Debates of Dec. 4th, 2025

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

École Polytechnique de Montréal

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago our country was irrevocably shaken by a horrific act of gender-based violence. On December 6, 1989, a gunman entered École Polytechnique in Montreal, forced women and men apart, and then launched a violent shooting, murdering 14 young women and injuring 13 others, solely because they were women.

As we mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, we recognize and mourn the young women whose lives were stolen at École Polytechnique by an act of misogynistic hate that changed us all forever. We remember Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

These brilliant women were daughters, sisters and friends, and they were students with bright futures, potential and dreams that were never given the chance to be realized. Thirty-six years later, their impact endures. Their stories continue to be felt in every corner of Canada, reminding us not only of the devastating cost of gender-based violence but also of our collective responsibility to confront it.

Of course, we honour the story and courage of our fellow colleague, the Secretary of State for Nature, who survived this horrific act and since then has dedicated herself to advocacy and public service. This is very personal to me as well, since I too was an engineering student.

In Canada, a woman or girl is killed in an act of gender-based violence every 48 hours. That is 240 women and girls murdered in 2024. Most of these gender-related murders were committed by men they knew, an intimate partner or a family member. I too know what this is like, since I lost a cousin to gender-based violence. She was brutally murdered and stabbed 85 times with a kitchen knife and was found by another of my cousins.

The toll of gender-based violence extends far beyond tragic deaths. Survivors face physical, emotional and financial harm that can last a lifetime. Families and communities are left to cope with trauma and loss, and society bears the costs of health care, social services and the justice system. Indigenous women, women of colour, women with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals face these dangers at disproportionately higher rates. All too often, when they do come forward, they are not believed and they continue to face barriers to justice.

Gender-based violence is not just a personal tragedy. It is a social crisis that weakens the very fabric of our communities. That is why we must do more than just remember.

We must act. We must create a Canada where every woman and girl can live free from fear, where their potential is never limited by violence and where justice is real and immediate. That is what we owe to every woman and girl in this country, like my cousin. To build a safe and prosperous society, we must continue to work together at all levels of government to end gender-based violence.

This work includes implementing the national action plan to end gender-based violence, through which we have invested over half a billion dollars to prevent violence, support survivors and strengthen community-based organizations on the ground to ensure that they are responding to gender-based violence in a timely manner. The plan provides targeted funding and resources to address the unique needs of survivors, including indigenous women and girls, racialized communities, and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities as well. It supports programs that prevent violence before it occurs. It helps survivors access the services they need.

Through these coordinated efforts, we are taking meaningful steps to create a Canada where every woman and girl can live free from fear and reach their full potential. Prevention is only part of the equation; survivors must also be able to rely on a justice system that is fair, accessible and trauma-informed. That is why we will take steps to further protect victims of intimate partner violence, ensuring that survivors are supported and not revictimized when they seek justice.

There is always more work to be done. We will continue to support survivors, remove barriers in the justice system and build a Canada where safety, dignity and justice are not privileges but guaranteed rights for all women and girls.

By working hand in hand with survivors, advocates and communities, we, and that is all members of the chamber, can build a future where every woman and girl can live free from fear. Ending gender-based violence requires all of us, united in a belief that every woman deserves safety, dignity and the ability to thrive. I think about my daughter Cassidy, who is 10 years old, every single day while I stand here in the chamber.

Therefore, as we reflect on that shared responsibility, let us carry the names of these 14 women forward as a reminder of what we must never give up and why our commitment to ending gender-based violence must remain unchanging.

We honour the women who came before us whose courage, stories and lived experience created the space for these conversations to exist, survivors whose voices shifted public attitudes and broke barriers. We remember the lives that were cut short, the stories that were never told and the survivors who, out of fear, have not yet spoken, as well as those who are still waiting for a safe moment to do so.

Gender-based violence is not a chapter of our past; it is a persistent and pervasive reality in Canada. It remains woven into the story of our country, and it demands urgent action.

Therefore, today we recommit ourselves to this work. We stand with survivors. We honour their strength and ensure that their voices and stories are never forgotten, but championed, as we continue to fight for change, equality and justice.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Like all members of the House, I am very sorry and shocked to hear that. I was not personally aware of the tragedy the hon. member's family has suffered. The trauma, I am sure, continues to haunt the family.

