. I am also thinking about our investments to increase the number of RCMP officers and CBSA agents. When we invest in public safety, we also understand that we must prevent crime upstream. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth supports—to address the issue of petty crimes and property crimes before they even happen.

With Bill C‑14, we are strengthening actions against those who pose the greatest risks. In addition, with our budget, we are also investing in preventing crime from happening in the first place, and that is very important.

Bill C‑220 will not make Canadians safer. It will not build trust in the justice system. It will only lead to injustices, inconsistencies and predictable constitutional challenges. Our role is to build an effective, fair and evidence-based justice system, not to build one based on political slogans. However, the bill from the member for Calgary Nose Hill puts rhetoric ahead of sound, evidence-based policy. Justice must not be blind to the consequences of its own decisions. Bill C‑220 calls for exactly that, and for these reasons, I will be voting against the bill, and I am asking all my colleagues from all parties to vote against it.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify a few points. When she reviewed the budget, did she see any investments for the administration of justice? For example, we are currently studying Bill C-9 and will soon be studying Bill C-14, which has been referred to committee. We are therefore talking about administering prison sentences, increasing sentences and establishing minimum sentences, among other things.

Does the budget include measures for rehabilitating those who are sent to our prisons and penitentiaries? Are there measures to work with social agencies on prevention in order to reduce rising crime rates in Canada? What measures are in the budget to fight crime in Canada?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to budget 2025. This is an important budget delivered in extraordinary times.

Let us start off by being very honest about where we are. The world is more dangerous and divided, and Canada is very much facing a world that is rapidly changing and is increasingly uncertain. The rules-based international order and the trading system that powered Canada's prosperity for decades are being reshaped, which is hurting companies, displacing workers and causing major disruption and upheaval for Canadians.

In Canada, we have to focus on what we can control. Despite the headwinds, Canada has the fiscal capacity to transform our economy. This is our moment to build big, to build bold and to build now. As our Minister of Finance said, “This budget must be generational in its ambition.... There is no place for withdrawal, ambiguity or even standing still, only for bold and swift action.”

Let me speak to one of the many items that matter to the people in my riding of Davenport.

The number one thing I hear about is jobs. People continue to be worried. Will they continue to have good-paying jobs? Will their kids coming out of school have opportunities? Without a good-paying job, no one will be able to afford a home or live a decent life.

I am very proud that this budget invests heavily in training and creating opportunities. We are providing $1.5 billion over three years to address youth unemployment, including with 100,000 Canada summer jobs, which is 30,000 more than what was given this summer, and 55,000 new work-integrated learning opportunities for students, which is 15,000 more than we were able to do this past year.

Davenport has many union construction workers, and I want to give a shout-out to LIUNA Local 183, which is the largest union for construction workers. We are so blessed to have them in our city building our city and our country. They contribute so much to our national economy.

In budget 2025, we are providing $75 million over three years to expand the union training and innovation program for apprenticeship training in the Red Seal trades. For workers who are impacted by tariffs, we have $570 million over three years for training and employment assistance, plus new workforce alliances bringing together employers, unions and industry groups. Finally, we are also launching a youth climate corps, with $40 million over two years to train young Canadians to respond to climate emergencies and strengthen community resilience.

Another big priority for Davenport is culture and the arts. Very blessedly, there are many artists in my constituency. While these times are tough and our government has had to make some hard choices, let me be very clear: Culture matters and the arts matter. During uncertain times, we stay united by sharing our stories. The arts help us interpret the world around us. The arts and culture sector contributed $65 billion to our economy in 2024.

In budget 2025, we invest $769 million over five years in arts and culture, which includes $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, $150 million for Telefilm Canada, $127.5 million for the Canada Media Fund, and support for festivals and performing arts. We have also introduced an artist's resale right, allowing visual artists to receive royalties when their work is resold, something the sector, including many from my constituency of Davenport, have advocated for for years.

Public safety is the third top priority for Davenport. Residents are worried about auto theft, home invasions and gun crime. I want my constituents to know that this issue is among the highest priorities of our government.

The budget provides $1.7 billion over four years to the RCMP to hire 1,000 new personnel to fight transnational organized crime, financial crimes and money laundering. We are also providing almost $700 million over five years to the Canada Border Services Agency to hire up to 1,000 new officers, building on the $1.3-billion border plan announced in December. These officers will also stop guns and drugs from coming into our country. All this investment is in addition to a number of strong pieces of legislation making their way through the House, which include Bill C-14, Bill C-12 and Bill C-9.

Budget 2025 also has an important focus on seniors. For seniors, elderly benefits will reach over $83 billion in 2025-26, supporting 7.5 million Canadians. We are also launching a national anti-fraud strategy. In 2024 alone, Canadians lost $643 million to fraud, nearly a 300% increase since 2020. We continue supporting the new horizons for seniors program, which is a lifeline for many seniors in my riding and seniors across the country. Finally, we are introducing a personal support workers tax credit, providing up to $1,100 per year. This is to support the amazing people who take care of our loved ones, because as our loved ones get older, they need a lot more support.

As chair of the Canada NATO Parliamentary Association, I take our commitments to defence very seriously. Budget 2025 confirms we will reach the NATO 2% target this fiscal year and are on a pathway to meet the 5% defence investment pledge by 2035. This budget provides $81.8 billion over five years to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces have the support and the tools they need. We are also providing $2 billion in 2025-26 for additional military assistance to Ukraine. As our Prime Minister has said, there can be no prosperity without security. I would also add that we must continue to do all we can to ensure the war stops in Ukraine and to help bring a just and lasting peace to the country.

I know there are concerns about the deficit, but we are acting from a position of fiscal strength. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. The IMF has validated the approach outlined in our budget, stating that we are using our fiscal space to make generational investments, and that is good. No one likes seeing large deficits, and we are committed to balancing the operating budget by 2028-29.

We are dramatically reducing how much we are spending to run government. Through our comprehensive expenditure review, we are achieving $60 billion in savings over five years, eliminating duplication and using made-in-Canada AI tools. We are spending less on day-to-day operations so we can invest far more in capital investments, in building Canada.

This budget will catalyze $1 trillion in investment over five years from provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous communities and the private sector. We are investing $51 billion over 10 years through the build communities strong fund for local infrastructure: hospitals, universities, roads, bridges, water systems and transit. The first two phases of nation-building projects are expected to trigger $150 billion in total capital investment. We are also diversifying our trade relationships, working to double our overseas exports within a decade and unlocking $300 billion in new opportunities for Canadian workers and businesses.

Canada has to make itself attractive to the world. Luckily, we are an amazing country. We have the critical minerals, the natural resources, the people and the leadership to do so.

Let me conclude with this. When times are tough, we stand together as Canadians. We look after one another. We invest in ourselves. We do not retreat; we advance. As our finance minister said, “To weather the storm of uncertainty, we will not lower our sails. Quite the opposite, we will raise them to catch the winds of economic change, because we believe in Canada.”

I believe in Canada. I believe in my riding of Davenport. I believe in the resilience, the diversity and the determination that make our community and our country great. This is a moment for bold action, a moment to build the future we want for ourselves and for generations to come. Canada has faced challenges before and we have always emerged stronger. Budget 2025 is our plan to do exactly that: building our economy, protecting our communities, empowering our people and ensuring Canada emerges as the strongest economy in the G7.

I am proud of this budget; I am proud to support it, and it is always an honour to represent the people of Davenport.

Jail Not Bail Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, improving safety in our communities is a mainstay of our Liberal platform.

Six months into the new government's mandate, we have clearly backed up our commitments with a series of concrete actions, as the budget tabled earlier this week shows.

During the election campaign, we promised Canadians that this new government would make bail reform and tougher sentences a priority. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C‑14, for example.

On this side of the House, our approach is responsible and constructive. We ensure that proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are constitutional. Otherwise, if the bill passes, the courts would strike it down. This wastes time and resources, and leaves Canadians disheartened. That is not something we want.

Looking at Bill C‑242, one really has to wonder whether our colleagues in the official opposition have really taken the time to analyze it from a constitutional perspective. If my colleagues' goal is truly to make communities safer, I wonder why they are promoting a redundant bill that creates confusion and poses constitutional risks, rather than working to implement Bill C‑14.

I will take the next few minutes to explain why Bill C‑14 is a step in the right direction to make our communities safer, as we committed to do during the election campaign. Bill C‑14 proposes a comprehensive reform of Canada's bail and sentencing systems, with more than 80 targeted amendments. This is a major undertaking that will meet the public's expectations. It includes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act.

With regard to strengthening the bail system, Bill C‑14 will create new reverse onus provisions for serious and violent crimes. This means that bail will no longer be the norm for these types of crime. The accused would be detained by default, and would then have to prove why they should be released on bail. This applies to crimes that are plaguing our society. I am thinking in particular of organized auto theft. In recent years, people going on vacation are finding that their vehicles have been stolen from the airport. People should not have to worry about whether or not they will find their vehicle when they return home. We are therefore going to make bail harder for people who engage in organized auto theft.

We are going to crack down on home invasions. People should feel safe in their own homes. It will be more difficult for those who attack people in their own homes to get bail. The same is true for people who engage in human trafficking and smuggling. People who exploit vulnerable individuals should have a harder time getting bail, and that is what we are doing with Bill C‑14. This bill also addresses crimes such as violent assault, sexual assault and extortion involving violence. It will be more difficult for those who commit such crimes to get bail in Canada. I believe that this is what Canadians expect of us.

We are also going to ask the courts to take into account allegations of random or unprovoked violence. Let us say that someone attacks me when all I was doing was walking down the street, minding my own business. That will be an aggravating factor that must be considered when determining whether the person should be kept in custody while awaiting trial. It is the same thing if the accused has a history of intimate partner or other violence.

We will also change the conditions of release. For people charged with offences related to auto theft, burglary, extortion, and organized crime, courts will have to consider imposing stricter conditions, such as curfews, geographic restrictions, and no-contact orders. For those charged with extortion or organized crime, the same will apply, and there will be prohibitions on possessing a weapon.

When a court assesses the grounds for keeping a person in custody pending trial, there are three main factors to consider. First, it is essential to make sure the person will appear in court. Is the person a flight risk? Second, the protection of the public must be ensured. If the person is released, does this pose a risk to public safety? Finally, public confidence in the administration of justice must be maintained. This last reason is very important. That is why, with Bill C‑14, we are introducing an amendment to require courts to take into account the number and seriousness of pending charges.

This means that if a person appears in court for a crime and has several other pending charges, those charges could play a role in the decision to take the person into custody or not, in order to maintain public trust in the administration of justice.