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit difficult to rise to speak after listening to such a heartbreaking and personal account. What we heard from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality this morning was a cry from the heart. It is essentially an appeal to us to work together, to make sure that we live in a society, a country, a city, a town where every person is respected for who he or she is, with his or her own unique strengths, weaknesses, values and beliefs, regardless of sex. That is in part what we heard from the minister this morning.

She also spoke to us about our shared responsibility. That is absolutely true. We will get there only if we work hand in hand, whether we are in government in Ottawa, in Quebec City, in Alberta or somewhere else. This morning, I hope that Canadians were able to see how connected we can be. We may sit on opposite sides of the House, but beyond that, we are men and women. Women stand up for each other and must support one another because, as I was saying at committee this week, right now is a terrible time for women.

It is not easy. Violence against women is on the rise. The rate of violence is not slowing down or stopping. It is going up, and I see this clearly as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, along with my Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues. We have conducted nine studies in four years and have issued recommendations to strengthen women's safety. Why? It is because the situation is not improving.

Today is the day we set aside to commemorate a past event that is difficult to revisit. It is difficult for me to speak about it here today. It is difficult for the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. It is difficult for our colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who was at École Polytechnique in Montreal on the evening of December 6, 1989, when a young man walked in, armed to the teeth. He separated the men from the women. The men were spared.

This was a shocking femicide: Fourteen women lost their lives that night, and for what? It was primarily because they were women. The young man in question was angry because these women were studying for a career in engineering which, at the time, was viewed predominantly as a career for men. In this House, we are fortunate to have among our colleagues the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who is, I believe, the first female engineer to be elected to Parliament.

That act of violence took place 36 years ago, and we are still talking about it today. Unfortunately, I think we will be talking about it next year and the one after that, since the situation is not currently improving. I remember that event, because I was the same age as those women. I was at university when it happened. At that age, namely, 21, 22 or 23 years old, we were thinking about the future. Life was good. We were studying; the holidays were approaching; the excitement was palpable; studies were drawing to a close, and we had our lives ahead of us. For me, life continued. For those 14 women, life was brutally stopped that night. Other women were also injured that night, and families were broken forever. As I said last week when we were commemorating the start of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, what happened on December 6, 1989, is deeply painful for Quebeckers and Canadians to remember.

I will say the names of the women who were murdered that day so we never forget who they were: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Their future was cut short because one day, a man decided they were unwanted, especially in a field like engineering.

In Canada, a woman is murdered every 48 hours. Last year, 240 women and girls lost their lives just because they were women and girls. The numbers keep going up. According to a statement by the Minister of Justice in a recent press release, violent crime in Canada is up 41% since 2015. Canadian police forces report a 39% increase in domestic violence and a 76% increase in sexual assaults. How can we accept that?

Quebec has recorded around 15 cases of femicide since the beginning of the year. This figure varies depending on definitions. Why do my sisters and I have to be afraid when we go out at night? It is not normal for us to live in a constant state of hypervigilance. On top of that, if we cannot go to work or go to school without wondering whether something is going to happen to us, that means we are living in a very sick society. We must do something about that.

However, there is some good news. There was a great show of solidarity on Parliament Hill yesterday when parliamentarians from all parties stood together. In the past few weeks, our colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which seeks to strengthen safety for women who are caught in situations of intimate partner violence. The bill was supported by all members of the House. We should be proud of the wonderful moments of humanity we shared this morning, with heartfelt testimonies, including from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality, and of the vote on a private member's bill that took place yesterday. This is not a government bill. It is a private member's bill. I think we can be extremely proud of that.

In fact, this law that was passed yesterday is going to be called Bailey's law. Everyone remembers the story of this woman who was murdered by an ex-partner who had previously been convicted. There were warning signs that this was coming. We will also remember Ms. Renaud, who recently suffered a similar fate in Quebec.

I want to acknowledge the families of our sisters who were gunned down on December 6, 1989. I want us all to remember that we are greatly responsible for each other's safety and, given the circumstances, for the safety of women in particular. Many of us have daughters, wives and mothers. We must make sure women are protected.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to the minister on her cousin's death, her cousin's femicide, if I understood correctly.

We will never forget these women: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of us carry their names with us. We accept the responsibility that comes with remembering them.

I see before us their friend and colleague, who is now an MP. Although she and I do not always agree, she knows that we share the same aspirations for women. She knows that we are allies in the fight that she has been waging for over 30 years. After all these years, the women who were taken from us on December 6, 1989, continue to unite Quebeckers who want to see an end to misogyny and violence against women. They have become our guiding light when we no longer know which way to turn.

We have made some progress on their behalf. Despite their memory, we have suffered some setbacks and bitter defeats, but we are staying the course. We think of them when we see women in Quebec succeed. We think about the path that these pioneers chose to take, and we see other young women taking that same path. We are so proud, as we know they would have been. We can only be grateful to them.

However, they need to know that things are far from perfect. They need to know that their memory also instills in us a duty to be outraged, perhaps too often. We are outraged, and we still rise up in anger today on their behalf.

When the firearms registry is abolished; when the assault-style weapon buyback program is met with ire; when one, ten, a thousand women are murdered because they are women; when our sisters are beaten, raped, assaulted, bruised and broken because they are women; when some give up and stop fighting; when some remain impassive in the face of violence against women; when the word “feminist” is rejected as though it has a pejorative connotation; when people move on to other matters and grow tired of hearing about these women; when their names are eroded by time and indifference, then, yes, of course we rise up, indignant.

Their names are forever etched on our hearts, and those same hearts are filled with anger. However, it is not the kind of anger that immobilizes us; it has been driving us to action for 36 years. It awakens our senses and pushes us to act.

These women, like me, understand human nature, and they know, as I do, that we will never be able to completely eradicate violence.

We are striving to contain limit it. We can restrict it, constrain it, condemn it. We can all work together to make women's lives safer, more pleasant, more beautiful. A woman who knows she is in danger is not a free woman. The fight we are waging for them and on their behalf is the fight for women's liberation.

This fight is not over. We are keeping up the fight for them too: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

We will not forget these girls. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of us carry their names with us. Thousands of us continue the fight.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I see the member for Winnipeg Centre rising. I believe it is to seek unanimous consent to reply to today's statement.

All those opposed to the hon. member speaking will please say nay.

It is agreed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by offering my condolences to the minister and noting her courage for sharing her story, her family story of violence. No family is free from gender-based violence. I honour her today, as well as all the women in the chamber. This is a sombre day, but it is a day of solidarity. As my Conservative colleague and my Bloc colleague said, we are united against violence.

Today I rise with a heart that carries many stories of loss. I rise first to honour the 14 young women murdered at École Polytechnique simply because they were women: Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

They were 14 lives full of promise, 14 dreams interrupted by hatred. Their brilliance, their courage, and their futures were stolen in a single violent act that shook our country to its core. We say their names because their lives mattered. We say their names because their work mattered. We say their names because their presence mattered. The world they were building deserved to continue. Their family members, who I wish to honour today, live with a grief that does not fade. Their classmates, including our colleague, and community still carry the memory of that day.

Across the country, women still carry the knowledge that they were targeted because of who they were, because they were women. The tragedy at École Polytechnique was not an isolated event. It was an expression of misogyny that continues to shape the lives of women everywhere. It reminds us that gender-based violence is not an old wound healed by time. It is a living wound that demands action, compassion, real investment and truth.

Gender-based violence does not come in degrees. It does not rank itself. It does not make one group more worthy of mourning than another. Every woman harmed, every girl targeted, every gender-diverse person threatened and every life stolen by hatred is a profound loss for the people, for their family, for their community and for this country. The sorrow of one does not diminish the sorrow of another. These tragedies stand beside one another, each deserving our full attention and our full commitment to change, yet we must speak honestly.

While gender-based violence harms women everywhere, it does not harm all women equally. Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people live with a level of violence that is not only severe but also systemic. Their families endure disappearances that are met with silence. Our lives are threatened by conditions created through generations of colonial policy. Our safety is undermined by poverty and racism, by the lack of services, and by failures of institutions meant to protect them. We are in a constant state of grief. It is constant, unrelenting and violent.

This is not a parallel issue. It is not a separate crisis. It is part of the same violent web that took the lives of those young women at École Polytechnique. It is part of the same misogyny intensified and sharpened by the deep roots of colonialism. We must tell the truth.

The targeting of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people is part of an ongoing genocide in this country. It is something that was acknowledged by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau as an ongoing genocide, not a metaphor. It is also something for which, even in this year's budget, there was zero budgetary allocation to deal with this crisis. That hurts. That is systemic violence that continues to wound us because we are valuable, we are precious, we are sacred and we are worthy of safety and dignity.