Bill C‑14 also provides stiffer sentences for different serious and violent crimes. We need to ensure that the sentences imposed are proportional to the severity of violent offences committed by repeat offenders. During the election campaign, people asked us to review these sentences, and that is what we are doing through Bill C‑14, because stronger deterrence through sentences that fit the crime is important.

New aggravating factors are going to be added, which ultimately means harsher sentences. This includes offences against first responders in the performance of their duties. Examples include police officers or firefighters, who put their safety at risk every day to protect us. These people deserve protection. If crimes like assault are committed against our first responders, the perpetrator will face harsher prison sentences.

Earlier this week, I attended a cocktail party hosted by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and I had the opportunity to speak with a number of firefighters from across the country. Many of them told me they were very pleased to see this measure included in Bill C‑14. They said that it was a step in the right direction and that it made them feel included in our deliberations. It is very important to ensure that our first responders are protected.

If the accused is a repeat violent offender who has previously been convicted of a violent offence in the last five years, this will also be an aggravating factor. If someone is serving a sentence, gets out of prison and commits another violent crime, they will have to go back behind bars. It just makes sense.

Organized retail theft in businesses and stores is now recognized as an aggravating factor. Small business owners and their staff get up every morning and work hard to earn a living. These people deserve to be protected. They do not deserve to be robbed. By better protecting them, we are sending them a message that we recognize how important they are to our country and our economy. If people commit crimes in their businesses, whether it is shoplifting or offences related to organized crime, they will be punished more severely.

It is the same thing for offences the interfere with essential infrastructure, especially copper theft. When a person steals copper from transmission lines or towers, it interferes with essential infrastructure. Let me give an example. Last summer, in Restigouche, in my riding, someone stole copper, which caused several cell towers to stop working. A large area was left with no cell coverage. Had there been an emergency, the public could have been in danger. That is why we need to crack down on this type of crime.

We will also increase penalties for certain crimes. For example, house arrest will no longer be an option for those who are found guilty of aggravated sexual assault or child sexual abuse. These individuals will have to serve a prison sentence. I think that Canadians expect such crimes to be severely punished. This is a measure that I unequivocally support, and it is included in Bill C‑14.

Bill C‑14 is part of a comprehensive approach to fighting crime put forward by our government. Our approach also includes Bill C‑12, which will strengthen security at our borders, and Bill C‑9, which will strengthen the fight against hate crimes. In addition, we have made commitments that will very soon result in legislative changes to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is our anti-fraud strategy, which aims to better protect our seniors from financial crimes. There are also the investments announced in the budget, plus those dedicated to crime prevention. We want to crack down on serious crimes, but we also want to prevent them. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth support to strengthen crime prevention.

Bill C‑14 and all the other measures we are putting in place show that our new Liberal government takes the fight against crime very seriously. Sometimes I get the impression that my colleagues across the floor see politics as theatre. They propose ideological measures such as Bill C‑242, which would probably not even pass constitutional muster. On this side, we know that community safety is not about theatrics, it is not a matter of political gamesmanship. It is a serious issue that deserves concrete and constitutional measures such as Bill C‑14.

I think this is an excellent bill, particularly because we listened to the public, the provinces and the territories. I invite all of my colleagues to work collaboratively on adopting the Liberals' Bill C‑14 instead of continuing to promote a bill like Bill C‑242.

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege and an honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York Centre.

When I was first elected, I was shocked at how quickly crime became the issue I had to contend with as a member of Parliament, because it was the significant issue that galvanized the community of St. Thomas this summer, in many respects. A rather historic building, which happened to be my campaign office in the last election, that was 140-some odd years old was burned down by a serial arsonist out on bail. This was a symbol of a problem that Canadians have seen in communities large and small across the country, which is rampant repeat offenders unleashing what police have called chronic criminality and prolific offending onto the streets.

If we talk to any police service across the country, as I have with the police chiefs in my riding and others through my work on the justice committee, we will hear that a small number of offenders, sometimes 100 people or maybe even fewer, are responsible for 80% to 90% of the calls the police must respond to. A small group of prolific offenders is taxing communities, taxing and straining police resources, and terrifying and terrorizing communities.

They are making it so people do not feel safe walking streets they once could comfortably, safely and freely walk down at any hour of the day or night. People do not feel comfortable letting their children go out to a mall. People are forced to take other forms of transportation because they do not feel safe on public transit.

Just this morning, I saw that London, Ontario, is promoting police officers being on public transit. I am grateful to the brave men and women in the London Police Service, the St. Thomas Police Service, the Aylmer Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police who are forced to deal with this, but they have had to deal with a problem that has by and large been a consequence of federal government policy.

We have heard testimony for several weeks now from police associations, police chiefs and victims' rights groups, and almost all of them have pointed directly to Bill C-75. This was legislation from the Liberal government that, among other changes, codified something called the principle of restraint, a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it easier for repeat offenders to get out on bail under conditions that are very lax.

I bring this up because for months, when we have raised these issues in this House, the government has said not to worry and that bail reform legislation is coming, but this was not a significant priority to the extent that other bills were. We saw Bill C-9, which was the first priority, as far as justice legislation goes, of the government. That came out and was tabled in this House weeks before the bail legislation was. Now we see Bill C-14.

I will say first and foremost that I am grateful the Liberal government recognizes there is a crisis unfolding in our criminal justice system. I am grateful that the Liberal government has finally responded to the calls from law enforcement, municipal governments, victims' rights groups, ordinary citizens and Conservative members of Parliament that action is needed.

What the Liberals have delivered falls short in some very key areas, and I think this is important because they said they needed time because they wanted to get it right. They needed time because they wanted to cover all the bases. We had before the justice committee on Tuesday the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Thomas Carrique, a very decorated officer. He is also the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and commissioner Carrique said that he was disappointed the legislation did not tackle sentencing in a meaningful way.

The bill was supposed to tackle bail and sentencing, and with the exception of beefing up the penalty for contempt of court, it has not really touched sentencing head-on when we are talking about sentences for violent offences. That is a key shortcoming of this bill.

On the principle of restraint, we have another key issue, which is that the bill offers, and I will read it precisely, the following language on the principle of restraint:

For greater certainty, section 493.‍1 does not require the accused to be released.

The Liberals are basically giving a little asterisk for judges and police officers to tell them not to worry and that the principle in the Criminal Code that says we must release people at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous conditions does not mean they have to release them at all.

Everyone knows that. No matter how critical someone is of the justice system, they know that 100% of people do not get bail, although the Liberals have certainly tried to get as close to that figure as possible it seems. This is a clarifying note; it is not a meaningful change. The Liberals are just saying that it does not mean what we think it does, that this section does not mean what police officers have been saying it has done to them and what attorneys are saying it has done to the justice system.

To be fair, the Liberals made some acknowledgement that there is a problem when they expanded the reverse onus. This is something I welcome, but when this bill goes before committee, it is incumbent on the Liberal government to accept the very significant measures Conservatives have already proposed in this House that would be genuinely and seriously tough on crime, measures that would provide real solutions, real resolutions and concrete reforms to fix the Liberal bail system.

For example, the principle of restraint needs to first and foremost be a principle that makes public safety its primary obligation, not the rights of the accused but the right of the public to feel safe and secure in their own communities. This is very important, and it is a direct response to months and months of consultation by Conservative members with law enforcement officials, who have said they feel ignored by the government and that morale has taken a massive hit. Officers feel it is not even worth arresting people, knowing that under the law on the books right now, they are just going to be released.

For years, Liberal government members, when we have sounded the alarm about this, have said that it is not really an issue. They have attempted to gaslight Canadians into thinking the problem is not as a bad as it, which makes me ask the question about Bill C-14 of why now. Are the Liberals finally acknowledging that they got it wrong with Bill C-75, Bill C-48 and Bill C-5?

With each of these bills, there has been a trend. Some members of law enforcement have looked at them and said they looked like they had some good things in them, but years later, when they see the application of them, they realize they did not actually deliver on the promises made and what the government said it would do. That is, of course, a concern I have with Bill C-14, as with any legislation. We need to make sure these are not just things that exist on paper that do not translate in the real world.

We have given the government the answers. We have provided three pieces of legislation in this House already. While the Liberals were still trying to figure out where they wanted to go with Bill C-14, my colleague from Oxford introduced the jail not bail act, Bill C-242. It would put front and centre the role of public safety when talking about bail. It would also prohibit someone from serving as a surety to help other accused offenders get out on bail if they themselves have been convicted of a serious criminal offence within the last 10 years. Reform of the surety system does not appear at all in Bill C-14, which is another shortcoming that has already been identified by witnesses testifying before the justice committee in its bail study.

We also have, from my colleague from Lethbridge, Bill C-246, which would put consecutive sentences in place for sexual offenders. Heinous criminals who have been convicted should be serving their sentences consecutively, which is a proposal we offered to the government. I ask the Liberals to please take our idea and put it in law if they are serious about these measures.

My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which would create new offences pertaining to intimate partner violence, provisions that Jennifer Dunn of the London Abused Women's Centre told the justice committee yesterday should be passed by the House of Commons to protect women. Victims are being failed by the justice system as it is now, and Ms. Dunn said in her testimony that many of the women she sees do not even refer to the justice system as the justice system anymore.

I am committed to working with government members if they are serious about wanting to reform and genuinely fix these problems, but they need to acknowledge their role in creating them. They need to acknowledge what law enforcement has been saying, which is that so much of what we are dealing with on the streets now, which has led to Bill C-14, is a consequence of Liberal laws, notably Bill C-75.

I am committing to the people of Canada, the people in my riding and the members of this House that I will work in the justice committee to beef this bill up to what it should be, but Canadians deserve more.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, it is not up to me to decide that, and I can say that we are currently very busy at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are studying two issues at the same time and have extended our working hours.

We usually meet for two hours twice a week. Now we are meeting for three hours twice a week and we are studying the bail and sentencing issues concurrently. That is kind of what bills C‑14 and C‑9 are about. We are studying both at the same time. Are we going to add Bill C‑14? I would like to because it is important. However, when are we going to do that? Do we have access to meeting rooms? Do we have interpreters?

There are a number of practical questions that I cannot answer. In any case, it is not up to me to decide whether we should fast-track Bill C‑14. However, I do believe that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and I will leave it to those responsible for managing the business of the House to decide the pace at which we proceed with Bill C‑14.

Public Safety

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important concern that Canadians have and that our government shares.

We have always stood up against gender-based violence. We currently have a bill in the House, Bill C-9, which addresses femicide and makes it a conditional first-degree crime. In that bill, we are also making bail harder to obtain for those accused of sexual offences, including those involving choking, suffocation and strangulation.

We are also going to be bringing in a gender-based violence bill later on this year. We are working on all fronts.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, he reaffirms it by saying “absolutely”.

There is so much here. The member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner said, “there is a disconnect between upper management and [the rank and file]. There are operational issues that are not being addressed by...leadership.” The member for Peace River—Westlock said, “The actions of the leadership of the RCMP, I think, are indefensible in many instances.” The leader of the Conservative Party implied in a very strong way that the former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, would have gone to jail “[i]f the RCMP had been doing its job”.

How do bizarre, weird comments of that nature reinforce confidence in our institutions? Now Conservatives have come up with a conflict of interest, and they say they want X, Y and Z. They want to attack the Prime Minister and his character, because this is what they believe, and they start talking about the issue of perception.

Members will have to excuse me for not knowing the member's riding. He is the one who I think owns Giant Tiger. I would encourage every member of the Conservative caucus to read what he had to say about conflicts of interest just the other day inside the chamber. As the leader of the Conservative Party calls into question the integrity of the RCMP, they should read what their colleague had to say about conflicts of interest. If members want to study something, they should bring what he said to the ethics group of members of Parliament. Let us study that. That seems to be more of a legitimate study.

However, it does not fit the Conservative agenda. The Conservative agenda can be best described as character assassination, because the Conservatives have consistently done that. I will continue to argue, whether it is during a late show, question period or concurrence in reports, that the Conservative Party of Canada today under the current leadership is more focused on the internal workings of the Conservative Party, on spreading misinformation through social media and on attacking our institutions. At the end of the day, they do not recognize the genuine interests of Canadians and do not treat issues, like the budget, which is coming up on November 4, and the national school food program, with the respect they deserve. It is hard to say why.

Just so the record shows, the member I was referring to is the member for Lanark—Frontenac. That is the individual. Members should read what he said.

Having said that, with less than a minute to go, here is my recommendation to my Conservative friends opposite. I would suggest that they get out of the Conservative bubble. They do not have to follow what their leader is saying. If he was a little more practical and a bit more reflective of Canadians' interests, they could do that, but he is too far to the right.

My suggestion to you is to look at what your constituents are telling you and start supporting bail reform legislation, Bill C-3 or Bill C-9, and look—

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, and today we are talking about Bill C-12.

For those who do not know what Bill C-12 is, it is the Liberal government's attempt at a do-over of Bill C-2, the border security bill. When Bill C-2 first came out, there was an outcry from the Conservative Party and civil liberties organizations across the country because of the numerous infringements of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. It would have been violated by Bill C-2, so the government was forced to take out some of these offensive violations.

Part 4 would allow Canada Post to open mail without a warrant. Part 11 would ban cash payments and donations over $10,000. Part 14 would allow warrantless access to Canadians' personal information on reasonable suspicion, which is a very low threshold. Part 15 could compel electronic service providers to re-engineer their platforms to help CSIS and the police access personal information, like a digital snoop.

Part 16 would allow the government to supply financial institutions with personal information if the info was useful for money laundering and terrorist financing purposes. Again, if there was a reasonable suspicion, they could get all of someone's financial information. What could possibly go wrong when the Liberal government gets someone's financial information? I think we learned that with the Emergencies Act when the government froze the bank accounts of Canadians. It is no wonder Canadians do not trust the government.

I am happy to see all of these violations of people's civil liberties were taken out in the do-over. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the government continues to go against people's charter rights and freedoms. We see a continual pattern of behaviour with the government. With Bill C-11, it tried to shut down people's freedom of speech. Bill C-18 tried to mess with the freedom of the press. The freedom of religion issue is constantly coming up, with the Liberals trying to remove charitable status from churches and the Canada summer jobs program. We have to get to the details of this bill to make sure no funny business has been snuck in at the last minute. It is clear the government continually wants to take away the freedoms of Canadians.

Some improvements could still be made to this bill, and I want to talk about a few of those. The first one is in part 1. Part 1 would amend the Customs Act to allow the CBSA to use facilities free of charge for enforcement and access to goods for export, as it does for imports. The dilemma for me is that with the size of the fentanyl issue, the crime issues and the lack of security at our borders, there is no limit on how long somebody's warehouse or space could be seized to use for this kind of enforcement. Of course, that would come at the expense of whoever owns a warehouse or storage space.

In border towns like Sarnia, there is not always a lot of space available at the border, so that could be even more far-reaching. The same is true for Windsor and a number of the other border crossings we have. I think some limits should be put on part 1 to make sure we do not unduly burden private businesses.

Second, let us talk about fentanyl. Fentanyl is a huge issue in this country. About 50,000 people have died of overdoses. The RCMP and CSIS have indicated that there are 400 fentanyl superlabs. I do not know whether they are being shut down, but Justin Trudeau said a very small portion of our fentanyl goes to the States. The reality is we really do not know, because shipping containers coming in from China are not being scanned and are going through the port of Vancouver and down to Seattle.

The precursors of fentanyl are not controlled or tracked. We do not know where they are going, so the people synthesizing fentanyl in these 400 superlabs are getting those chemicals from somewhere. One thing I like about the bill is that it adds some controls to traceability so we would know where those chemicals are coming in, where they are going and who is buying them. That would be helpful to the police.

I think we should start doing what other ports in the world do, which is scan all the shipping containers. This is very important not just on the fentanyl issue but on the issue of people stealing cars. We definitely need an upgrade in our scanning capabilities.

One of the difficulties I have with putting laws in place in this country is the lack of enforcement of the rule of law. It is fundamental to our democracy, but the law is not really being enforced. We have people committing crimes in the country who are let out because the Liberals put in place Bill C-5 and Bill C-75. Bill C-75 says that we have to give the least restrictive punishment, which is really bail or a fine, at the earliest opportunity, which is right away. We have people trafficking fentanyl or creating it in these labs, and even if they get arrested, they are back out on bail. Bill C-5 lets them have house arrest. How convenient is that for drug trafficking? They have to stay home, but people can stop by.

We need better enforcement of the law, because we know the Liberals are going to create more laws like Bill C-9, for example, which is supposed to address the rise in hate crimes. There are already laws in this country that could help in that regard. There were 113 Christian churches that burned to the ground. There is a law against arson. It should be enforced. Illegally blocking the streets is against the law, but the police are not enforcing it. Death cries to Canadians and various religions are hate speech. They are against the law. Again, it is about enforcement. As for shooting up schools, stealing cars, home invasions and extortions, we already have laws on the books for these things, but if we are not going to enforce them, we are not going to cure the problem. That is exactly the problem with introducing this border security bill. If there is no enforcement of any of the things in it, then it is absolutely meaningless.

There are immigration measures in the bill, and we need to take action on immigration because it is out of control. Most Canadians would agree with that. We need immigration to build houses and for the nation-building projects we want. We have an aging population. We need more PSWs, nurses and doctors than can graduate from the educational institutions in Canada. We need people to come here and help build the country. I love the idea from our leader of the blue seal program, to take the 50,000 doctors and nurses who already live in Canada and get them accredited so they can help out. It is definitely a great idea.

For the last century, people have come here to work and to help build the country, and we want to continue that. What we do not need is more freeloaders showing up to claim asylum and have the Canadian taxpayer fork out $3,000 to $4,000 a month to put them up in hotels in Niagara Falls. That is more money than we give the seniors who built the country. It is more money than we give to Canadians living with a disability.

Then we see that the majority of these claims, after two or three years of putting these people up, are not eligible after we have spent a huge amount of the taxpayers' money. There are 300,000 of these individuals in the backlog. That is $15 billion a year taken out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers for people we did not invite here. I think moving the IRCC office to the Toronto Pearson, Montreal and Vancouver airports to hear their claims right on the spot would be good. Then if they are not eligible, the cost of a plane ticket is a lot less than the cost of putting somebody up for three years.

At the same time, we need to reintroduce the fair and compassionate immigration system we had when the Conservatives were in charge, which did security checks so that we were not letting people into the country who were going to cause the kinds of crime and trouble we are sometimes seeing.

I think the immigration measures in the bill will help out. I do not think they go far enough. My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill has done a great job of defining what ought to be done to fix the immigration system we have. I encourage anyone who does not follow her to listen to what she has to say on that subject.

I want to talk a bit about making the border more secure. The Liberals have announced that they are going to hire 1,000 CBSA agents. The announcement was made months ago and nobody has been hired. We hear now that it might be done within five years. That is not the kind of response we need to get security in the budget.

With that, I will take questions.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak. I will be speaking to Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system. What a laughable title from a government that has made such a mess of both our borders and our immigration system.

Let me talk about the mess the government has made of immigration. I want to share three short stories.

The first is the case of Mr. Khant from earlier this year. He was a permanent resident, originally a citizen of India. He pleaded guilty to attempting an indecent act. That is a bit of a legalistic way of saying that Mr. Khant tried to purchase sexual services from a minor. Unfortunately for Mr. Khant, the person he tried to purchase sexual services from was the Peel Regional Police human trafficking unit, as part of Project Juno. Rather than a jail sentence, Mr. Khant received a conditional discharge. Why would that be? In the words of the court, “Mr. Khant is a permanent resident seeking Canadian citizenship and professional licensing. A conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could also prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence.”

If people commit crimes in Canada and they are not Canadian citizens, they should no longer be in Canada.

Just over two weeks ago, there was the case of Mr. Sajeevan, an Indian citizen in Canada on a student visa. He was a roommate with several others, including several female roommates at a home in Barrie. His bedroom was in the basement beside the laundry room, which was shared by all the residents. The laundry room was beside the bathroom, which was also shared amongst the roommates.

Over a period of many months, Mr. Sajeevan used a peephole in the laundry room to spy on his female roommates in various states of undress. In July of this year, Mr. Sajeevan pleaded guilty to voyeurism, despite some initial agreement on sentencing and some very troubling victim impact statements from those who had been spied upon. The court went on to say, “The emotional and psychological harm caused is palpable...Mr. Sajeevan's offending has had a significant and enduring impact on his victims.” The court called it “more than curiosity; it was sustained predation”.

Despite all that and despite the serious nature of the crime and its effect on its victims, which the court acknowledged, the court went on to accept “serious collateral immigration consequences”. The result was a jail sentence of only five and a half months. Why? That is a bit of a strange number. Why five and a half months, when in fact the court said the proper sentence should be somewhere between six and 12 months?