It is the lived realities of families who search for loved ones without the support they deserve. It is the lived reality of mothers who hold vigils year after year. It is the lived reality of communities who bury daughters and aunties far too young, the women who go missing outside of my front door, the very front door that is a block and a half away from where women were taken by a serial killer and left in a landfill, and people are refusing to search for us. We are valuable. We are worthy. We are precious. Our humanity, and seeing our humanity, matters.

To honour the women of École Polytechnique is to honour all women who face violence, and to honour all women is to confront the specific violence faced by indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people. These truths do not compete. They reinforce one another. One teaches us the cost of misogyny; the other shows us what happens when misogyny is multiplied by racism, colonial history and state neglect. Both demand that we act with urgency and courage. The response must be as full and determined as the sorrow we carry.

We honour the 14 women murdered at École Polytechnique by refusing to accept violence as inevitable. We honour indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by refusing to allow their names to fade into silence. We honour all survivors by creating a world where equality is not an aspiration but a guarantee. That means real investments in safety for everyone. That means implementing the calls for justice. That means culturally grounded healing programs, safe housing, mental health supports, protection for two-spirit identity and accountability for institutions that have failed communities again and again. That means recognizing that no woman's life is disposable, no child's future is negotiable and no family's grief should be ignored.

Let us build a country where the names of the 14 women who were taken at École Polytechnique are held with love; a country where indigenous families no longer stand in the snow and rain holding candles, time and time again, for their loved ones, particularly their daughters who never come home; a country where justice is not symbolic but lived; and a country where safety is an expectation, not a privilege. For those taken too early, for those still missing, for those carrying wounds, both visible and invisible, for those yet to be born, let this be the moment we choose action over sorrow, truth over silence, justice over delay. We owe it to all of them.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is seeking unanimous consent to reply to today's statement.

All those opposed to the hon. member speaking will please say nay.

It is agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues in the House this morning. Unfortunately, I had to stay in my riding. I love my riding, but today I would have preferred to be with my colleagues in the House. We heard some very important speeches this morning. We are united, as my colleagues have already said.

December 6, 1989, will forever be a tragic day. I remember it. I think everyone remembers it. We will never forget the events that took place at École Polytechnique.

I want to begin by saying a big thank you to our Minister of Women and Gender Equality.

I also want to express, as others have, condolences and sympathies for her family's loss.

I would also like to thank our Conservative Party colleague; our Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Shefford; and our NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. The message really is that it is senseless for such a thing to happen in our country.

We are a country that wants to reject violence. I know that my male colleagues in this place do not harbour a hatred of women, and I could not imagine what would unleash such hatred to kill women because they are women. We know that it happened in one specific location that we remember today, but it happens every day. As our colleague for Winnipeg Centre said, it particularly happens to indigenous women and girls.

I am blessed to have so many friends across the country, but it is only my women friends who are indigenous who always have a story. They tell me, “My mother died on the lower east side,” or “My sister went missing,” or “My auntie went missing.” One of my close friends in the indigenous community here in Saanich—Gulf Islands said to me once, “I was left for dead in a dumpster.” She then continued the conversation as if I would not be shattered by hearing that, because it is the common experience of our indigenous women and girls, our friends, the aunties, mommies and sisters. This is a common life experience, and we act as a country as if it is not an emergency that requires immediate attention.

Yes, today we remember the horrors of a killer walking into a classroom, sending the men outside. I must say, for those surviving men, what a horror. We know one took his own life afterward because how does someone get over that? They would be constantly struggling, thinking about what they should have done. They did not know what the killer intended; they were sent outside.

On this day particularly, I want to speak to and send love and support to our hon. Secretary of State for Nature. We had an earlier recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I spoke to her afterwards, gave her a hug and said that this must be such a tough day for her. She said, “No, December 6 is the tough day.”

For what she will experience and for everyone who remembers, the anniversary dates are always searing. Two days from now, please remember to send love and prayers to all those who are the surviving family members.

The Secretary of State for Nature suffered. She was wounded. She now serves Canada's public interest in another way, but we will never forget.

We can take up the cause again, as other women have said in this place.

As an activist and a feminist, our colleague, the member for Shefford, has never stopped fighting violence. Every one of us needs to do more. This is a sad and sombre moment, but it is something else, too.

This is an opportunity to say aloud the names of the women engineering students who were killed and whom we honour this day. It is important, as the member for Shefford has said, that their names are engraved on our hearts.