It was because a jail sentence of six months would have made him inadmissible to Canada. In other words, he would have had to leave Canada if he were to receive a sentence of six months. However, we did not get that because the Liberals have so screwed up our immigration system.

Last is the case of Mr. Biron, a permanent resident from the Philippines. In 2021, over four years ago, he pleaded guilty to sexual assault against a minor and was sentenced to 20 months in prison. Beginning in 2022, he was advised that he could be inadmissible to Canada because of the serious nature of his crimes. For over four years, he has fought his deportation. How can it be that a non-citizen who has pleaded guilty to sexual assault against a minor is still in Canada after four years?

Bill C-12, despite being called a fix to our immigration system, does nothing for this. These are not isolated incidents, because we know that, despite the strong border rhetoric and the fix to immigration allegedly coming from the government, we have lost track of hundreds of serious criminals in this country. The cherry on the top of this is that the very minister responsible for our public safety is himself interceding on behalf of members of terrorist organizations.

Let me turn to the border and talk about what a mess the government has made of our borders. Fentanyl, of course, is still making its way into Canada. In fact, earlier this year, in the town of Georgina, in my riding of York—Durham, the York Regional Police broke up the largest drug trafficking ring in our town's history, under Project Madruga, through which 1400 grams of fentanyl were discovered. To put that into perspective, two milligrams is enough to kill a human adult. The York Regional Police said that they had never seen a drug trafficking problem or ring of this size or scope in Georgina.

The government promised during the election to hire 1,000 new border officers, but we have discovered that was just another empty Liberal promise. More than six months later, they have hired only a few dozen and, in fact, do not have a plan to hire any more. The CBSA says that it has turnover of between 600 and 700 officers a year, so even at normal speeds, it would take over five years to hire 1,000 new officers. The Minister of Public Safety himself admitted in an interview that it would take five years to hire 1,000 new officers, and that is not even talking about the backlog and vacancies the CBSA has. The Customs and Immigration Union says there is a 3,000-officer vacancy rate and shortage on the border force.

Last, I want to talk about civil liberties because, for all these messes, whether it is the mess on the border or the mess in our immigration system, for some reason, it seems the Liberals' response is always to attack our liberty. The monstrosity that is Bill C-2, from which Bill C-12 emerged, is just one more example of the pattern of the Liberal disregard for the freedoms and liberties of Canadians.

To be clear, I want to make a point that our freedoms, my freedoms and everyone's freedoms in Canada do not emanate from Parliament or princes. We have freedom and liberty, because we are made in God's image and are human beings endowed with those by our creator, but Bill C-2 remains before the House. It would allow law enforcement to snoop on Canadians without judicial authorization. It would allow Canada Post to open mail without a warrant. As a lawyer, I know that a warrant is a basic protection that we, as normal, average citizens, have fought for hundreds of years to maintain to protect us from the arbitrary power of the state.

Bill C-2 is not the only attack on liberties that Canadians have endured under this government. Bill C-8, which we have discussed, would give unprecedented power to the government to kick Canadians off the Internet, on “reasonable grounds” in respect of “any threat”. What is “any threat”? I have been here for just over six months, and I have already been accused several times, by members from the opposite side, of spreading misinformation because they do not like my opinion. Am I now a “threat” to the government, and will I be kicked off the Internet? There would be no warrant, no trial and no due process.

Another example is Bill C-9, which has more unprecedented power for the police to control and to police speech on the Internet. Over all, it seems like, of the legislation the Liberals have introduced thus far, the majority trample on our liberties as Canadians.

This is the Liberals' pattern. They might have a new leader and call themselves a new government, but they exhibit all of the same habits as they had before. Whether it is with Bill C-2, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 or now Bill C-12, it seems for every societal problem, there is another Liberal bill ready to erode our freedom, my freedom and the liberty of all Canadians.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised to receive that question. I think I explained it to the member during my last two speeches on government legislation.

The Liberals violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they imposed the Emergencies Act, sections 2 and 8. That is not me, but Justice Mosley of the Federal Court who found that. I would love to hear the member apologize for that violation.

Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-2 also violate our charter. I am not going to let it get through the net.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-12. This is the fourth time I am speaking to a piece of government legislation in this Parliament.

For the first time, I think it is the story of the bill rather than its content that I find most interesting. I apologize to those following at home if it seems a little bit like inside baseball, but in every Parliament, the government introduces bills and numbers them sequentially. After the pro forma throne speech, Bill C-1, came Bill C-2. The present bill, Bill C-12, is the parts of Bill C-2 that had to be salvaged from the flaming dumpster fire of that original piece of legislation. It is as though the Liberals set their own legislative agenda on fire and the Conservatives had to comb through the charred remains to find something salvageable. What an embarrassment it is for the government.

The new Prime Minister ran on his expertise in government, having spent most of his career as a bureaucrat. He had been waiting in the wings for 10 years to plant his legislative agenda. Do members opposite remember when he was asked if he would ever become prime minister? He said, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?” Well, now he has. He has beclowned himself.

Bill C-2 is the very first piece of legislation that the Prime Minister's government introduced, and it had to be split up in this manner. What an embarrassment that is.

Why did it need to be split up? It is because the forefather of Bill C-12 contained clauses that were so howlingly bad that no one on either side of the House, nor from any coast in this country, could bring themselves to defend it.

Bill C-2 includes a provision that would allow the police to ask a doctor, without a warrant, if their services had ever been used by an individual. This is reprehensible. I am a physician; frankly, this does not just offend me as a Canadian and as a person, but it offends my whole profession. It would violate not just our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the Hippocratic oath. If a member opposite or their child went to see a doctor who specializes in addictions, mental health, sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive medicine, on what possible planet would they think it was appropriate for the police to ask that physician to disclose them as a client?

Again, I suspect members opposite are getting ready to say that I am somehow being outlandish in my interpretation of their proposed law. Here, once again, I will read them their own darned bill.

In part 14, clause 158, it reads:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand...to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:

(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client

This is bananas. This is, once again, a Chinese Communist Party level of state overreach.

Once again, if the Liberals do not trust my interpretation of their legislation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's interpretation or the Canadian Constitution Foundation's interpretation, will they believe their own public safety minister, the one who introduced the legislation? He was quoted in The Globe and Mail in an October 9 article by Marie Woolf, entitled “Public Safety Minister says he wants to push through refined warrantless...powers to help police”. She wrote that the Minister of Public Safety acknowledged that the “provisions in Bill C-2, the original strong borders bill, [allowing police to ask a] doctor without a warrant” if their services had been used by someone, constituted “overreach”.

This is not the first time the Minister of Public Safety has had to throw the Minister of Public Safety under the bus. Who could forget that, just last month, he told his tenant that his own gun confiscation program was a bad idea that he did not support? I would love to believe that it is merely incompetence over there. It is incompetence; it is just not “merely” incompetence.

I am a physician. I do not sign prescriptions that I have not read. I do not give out prescriptions that I do not believe in, because prescriptions are important documents and I have a professional duty to read them. On the other side of the House, we have a Liberal minister who seems not to read the legislation that he tries to pass in the House. On other occasions, he executes a gun grab he does not believe in. This sort of conduct would not be tolerated from any physician in this country. I dare say it would not be tolerated from any professional under any professional body in this country. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate it from one of the highest office-holders in this land?

As I said, it is not merely incompetence over there. I take it that the public safety minister did not write the legislation, but someone did. I want to know who, because this is not a one-off oopsy doopsy in which a junior staffer wrote a law that would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a clear pattern with the government.

The last three pieces of government legislation that I have debated in the House, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and now Bill C-12 have involved significant power grabs by the Prime Minister. I want to know why.

Bill C-8 would allow the Liberals to kick people off the Internet without a warrant. Bill C-9 would allow the Liberals to police speech on the Internet. Bill C-12, in its previous iteration as Bill C-2, would not only violate patient-physician confidentiality but also allow the government to read letter mail without a warrant.

What is going on over there? Why is the Liberals' response to every conceivable social problem to violate our charter rights? Who is writing the legislation?

I know that as soon as I am done, the member for Winnipeg North will ask why we do not fix this at committee, to which I would say, yes, we are going to have to, but every member in this House should be protecting charter rights. The committee should not be the goalie. The Conservatives should not be the goalie. The Liberals should not be trying to get charter violations past the Conservative goalies. They are the Liberals. They are supposed to believe in liberty. I am honestly starting to wonder if they even know what their party's name means anymore.

Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on “liberalism”:

political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Do the members opposite see themselves at all in this definition today? It has been six months since I was elected to this House, and not once, in between their power grabs, have I heard them make even passing reference to individual liberty or to the fact that the government itself can threaten that liberty.

Conservatives seek to conserve our liberty. Liberals are supposed to seek to expand our liberty. However, this is three times in six months they have tried to get one past us. I am asking them honestly to reflect on this. Are they even Liberals anymore, or have they become something darker? How is it that they have betrayed the Liberal tradition again and again in this House?

I would ask the Liberal backbenchers, in particular, if this is what they signed up to do when they took out a Liberal Party membership and if the Prime Minister's Office ran any of it by them before it tried to ram it through the House. Why do they not do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-2 entirely instead of trying to get it passed piecemeal?

One piece of Bill C-2, Bill C-12, is going to go to committee, but we must not forget the omnibus monstrosity from which it came. We must not forget the questions of competence that the story of Bill C-12 raises, and we must also not look away from the authoritarian tendencies of the so-called Liberals that this story reveals.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague says, we campaigned on a promise to make our communities safer. This requires a series of measures, including legislation such as Bill C‑12 on border security and Bill C‑9 on hate crimes. It also includes our upcoming bail reform, investments to hire more RCMP officers, and strategies, including the one announced yesterday about combatting online fraud.

When we talk about making our communities safer, we are not just spouting slogans. We are delivering investments, concrete measures and bills and taking a holistic approach to improving safety for Canadians.

Justice

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is currently before the Standing Committee on Justice. The Bloc Québécois is free to make proposals regarding this bill and we invite its members to do so.

We will hear from experts on this issue and we are ready to work with the Bloc Québécois and all parties in the House to ensure, once again, that hate speech has no place in our country.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: Hate speech has no place in Canada. The Minister of Justice has offered to work with the Bloc Québécois on reforms that are before the House as part of Bill C-9.

We are prepared to work with the Bloc Québécois to improve the situation and ensure that hate speech has no place in this country.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I think those of us on this side of the House share the Bloc Québécois leader's concern. Hate speech has no place in Canada. That is why the Minister of Justice introduced amendments in Bill C‑9 specifically to address hate.

In the last Parliament, we introduced a bill on online hate. We will keep working to ensure that hate speech has no place in Canada.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the bill on online hate speech that we introduced during the last Parliament, Bill C-9, which is currently being studied in the House and will be debated in the coming weeks, contains a provision that specifically addresses the issue of hate speech.

The federal government is very proactive on this issue and will continue to be.

Military Justice System Modernization Act

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something I took very much to heart from the hon. member's comments is the Liberal government's failure with regard to the justice system, specifically on bail and sentencing reform.

At the justice committee, we did a bit of math. We noticed that, in the last 557 days, the only two pieces of justice legislation the government brought forward have been the online harms act and Bill C-9. That is it. We have a crisis on the streets of Toronto. The government is not willing to get serious about the crime and chaos on our streets.

Canadian Heritage

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise in this House once again and ask the government a question that it has not been all that forthright in answering: What, precisely, are its plans when it comes to its long-standing desire to censor what Canadians see, say and do on the Internet?

Not that long ago in this House, I asked the Minister of Canadian Identity what he was planning to do. Actually, I asked him if he would cop to the fact that he was the minister tasked with online censorship, given that there seemed to be some doubt and some examples of Liberal ministers clamouring over precisely who got to take up that honour.

I need to give a bit of a history lesson for those who have not been following this. For the last two Parliaments, the Liberals have tried to bring in draconian online censorship bills. They tried it in the 43rd Parliament and failed; they tried it in the 44th Parliament and failed. Now, both the justice minister and the Minister of Canadian Identity have said that this still remains a very live priority.

When it comes to online censorship, the Liberals are saying, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.” What Canadians are saying is to take the loss and sit down. Canadians do not want the government to regulate online speech; they do not trust the government to do it.

We are already seeing with Bill C-9 that the Liberals reduced the threshold of what constitutes hate speech. We have seen them, in that bill, water down a definition that has been working in criminal law in Canada.

Bill C-63 in the most recent Parliament, the online harms act, went far beyond this. Bill C-63 would empower the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute Canadians for saying things that offended people online. The Liberals were bringing back a much maligned and, I am grateful to say, formerly repealed section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, section 13. That is what is at issue when we talk about so-called “online harms.”

I have no doubt that tonight the parliamentary secretary to the minister will talk about all the examples of why this is so necessary, but the reality is that condemnation of the Liberal government's online harms proposals has come from left and right. It has come from civil liberties groups on the left and right, and it has come from Canadian luminaries such as Margaret Atwood, who I do not believe would ever align herself with those of us on this side of the bench, because Canadian free speech advocates, Canadian artists, scholars and journalists all realize the importance of being able to speak one's mind without the government weaponizing a definition of hate to censor what Canadians do.

I bring this up now because when I asked the minister the first time around, he started talking about Google trying to give money to pacify the government when it comes to local journalism initiatives. The minister was mixing up the many online censorship bills the Liberal government has put forward. I realize there have been a lot of them; it is tough to keep on top of them. I was not asking him about Bill C-11, which forced the government to mandate YouTube algorithms and streaming. I was not talking about Bill C-18, which the government used to ultimately pull local news and all journalism off the Facebook and Instagram platforms in Canada. I was talking specifically about online harms, a term that the government uses to cloak what it is doing in something that may make someone who does not pay attention to these issues feel that it is a good thing. In reality, it has no other objective but to reduce what is acceptable and permissible in the bounds of debate and free society.

I am asking the government, once and for all, will it commit to taking its so-called online harms censorship bill out of the playbook and not censor what Canadians say and do online?

An Act Respecting Cyber Security

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has unfortunately been a theme with the current government. It is not just Bill C-8; it is also Bill C-9. It is also Bill C-5 in certain respects. With every problem the Liberals come across, they think the solution is to give themselves more power. They think that if they were to run the telecommunications system, it would be safer. They have been running the Post Office for the last 10 years. They have been running the passport office. I do not see any evidence that putting them in charge of things, like our telecommunications system, makes anyone any safer.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, for his excellent speech.

I am proud of our government, which has proven that it takes public safety seriously with Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, and our upcoming bail reform.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is so important, in the current context, to have a strong legislative framework for cybersecurity.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we were clear during the campaign. We are going to take public safety seriously. Our actions speak for themselves. As soon as Parliament came back this fall, we introduced Bill C-2, the strong borders act. We also introduced Bill C-9 to combat hate crimes.

We will soon be introducing an ambitious bill to reform bail in Canada. We are reviewing this bill seriously and thoroughly to ensure that it complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Implementing hasty measures to amend the Criminal Code is not acting in the interest of public safety; it is merely a short-term publicity stunt. We are seeking to improve public safety in the long term. We owe it to Canadians to take this seriously.

I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will work with us when this bill is introduced and that we will work together to get it passed.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, Canadians across the country asked us to take concrete measures to build a safer Canada. They elected a new Liberal government, and they had a clear and legitimate expectation: reform our bail system, improve public safety and ensure that our communities are safe.

Today, I am speaking to my House of Commons colleagues, but I am also speaking to Canadians, especially those in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, and I want to make one thing clear: Our government intends to deliver on this promise. We are determined to take serious, rigorous, responsible action to ensure that every citizen enjoys the safety they deserve.

These commitments are deeply rooted in our thoughtful, balanced and evidence-based public safety platform. Our Liberal platform states that we intend to: fight gun violence and organized crime by cracking down on smuggling at the border and by equipping police with modern investigative tools; strengthen the bail system to keep repeat violent offenders off the streets, while respecting the charter; support victims of crime by improving services and ensuring that the justice system hears their voices; invest in prevention and community safety, including mental health care, addictions treatment and youth programs that address the underlying causes of crime; and protect Canadians from emerging threats, like human trafficking, cybercrime and increasingly sophisticated organized crime networks.

These are not just promises, however. Concrete actions are already under way. Bill C‑2, the strong borders act, was introduced in the House in June. It will enable us to advance our new government's priorities: ensuring that Canadians are safe, strengthening our borders, combatting transnational organized crime and protecting the integrity of our immigration system. This bill builds on Canada's border plan, which has $1.3 billion in funding. This is the largest investment in border security in the history of this country. I invite my colleagues in the official opposition to work with us to ensure that this bill moves forward to committee stage. A party that claims to care about public safety should certainly want to strengthen security at our borders.

We also introduced Bill C‑9, which will help us fight hate crimes. This bill introduces a series of targeted reforms to the Criminal Code aimed at ensuring safe access to community spaces, denouncing hate crimes, clarifying the legal meaning of the term “hatred” and criminalizing the wilful incitement of hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain symbols of terrorism or hatred in public. This bill is designed to protect the safety and dignity of Canadians, while preserving space for lawful protest and charter-protected freedom of expression.

Our government will also soon introduce ambitious and responsible legislation that will aim to strengthen Canada's bail system to make it harder for repeat violent offenders to get bail, increase penalties for the most serious repeat violent crimes, particularly those related to organized crime, break and enters, auto theft and human trafficking, and address court delays so that serious cases are dealt with quickly and victims are not retraumatized by court backlogs.

I would also like to highlight the collaborative approach that is key to our government's work. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary held a series of consultations across the country. They met with provincial and territorial partners, police chiefs, peace officer associations, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors to hear their concerns, ideas and experiences on the ground. This collaborative approach reflects a core Liberal value.

We understand that the only way to strengthen the justice system is by working hand in hand with those on the front lines. These conversations will continue at the upcoming federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers of justice and public safety in October, where bail reform and community safety will be on the agenda.

We must all recognize that public safety is not just about repressive measures; it is also about prevention and support initiatives that address the root causes of crime.

That is why our government is investing in community programs, mental health services and addiction prevention. These efforts complement our legislative measures and strengthen the resilience of our communities. What is more, by collaborating closely with the provinces, territories and local stakeholders, we are ensuring that our measures are tailored to the specific realities of different parts of the country.

I would also like to note that, despite our willingness to take action, we must ensure that the proposed measures fully respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The motion put forward today by our colleagues in the official opposition does not appear to have benefited from this in-depth reflection. The approach set out in Bill C-242, introduced by the Conservative Party, raises serious constitutional concerns. It would be irresponsible to rush ahead with changes to the Criminal Code without properly reviewing them. I wonder if the bill, which is sponsored by the leader of the official opposition, actually underwent a rigorous legal analysis. Did my opposition colleagues truly take the time to verify whether this bill complies with the requirements of the charter? These are important questions.

Effective public safety requires more than just slogans. If this bill were to be struck down by the courts, it would only increase public frustration, waste time and resources, and, above all, disappoint Canadians.

The Harper government's track record reminds us that an ill-conceived reform can backfire on its own objectives. A number of Criminal Code amendments introduced by the former Conservative government were found to be unconstitutional. As a result, they did not improve public safety. On the contrary, they caused longer court delays and spread doubt and frustration in a certain segment of the public.

We will not make the same mistakes. We need to stay focused on evidence-based reforms and sustained investments in policing and prevention. The Liberal approach centres on a targeted, responsible approach to reform, consistent with the charter, that runs no risk of being immediately struck down by the courts, as seems possible for Conservative opposition's Bill C-242. We have a responsibility to build a robust, balanced and sustainable legislative framework that complies with our Constitution in every way. That is how we intend to keep Canadians safe, not only in the short term but also, and I want to emphasize this, in the long term.

Under our Liberal approach, community safety will also top our list of priorities without sacrificing fairness, basic rights or the effective administration of justice. We believe that we can and must do both: protect the public while respecting our constitutional obligations.

That is why Canadians elected us. They elected us to improve public safety, maintain confidence in the justice system and ensure that violent offenders face real, proportionate and fair consequences.

Today, I invite all parties to set partisan differences aside and work together to build a robust, compassionate and efficient justice system based on evidence and co-operation, not fear and confrontation. Canadians are watching us. They expect results, and they deserve a government that lives up to those expectations.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Every Canadian deserves to be safe in their community and in their own neighbourhood. Whether it is walking home from work at night, taking their children to school, playing at the park or simply opening the doors of a small business, people should not have to worry about violence or repeat offenders undermining their security and safety. The truth is that Canadians are worried. Violent crime is a real issue. Repeat violent offenders are a serious problem. Our government acknowledges this, and we are taking action to address it.

However, the motion before us today suggests that the Conservative proposal is some sort of magical solution to these issues, a single piece of legislation the Conservatives have branded the jail not bail act, another three-word clickbait slogan. They claim that passing this one bill will make Canadians safe. I have heard today and in the past a really unfortunate trend of Conservatives repeatedly politicizing awful, violent crimes to promote their political agenda and raise money. It is disgraceful. Canadians know better and Canadians deserve better. They deserve safety, and that requires more than just slogans. They know it requires real reform.