We know, as our colleague from Winnipeg Centre has said, that these are not competing issues. They are all from one and the same fabric of hatred and violence. We do not have solutions today. I do not think any of us know why this persists. There is a patriarchy. There is an assumption that men are in charge. There are all kinds of assumptions, but it does not account for violent misogyny, intimate partner violence and our failure to end them.

Today, we remember and we hold in our hearts Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

I would like to say one thing to the women who were murdered in the Polytechnique massacre.

We will never, ever forget them. We will not rest until the violence ends. We will do whatever it takes in this country.

God help us figure out how to end the hatred of women in the hearts of some men, find an end to violence and ensure the safety of those in marginalized communities in particular, such as the LGBTQIA+ community, the trans women who are increasingly at risk, indigenous women and girls, and women who are at risk simply because we are women.

There is no room for hatred or violence in a civilized society, and we must embrace the compassion and forgiveness that help us help those who are consumed by hatred. It is not easy to figure out how to solve misogyny. It is horrific, but if we keep our hearts open, we make a commitment to act and we thank each other when we are unified, as we are today, we will find our way.

Each one of us today must be committed, regardless of our party, to say we will not rest until violence against women ends.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I want to thank the members for sharing such profound, wise and moving messages.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 46 minutes.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2025-26: Votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Department of Fisheries and Oceans”. The committee has considered the votes referred and reports the same.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-26”.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member.

Can we have order while a member is making a speech? There are to be no conversations going on.

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Did she really say that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I am not going to intervene on this. Can we let the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South conclude his speech?

[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.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is important, especially given the kind of day we have had: We just had the Minister of Women and Gender Equality, our Conservative colleagues from the opposite side, and the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green parties speak about the importance of the Polytechnique attack on women that happened. The member opposite called it a “feminazi” hoax.

Can the member apologize in the House for saying that?

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

Madam Speaker, when I was young, I said a great many things I regret, have paid the price for and apologized for.

I was proud to stand in the House yesterday and support the bill of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to put in strict penalties for people who commit intimate partner violence. However, when the Liberals engage in this cancel culture game, they are proving why they cannot be trusted to hold the authority to put people away for what they say.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am having a very hard time understanding the Conservatives' position on this issue. The Conservative Party is known as the party of law and order, but they are completely off track when it comes to the religious exemption in the Criminal Code.

Last year, when we proposed repealing the religious exemption, a Conservative member came to tell me that his party was opposed to the idea. He said that his pastor wanted to be able to speak out against homosexuality because he objects to it based on his interpretation of the Bible. I told him that his pastor is welcome do so if that is how he interprets the Bible. However, I want to ask my colleague this. If the pastor who objects to homosexuality based on his reading of the Bible called on members of his congregation to cut the throats of homosexuals because they are gay and because that is how he interprets the Bible, would my colleague consider that a good idea?

All this religious exemption does is protect incitement to hatred and violence under the guise of religion. That is all it does. This is in no way an attack on freedom of expression. I would like to know whether my colleague would agree with statements like that being supported under this exemption to the Criminal Code.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a disgusting misrepresentation of what people of faith stand up for and do for this country every day. It is this rhetoric to which the Liberal government has decided to hitch its wagon in pushing forward with this amendment. Violent rhetoric, regardless of whether it is cloaked in religious belief or not, is inexcusable, already illegal and not subject to the religious defence here. When prosecutors do not charge people for inciting violence, it is a lack of political leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to second this motion and the remarks the hon. member made this morning. Like my colleague, I have received a number of emails from faith leaders in my riding and would like the member to comment on this.

One of the things that unite faith leaders across this country is the fact that their congregations are composed of people of all political stripes. One of the comments I received from more than one faith leader in my riding is this: The reason they are contacting me, in many cases for the first time, is that, while they would prefer to remain apolitical, the Liberal government, through its support for the amendments to this bill, has politicized their role here and in their congregations.

I would like my colleague to respond to that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all she has done to champion the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, and certainly those of faith.

What is so important here is that this legislation was brought in under the guise of protecting religious communities from hate. That was how the Liberal government sold this legislation. However, the most vocal critics of it have been religious individuals and groups themselves, who now see the devil, pardon the pun, in the details that will be used to crack down on religious expression.

The point I will make is that politics have no place governing legislators or what is said at the pulpit, whether we are talking about Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else. We need to stand up for all people of faith. It is not for us in the chamber to legislate, govern or regulate what Canadians with deeply held religious convictions say. Again, it is certainly not in the government's purview to define hate in a way that tramples down the liberties of 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.