Let me remind the House of what has already been done. In 2023, our government passed bail reforms that made it harder for violent repeat offenders to be released. These reforms were targeted toward individuals charged with serious violent crimes and firearm crimes. They were supported by premiers. They were supported by police, and they are already in force across Canada today.

We also know this work is not finished. This is why, during the most recent election, our new Liberal government campaigned on and received a strong mandate for further reforms. In our platform, we committed to strengthening bail further. We committed to ensuring that prosecutors have the resources they need to oppose bail where appropriate, and we committed to ensuring that judges have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe while respecting fundamental charter rights. We are delivering on those promises. In this very session, in a few weeks, new measures will be brought forward to strengthen bail laws and tighten federal sentencing guidelines.

Let us look at the broader picture. The Conservatives claim that bail reform alone will solve violent crime, but the reality is that keeping Canadians safe requires work on three fronts: prevention, prosecution and protection. Our government has been clear that on prosecution, we are investing in federal Crown attorneys. Too often, federal Crowns are overloaded, their cases are delayed and dangerous offenders can slip through the cracks. Our government is committed to new funding for federal Crowns so they can prepare stronger cases, challenge inappropriate bail applications and move trials forward without unnecessary delays.

On protection, we are expanding victim services, because Canadians who are harmed by violent crimes need support. Our government is increasing funding so that victims can access counselling, legal assistance and safety planning. This is part of our commitment to a justice system that protects people and also brings criminals to justice.

On prevention, our government has made historic commitments. We are expanding youth programs so that young people have positive opportunities and do not end up in the justice system in the first place. We are investing in mental health and addictions treatment, because untreated illness and addiction are drivers of repeat offences. We are also supporting indigenous justice initiatives, because reconciliation and fairness are also part of public safety.

None one of these measures are mentioned in the Conservative motion. None of these measures fit neatly into a silly three-word bumper sticker, but Canadians know they are essential to safe communities. The Conservatives like to talk about the need for urgency. They say, “Pass this bill today and rush it through.” Let us be clear: Urgency is not the same as effectiveness. Canadians do not want legislation that is rushed, half-considered and ultimately ineffective. They want reforms that work, that last and that withstand the scrutiny of courts and the test of time.

That is what our government is delivering. Our approach is comprehensive. We are reforming bail laws further this session, we are funding federal Crowns and judges to ensure that cases move more effectively, we are investing in victim services and community safety programs, and we are addressing the root causes of crime through youth initiatives, addiction treatment and mental health supports. That is the difference between this government and the opposition. It wants a headline and to divide Canadians for clicks, but we are delivering a real plan. The opposition wants to pretend that there is a silver bullet, but we know that Canadians deserve more than silly three-word slogans.

I want to pause and remind our colleagues of the history. For 10 years, even under a Stephen Harper majority, the Conservatives had the chance to fix this. For 10 years, they could have strengthened bail. For 10 years, they could have funded prosecutors. For 10 years, they could have invested in prevention. They did not. Canadians remember the failures of the Harper years. Now they show up with silly slogans hoping people forget their record. Canadians deserve better than that.

Our new Liberal government was elected with a clear platform, a platform that promised to strengthen bail, support victims, resource prosecutors and invest in prevention. Canadians chose that platform and gave us the mandate to deliver, and that is exactly what we are doing in this session.

Let us acknowledge that crime is a serious problem. Let us commit to keeping repeat violent offenders off the streets. Let us strengthen sentencing for violent crimes and drugs. However, let us also recognize that one bill is not the answer. A safer Canada requires a safer justice system at every level. It requires prevention, prosecution and protection, and that is exactly what our government is delivering.

Our forthcoming legislation on strengthening bail reform and sentencing is part of a broader suite of public safety measures. Bill C-2, the strong borders act, would add 1,000 border security agents and 1,000 new federal RCMP officers. It has additional measures that would give police the tools they need to bring international criminals to justice. It would strengthen our borders to keep U.S. firearms off the streets of our cities.

Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, would add new provisions to protect vulnerable communities from targeted hate at places of worship and community centres. It would also classify as a hate crime the use of terrorist symbols such as those of Hamas and Hezbollah, which are sometimes used to promote hate.

I want to take a moment to reflect on my record as a municipal councillor for the City of Hamilton, Canada's eighth-largest city, where I worked closely with law enforcement partners at the Hamilton Police Service. I want to thank the chief of police and the senior leadership team in Hamilton for their invaluable insight and leadership. I have been through the defund the police nonsense, I have been through the activist efforts to decriminalize drugs like fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamines, and I have been through the activist efforts to allow homeless tent encampments in city parks, and it is clear that public opinion has shifted on those failed ideas.

In Hamilton right now, gun crime, youth and gang violence, property crime associated with tent encampments, and public drug use are all top of mind for residents in my riding. These are all issues that require solutions beyond the federal level. Of course, federal legislation is required that sets responsible federal law on bail and sentencing, and we need to ensure that police have the tools necessary to bring criminals to justice, but that also requires the provinces to do their part. The provinces are responsible for provincial superior courts, for appointing and training justices of the peace and for funding and regulating municipalities. Municipalities have a duty to ensure that police have the tools and resources they need to uphold public safety, and even local school boards have a responsibility to make sure they work collaboratively with police to ensure that youth have an opportunity for positive interactions with police as part of the public education system.

In closing, it is clear that there is work to be done on bail reform and sentencing at the federal level. Our government is committed to making those changes, along with wider initiatives, in order to improve public safety across Canada.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Les Pays-d'en-Haut. It is a pleasure to rise to debate the opposition motion before us, and I will talk particularly about the narrative it tries to present.

The motion suggests that the Liberal government proposed criminal justice reform in the last six months and has failed to act. However, the reality tells a very different story. Just last month, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted amendments to the Criminal Code to address hate-motivated offences. The legislation successfully passed second reading yesterday and is now moving to committee for detailed study and consideration.

The Minister of Justice worked tirelessly over the summer to find ways to strengthen and modernize our criminal justice system. He held consultations with his provincial and territorial counterparts as well as police forces, chiefs of police and their associations to ensure that any reform introduced is practical, evidence-based and truly tailored to the needs of Canadians. That is how responsible reform happens: through meticulous study, collaboration and expert advice.

Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was far more preoccupied with his political future than any real public policy work. He spent his summer chasing after a second chance as a candidate parachuted into an Alberta by-election following his resounding defeat at the polls by voters from across the country in the last election, including voters from his former riding of Carleton. Still, he shows no signs of having learned from that experience. Instead of focusing on measures capable of truly improving public safety, he keeps proposing reckless initiatives based on political calculation, putting optics before real solutions to protect Canadians.

Canadians deserve more than slogans and political theatre. They deserve a government that listens, engages experts and acts decisively to make communities safer. That is exactly what the government is doing through legislation that addresses urgent issues while respecting the principles of justice and fairness. That is why the federal government has taken important steps to reform the bail system in recent years.

In 2023, former Bill C-48 made meaningful changes to strengthen the bail system in response to concerns about efficiency and repeat offending. For example, it created a reverse onus to target serious repeat violent offences involving weapons. It expanded the list of firearms that trigger a reverse onus at bail. It also broadened the reverse onus, targeting repeat offenders in cases of intimate partner violence.

These changes made it more difficult for accused persons to obtain bail when they are charged with serious repeat violent offending. These changes were not the result of partisan initiatives. They reflected a broad collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and legal experts. Every step was guided by data, evidence and consultation with those working on the front lines of criminal justice.

Despite these reforms, we understand that Canadians remain concerned about repeat and violent offending. That is why, as set out in the government's 2025 electoral platform and reaffirmed at the first ministers' meeting in June, the government will introduce legislation this fall to further strengthen both bail and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

Our federal government committed to establishing a reverse onus for a range of serious crimes, in particular violent car theft, car theft for a criminal organization, home invasion, and human trafficking and smuggling, in order to make it much harder to get bail in these circumstances.

Our government also committed to amending the Criminal Code to direct courts to primarily consider denunciation and deterrence when sentencing repeat car thieves or home invasion offenders. Other commitments included broadening the possibility of consecutive sentencing for car theft with violence or car theft involving a criminal organization.

These are concrete measures aimed at addressing repeat and violent offending throughout the criminal justice process. They represent an approach that is strategic, evidence-driven and focused on protecting public safety without sacrificing the rights and fairness that are foundational to the justice system.

We also know that reform cannot happen in isolation. The operation of the bail system is a shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While the federal government sets the legal framework, the provinces and territories manage day-to-day operations, including court and jail administration. Strengthening the law at the federal level must therefore be complemented by effective enforcement, resources and oversight at the provincial level. Without this coordination, even the best legislation would not achieve meaningful change.

Data and evidence also play a crucial role. Provinces and territories collect the data necessary to evaluate how bail laws are functioning, identify gaps and implement improvements. Better data allows government to track outcomes, assess risks and ensure that measures designed to protect public safety are actually working. This is why our government continues to work closely with partners across the nation to improve data collection, transparency and reporting in the criminal justice system.

Public safety is built through thoughtful policy, strong partnerships and sustained action. It is not achieved with slogans and partisanship. It is built when governments work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, trauma, mental health issues and housing insecurity, and when individuals get the support they need to rebuild their lives.

Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as a sentencing regime that holds offenders accountable while promoting reintegration.

Our government is delivering on that promise. We are not acting hastily or out of political expediency. We are consulting experts, collaborating with our provincial counterparts and developing laws that work in practice. We are introducing legislation to ensure that violent repeat offenders face appropriate consequences, that the courts have the tools they need to protect public safety and that the justice system works effectively and fairly for all Canadians.

In conclusion, Canadians expect a government that acts responsibly, listens to experts and delivers results. That is what we are doing with our criminal justice reform agenda. We have introduced Bill C-9 to fight hate crime. We strengthened the bail system through former Bill C-48, and we are now preparing additional measures this fall to further address repeat and violent offending.

This is not about political games or empty slogans. It is about real action, public safety and justice. That is exactly the approach Canadians elected this government to take.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “hate”, but let us realize that fundraising plays a critical role in why the Conservative Party takes the position it takes. It is all about raising money. Let me give a good example.

Here are four emails. These are all emails that the Conservative Party has sent out to literally thousands and thousands of people. Every one of these emails actually has a link to donate to the Conservative Party. One says, “More criminals loose on the streets to terrorize our people.” Another one says, “Criminals are WREAKING HAVOC across our country.” The third one says, “The cause of this VIOLENT uptick in crime? The Liberals' radical catch-and-release policies.” The fourth email says, “Crime is out of control — and it's only going to get worse”.

These Conservative fundraising emails are circulating for one purpose, to raise money. Is it any wonder I make the statement that the Conservative Party uses the issue of crime and safety as a mechanism to fill its political coffers? That is the reality.

At the end of the day, if we want to look at how to serve Canadians on the crime file, it is first and foremost to reflect, as we have as a new government, as the Prime Minister has in the commitment to bail reform, on what it is Canadians are telling us. We are prepared to accept judgment when the time is right, when we have the bail reform legislation before us.

However, let me warn my Conservative friends across the way that there is other legislation before the House that would make our communities safer, that would provide more support for our law enforcement officers and our border control officers. The Conservatives have yet to pass that legislation. I am referring to Bill C-2. Bill C-2 is substantial legislation. With the very limited amount of time that the House has for debate, the Conservatives continue to talk that legislation out. Bill C-2 would make a difference. It would make our communities safer. If the Conservatives really and truly are genuine in wanting to make our streets safer, why are they holding up the bill at second reading?

In fact, the motion we are talking about today is about how we could speed up a private member's bill. It is not the first time. The member who stood up on the point of order spoke about his private member's bill, Bill C-225, an act to amend the Criminal Code. He said, “This bill is a monumental change.” He continued, “I ask that the House streamline the passing of this bill as quickly as possible.” That is a programmed bill. It gets two hours of debate at second reading. Bill C-2 has already had 18 hours of debate. After two hours, his bill gets to go to committee, yet he is asking us to speed it up even more, just as we saw here today on another private member's bill.

The work involved in getting legislation before the House needs to be respected. Oh, how the Conservatives cry if the government applies a bit of pressure or attempts to shame them into doing the right thing, to be there for Canadians by passing legislation. When it comes to their legislation, democracy goes out the door. That is what I witness. If members challenge what I am saying, I invite them to have me go to a public meeting at a university.

Let us see if we can bring in some independent individuals who would take a look at the arguments the Conservatives have. I would take no issue at all. Ideally it would be in Winnipeg North, but I can be flexible; it could be in Ottawa. Including with the member opposite, I would welcome the opportunity to have a good, healthy debate in Ottawa, although we cannot be sitting in session, in terms of the hours. Outside of the hours, I am sure we can arrange something. The bottom line is that the Conservatives apply a double standard.

Here is the reason I raise this: We know that Canadians are genuinely concerned about crime and safety in their communities. We know that for a fact. We understand that there needs to be bail reform. There needs to be tougher penalties for repeat violent offenders. Canadians elected the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on a platform of reforming the bail system. We are, in fact, committed to working together to ensure that we can make stronger laws and have safer communities.

In these five to six months, we have put into place legislative measures and budgetary measures from a commitment to increase RCMP officers by hundreds and do the same thing in terms of border control. There has been extensive consultation, and I think there is a responsibility for all members of Parliament, no matter what side of the House they are on, to recognize the agenda before us and to come down and talk about how we can achieve what all of us say we want to see: safer communities and individuals who are committing these crimes, especially repeat offenders, being held to account.

These are all important things, but it is also important for us to recognize that the federal government plays a significant role that we are living up to. When I think of our judicial system, it is not just Ottawa. There are provincial governments and, arguably, municipal governments that also have a significant role to play. We know that. The last time I was speaking on a very similar issue, I referred to the need for more Crown prosecutors. I cited a story in the Winnipeg Free Press from September 9, an editorial. It amplified and tried to say that the province was at fault because of the issue of Crown attorneys.

Members can go ahead and look up the story to read it for themselves. I will read one line from it. The bottom line is this:

The cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of investment. Failing to fund the Crown’s office means risking collapsed trials, emboldened criminals and disillusioned victims. It means communities losing confidence in the courts’ ability to protect them.

This is something that reflects on provincial governments. Municipal governments provide law enforcement officers. To not recognize that law enforcement officers play a role or that provinces play a role is irresponsible. At the end of the day, it is a shared responsibility. Ottawa needs to do its job, and the Prime Minister and the new government that were elected just last April are doing the job that Canadians want us to do on this critically important issue. That is why we see bills like Bill C-2 for our borders, Bill C-9 for hate or the bail reform legislation, which is going to be coming down very shortly.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that those questions did not make the top 40 of the ones they wanted to ask today. Of course, the Prime Minister and ministers are in regular contact with our friends and neighbours in the United States. We will be advocating for Canadian workers and Canadian jobs.

In terms of criminal justice legislation, the member well knows that, right now, he could stand up and ask for unanimous consent on a very tough border bill that would help the government get tough on crime. This week, we had the chance to vote on Bill C-9 and move it through the legislative process.

The member need not fret. Legislation is going to be coming fast and furious, and the Conservatives will have a decision to make whether they want to support constitutional bail reform concocted with provinces and territories, victims associations and all manner of other stakeholders, or will they keep grandstanding in the way that they do? In the meantime, we have a very interesting week coming up.

Today, we are concluding debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

Next Monday, we will consider second reading of Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act. We will continue with this debate on Wednesday. On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. Thursday, October 9, shall be an allotted day.

Justice

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, cases like this one are exactly the reason we are taking the action that we are. With Bill C-9, we made murder-motivated hate crimes a constructive first-degree offence. I want to thank the Conservatives for allowing that bill to go to committee. Bill C-9 would create more hate-related crime offences in the Criminal Code, with tougher penalties.

Bill C-2 brings tough-on-crime legislation as well. I am afraid that the Conservatives think it is too tough and have not been—

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-242

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Absolutely, I do. Mr. Speaker, I take offence to the very nature of that notion. The fact that individuals are suggesting any member of this Parliament would prefer not to put a criminal in jail is offensive in its own right. There are laws that are in place. There are laws that have been in place all along. We have to enforce the law. These changes were not the result of partisan initiatives. They were reflected by broad collaboration with provinces, territories, law enforcement and legal experts. Every step was guided by data, by evidence, by consultation with those working on the front lines of criminal justice.

Despite these reforms, we understand that Canadians remain concerned about repeat offences and violent offences. This is why the government will introduce legislation this fall to further strengthen bail and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.

The federal government has committed to establishing reverse onuses for a range of serious crimes, including violent and organized crime-related auto theft, home invasions, human trafficking and human smuggling, to make bail more onerous to obtain in these circumstances. There is also a commitment to amending the Criminal Code to direct courts to give primary considerations to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a fit sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions for auto thefts or home invasions. Further commitments include expanding the possibility of consecutive sentences in violent or organized crime-related auto theft cases.

These are concrete measures aimed at addressing repeat and violent offending throughout the criminal justice process. They represent an approach that is strategic, evidence-based and evidence driven, and focused on protecting public safety without sacrificing the rights and fairness that are the foundational aspects of our judicial system.

We also know that reform cannot happen in isolation. The operation of the bail system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial and territorial governments, as I have already stated. While the federal government sets the legal framework, the provinces and territories manage the day-to-day operations, including court and jail administration. Strengthening the law at the federal level must therefore be complemented by effective enforcement resources and oversight at the provincial level, and without this coordination, even the best legislation would not achieve meaningful change.

Data and evidence also play a crucial role. Provinces and territories collect the data necessary to evaluate how bail laws are functioning, identify gaps and implement improvements. Better data always allows government to track outcomes, assess risks and ensure that measures designed to protect public safety are actually working. That is why our government continues to work closely with partners across the country to improve data collection, transparency and reporting in the criminal justice system.

Public safety is built through careful policy, strong partnerships and sustained action. It is not achieved through slogans and partisan posturing. It is built when governments work together to address the root causes of crime, including poverty, trauma, mental health issues and housing insecurity, as well as individuals not being given the support they need to rebuild their lives. Canadians deserve a bail system that protects communities while respecting rights, as well as sentencing systems that hold offenders accountable while promoting rehabilitation.

This government is delivering on that promise. We are not acting in haste or based on politics; we are consulting with experts, collaborating with provincial counterparts and building laws that work in practice. We are introducing legislation to ensure that repeat offenders face appropriate consequences, that courts have the tools to protect public safety and that the justice system functions efficiently and fairly for all Canadians.

In conclusion, Canadians expect a government that acts responsibly, listens to experts and delivers results. That is what we are doing with our justice reform agenda. We have introduced Bill C-9 to fight hate crime; we strengthened the bail system through Bill C-48, and we are preparing additional measures this fall to further address repeat and violent offences. That is not about political games or empty slogans; it is about real action, public safety and justice, and that is exactly the approach Canadians elected this government to take.

Laws exist, and we need to enforce them.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud representative of Mississauga—Lakeshore, and I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Signal Hill.

As I rise to debate the opposition motion before us, I want to talk particularly about its narrative and the appropriate steps moving forward. My community, like many communities, is concerned. We have a number of town halls. We have talk groups. We have ongoing discussions with Peel police. We understand the dilemmas that are before us, and we recognize the concerns our neighbours face. They are concerned about guns, home invasions and auto thefts. These things have become an issue of concern across the country. However, there is also a blame game that seems to be going on. Oftentimes, it deflects responsibility. We are all responsible for ensuring that our communities are safe, at the federal level, at the provincial level and at the municipal level, and even with some of the organizations and associations that are engaged. It is appropriate for us to have this ongoing debate and discussion. I welcome the fact that it is a non-partisan issue.

There is organized crime. We have been in meetings with the RCMP, border security, international agencies and the police to ensure that organized crime is addressed. Organized criminals are perpetrating some of these criminal acts; they are engaging with our young people, who are victimized themselves by being sourced in order to do these criminal acts. This is why, just last month, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, to address hate-motivated offences. This legislation successfully passed second reading yesterday, and it is now moving to committee for detailed study and consideration.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice engaged in consultations with provincial and territorial counterparts, law enforcement agencies, police chiefs and associations to ensure that any reforms are practical, evidence-based and responsive to the needs of Canadians. This is how responsible reform happens, through careful study, collaboration and expert guidance.

Meanwhile, the Conservative leader, who was preoccupied with keeping his job, has torqued the rhetoric, which is very partisan in its nature. While seeking his parachute return to the House after being resoundingly rejected by his constituents, he has now been more concerned for himself than for the public safety measures we are talking about. lnstead of focusing on measures that truly improve public safety, he continues to advance reckless, politically motivated proposals, prioritizing appearances over solutions that actually protect Canadians.

Canadians deserve more than slogans and political theatre. They deserve government that listens, engages with experts and acts decisively to make communities safer. That is exactly what this government is doing, through legislation that addresses urgent issues while respecting the principles of justice and fairness. This is why the federal government has taken important steps to reform the bail system in recent years. ln 2023, former Bill C-48 made meaningful changes to strengthen the bail system in response to concerns about efficiency and repeat offences.

For example, Bill C-48 created a reverse onus to target serious repeat offending involving weapons, and it expanded the list of firearms that trigger a reverse onus at bail. It also broadened the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders in cases of intimate partner violence. These changes made it more difficult for accused persons to obtain bail when they are charged with serious repeat offences.

All of us want to keep criminals in jail. All of us—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion. Public safety and our bail and sentencing laws play a critical role in the criminal justice system. These are some of the most important laws that are supposed to ensure not only that justice is served but also that Canadians are safe in their communities.

Over the past years, Canadians have raised legitimate concerns about violent crime and repeat offending. These concerns are real, and our government is working hard with law enforcement, Crown attorneys and other levels of government across this country to act on them. It is encouraging to see alignment between the Conservative opposition and the newly elected Liberal government when it comes to improving public safety, including through the adoption of stronger laws to build safer communities.

I have good news for my colleagues. The Minister of Justice will be introducing legislation during this parliamentary session to comprehensively change parts of the Criminal Code and other aspects of the criminal justice system. These comprehensive changes would strengthen bail reform in this country, to have harsher, longer sanctions for violent offenders and to make sure we have the support to help keep communities safe with direct investments in law enforcement.

As set out in our 2025 electoral platform, our government is committed to strengthening the Criminal Code bail provisions to make it onerous to obtain bail for those charged with violent or organized crime related to auto theft, home invasion, trafficking in persons, human smuggling and drug trafficking. Our government is also committed to adding a requirement for courts to impose a firearms or weapons prohibition when granting bail to anyone charged with an organized crime-related offence.

Our government has committed to reforming Canada's sentencing regime to better address repeat and violent offending. More specifically, the 2025 electoral platform includes commitments to change the law to direct courts to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when determining a sentence for anyone who has numerous convictions. That means courts would have to primarily consider a sentence that would deter repeat offenders. It includes commitments to broaden sentencing tools by allowing consecutive sentences for violent or organized crime-related auto theft.

The Prime Minister followed up on these electoral commitments when he agreed to strengthen the Criminal Code bail and sentencing laws during the June 2 first ministers meeting. Later that month, the Minister of Justice also announced publicly that bail and sentencing reforms will be forthcoming this fall to address growing concerns of repeat and violent offending at all stages of the criminal justice process. Over the summer, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety and I undertook significant engagement with the provinces and territories, law enforcement and legal stakeholders alike to inform and develop these reforms.

Now, although looking to future solutions is important, it is equally important to look to the past and to properly understand our criminal justice system and the current state of the law. For example, despite a persistent narrative that former Bill C-75 was soft on crime, I want to highlight that it explicitly strengthened the Criminal Code bail provisions as they relate to intimate partner violence. Former Bill C-75 made it more onerous for individuals previously convicted of intimate partner violence to obtain bail. This change was based on research suggesting that victims of intimate partner violence face a higher risk of violence from their intimate partners after charges are laid. This was a critical step in recognizing the unique risks posed by repeat offenders in intimate partner violence cases and in ensuring that survivors are protected.

More recently, in 2023, Parliament unanimously enacted former Bill C-48 in response to a new and pressing challenge: growing concerns about repeat violent offending involving firearms and other weapons at the bail stage. The former Bill C-48 amendments were not developed in isolation. They too were the result of extensive collaboration with the provinces and territories. They also responded directly to calls for reform from premiers across the country.

Among other changes, former Bill C-75 created a reverse onus at bail to better address the heightened public safety risks posed by those accused of repeat violent offending with firearms and other weapons. That meant that violent offenders with firearms now had to prove they deserve bail, as opposed to the previous process through which the Crown was having to prove why someone should not receive bail.

This presented a significant change that reflected the seriousness of this type of offending and the need to ensure that the courts would turn their minds to the unique public safety risks that those charged with this type of offending might present. Former Bill C-48 also strengthened the intimate partner violence reverse onus. The bill expanded the reverse onus to also apply to anyone who had been previously discharged, and not just those convicted, of an offence involving intimate partner violence.

Before moving on to what the government has committed to doing, I want to address another area of criminal law that generates significant commentary: conditional sentence orders, or CSOs. A CSO is a sentence that allows an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in the community under certain conditions. They are only available when the sentence is less than two years and when the court determines that it does not pose a risk to public safety or conflict with sentencing principles. CSOs cannot be imposed for offences that involve mandatory minimums, terrorism, criminal organization offences with indictable minimums of 10 years or more, advocating genocide, torture or attempted murder.

The current CSO rules stem from former Bill C-5, which was presented in 2022. This bill strictly made mention that courts may only impose CSOs when consistent with community safety and sentencing principles. CSOs must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's responsibility, and provide adequate denunciation and deterrent. The government has heard concerns that CSOs have been increasingly used for sexual offences in some lower courts. Even though appellate courts hold that they rarely represent proportionate sentences, our government continues to monitor the impacts of former Bill C-5 and will consider further refinements to ensure community safety and public confidence.

As crime evolves, so must our laws. This is why the Minister of Justice will be advancing additional bail and sentencing reforms this fall.

I would now like to turn to an aspect of our bail system that often gets overlooked, and that is the matter of shared responsibility between federal and provincial and territorial governments. While federal legislation sets the laws governing bail, the effectiveness of our bail system depends largely on how it is administered. Provinces are responsible for appointing provincial judges and judges who conduct most bail hearings, who are in some provinces are called justices of the peace; overseeing the operation of police services, which are responsible for supervising individuals who are released on bail; and enforcing any conditions of release.

Provincial investments in community-based supports and supervision programs to reduce the risk of reoffending at the bail stage are also critical to ensuring that our bail system works as intended. Provinces and territories also hold the key to improving our understanding of bail outcomes. Right now, the provinces do not keep the bail data needed to ascertain whether our bail system is failing. Provincial leadership in improving data collection, and reporting is necessary to ensure effective evidence-based law reform at the federal level. It is an issue that I have brought up with every provincial representative I have met. Bail data will be crucial in understanding the fight against the cracks in our bail system.

In my speech so far, I have addressed several areas where reverse onuses have been imposed, such as cases involving firearm-related offences. We have yet to know whether that has had a positive impact or not. I fear, as we continue to make other reforms, that perhaps we may not understand fully whether they are having the impact Parliament intends.

Further to that, the provinces administer the bail courts. Earlier this year, Brampton mayor Patrick Brown, on behalf of Ontario's Big City Mayors, wrote a letter to the Province of Ontario sounding the alarm on cases being withdrawn, discharged or dismissed. It was almost over 50% of cases. This is shocking.

Highlighting the need for more Crown attorneys to try these cases more quickly, more judges to hear them and more spaces in jails to put criminals away is crucial. Comprehensive criminal justice reform must include all levels of government coming to the table and doing their part. We are ready to do our part and to work with the provinces and territories that are ready to do theirs.

The changes I mentioned will help with our immediate issues, but if we are serious about reducing crime and seeing improvements of public safety, we must look beyond our criminal law system as well. Public safety begins with prevention. It requires supporting our youth, investing in communities and addressing the social conditions, including poverty, addiction, mental health and housing. Bail reform is but one piece of the complex puzzle. Lasting change requires a broader commitment to equity, opportunity and support.

All orders of government must work together to build an effective justice system that distinguishes between those who pose a genuine risk and those who can be safely managed in the community. People in Canada deserve a justice system that protects them all. They deserve laws that are clear, consistent and effective. They also deserve a justice system that works and that is firm but fair. They also deserve a government that listens, responds and acts, and we will do exactly that.

I also want to make mention of the opposition finally showing a shred of common sense, though it is long overdue. In Bill C-242, which is mentioned in today's motion, the Conservatives quietly removed the reckless American-style, far right, three-strike scheme they ran on in the last election. Empty slogans based on sporting rules will not foster a robust criminal system and keep Canadians safe. Canadians deserve real solutions that are guided by working collaboratively with law enforcement, attorneys and other levels of government. That is exactly what our comprehensive bill would do.

I pause here to comment on the way this motion is drafted. It claims that the Liberal government promised to pass criminal justice reform six months ago but has failed to do so. That is strange. Just last week, we introduced Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which includes targeted Criminal Code provisions to address hate crimes, which are on the rise. The bill passed second reading yesterday evening on a deferred division and is now heading to committee for further study.

Over the summer, the Minister of Justice has been hard at work studying ways to improve our laws by consulting closely with his provincial counterparts, law enforcement, police chiefs and police associations. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader was busy fighting for his own job and then parachuted into Alberta, after being catastrophically rejected by Canadians across the country and in his own former riding of Carleton. However, it seems he has not learned any lessons from that rejection. He continues to act recklessly, prioritizing political posturing over meaningful, evidence-based criminal justice reform.

Let us reject slogans and oversimplifications. Slogans such as “jail not bail” may sound tough, but they do not get us any closer to solving the problem. Real solutions require real work. They involve strengthening laws, improving enforcement, investing in data, devoting resources to addressing the root cause of crime and ultimately building a justice system that works for everyone.

Let us embrace real solutions that are evidence-based, collaborative and grounded in the values of fairness and accountability. That is the path forward. That is the commitment of the government. That is what Canadians deserve and expect.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with a lot of what the member says, minus a lot of exaggeration and some oversimplification at times. We are bringing forward legislation that is going to reform the bail process. We have also brought forward other, smaller bills, wherein a lot of the work was already complete. Our strong borders act, Bill C-2, was the second piece of legislation we brought into the House, and Bill C-9, hate crime, is what we have before us. In a few weeks, we will have the bail reform as well. We are hard at work on this.

I would like to know, from the member, whether he is going to support Bill C-2, because what I have heard from a lot of the Conservatives is that they are in opposition to what law enforcement has asked for.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague of my great affection for the Thursday question and our weekly rendezvous. I appreciate that.

As the member well knows, we have made a strong and firm commitment to bring in legislation this session to reform bail. The member opposite might be careful of what he asks for, because he will have the opportunity to vote for strong, crime-fighting Liberal legislation in the House. We will be absolutely and earnestly seeking his support and that of his colleagues.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the Conservative Party's opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will begin the debate at second reading on Bill C-8, the critical cyber systems protection act.

As all hon. members are aware, the House will stand adjourned on Monday and Tuesday of next week to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Upon our return on Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Thursday of next week shall be an allotted day.

Justice

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

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?