House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-9.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Silver Alert National Framework Act First reading of Bill C-263. The bill creates a national framework for “silver alerts” to help locate missing seniors with dementia, requiring federal cooperation with provincial and law enforcement authorities to improve rapid response times during critical emergency situations. 200 words.

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act First reading of Bill S-226. The bill establishes the second week of May as Jury Duty Appreciation Week in Canada, aiming to raise awareness, honor jurors, and address concerns regarding their mental health support and financial compensation. 200 words.

Petitions

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned Members debate the Liberal motion to end the adjournment of debate on Bill C-9, which aims to address hate crimes. Conservatives accuse the government of overly broad legislation that threatens religious freedom and express concern over the removal of religious exemptions. The Minister of Justice defends the bill, pledging to add clarifying amendments protecting faith practices and arguing that Conservatives are obstructing proceedings for political gain. 5300 words, 35 minutes.

Consideration of Government Business No.6 Members debate Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, as the Liberal government pushes to pass legislation addressing rising hate crimes, arguing it provides necessary tools to stop harassment and intimidation at places of worship. Conservative MPs contend that existing Criminal Code provisions are sufficient, arguing that the bill’s removal of the religious defence creates a chilling effect on free expression. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, emphasizing the need to close legal loopholes currently hindering the prosecution of hate speech. 19100 words, 2 hours.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives demand action on rising food prices and inflationary taxes. They blame Liberal policies for the shrinking economy, criticize the failure to deport IRGC agents, and decry violence on streets. They also call for a public inquiry into the Tumbler Ridge tragedy and the removal of interprovincial trade barriers.
The Liberals emphasize actions against the IRGC and protecting places of worship. They defend affordability measures and argue the industrial carbon price has no impact on food costs. The government highlights LNG project expansion, modernizing senior benefits, and efforts toward Middle East de-escalation. They also focus on men’s mental health and Indigenous child welfare reform.
The Bloc questions the government's Middle East strategy and coordination with allies. They demand relief for inflation and housing costs and criticize the Cúram system failures that have impacted 85,000 seniors' pensions.
The NDP accuses the Prime Minister of betraying his commitment to the UN Charter by supporting illegal warfare. They also condemn the closure of a Quebec agricultural research centre and its impact on food security.

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9 Members debate a programming motion to accelerate the passage of Bill C-9, the *Combatting Hate Act*. Liberals argue the legislation is essential for protecting communities from rising hate crimes and intimidation. Conservatives express strong opposition, particularly to the removal of the good-faith religious defence, warning it could criminalize sacred texts and infringes on civil liberties. The House passes the motion, which restricts further committee debate and sets timelines for a final vote. 26200 words, 4 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Second reading of Bill C-232. The bill, proposed by the Conservative Party, seeks to modify the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by mandating maximum-security confinement for dangerous offenders and serial murderers. While Conservative members argue the change restores balance for victimized families, opposing Liberals and Bloc MPs maintain that judicial independence and rehabilitative goals are essential, expressing concern that the legislation is overly rigid and potentially unconstitutional. 7500 words, 1 hour.

Food and Drugs Act Second reading of Bill C-224. The bill proposes amending the Food and Drugs Act to remove natural health products from the "therapeutic products" category, reversing 2023 budget legislation that Conservatives term regulatory overreach. While debate highlights concerns regarding freedom of choice and industry viability, proponents and opposing parties emphasize the necessity of maintaining consumer safety standards. The motion passed, referring the legislation to the Standing Committee on Health. 6100 words, 45 minutes.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

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

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is. I am glad my colleague touched on this. We are censoring a censorship bill. There is limited time for parliamentarians to discuss this particular amendment, although it is not the entirety of the bill itself. As I mentioned in my speech, the bill could have been split between elements that could provide protection for people of faith going to their religious institutions and cultural centres and this removal of a long-standing legal defence. To me, this is an effort to continue to censor what people see and say online and, frankly, what they believe.

There is no good reason to move forward with such an amendment to the Criminal Code, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court time and time again while it defended those very charter rights that my colleague rightfully pointed out are the primitive nature of our nation.

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

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

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

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this place as long as my colleague and many others, but in my two and a half years as a member of Parliament, there has never been one single issue on which I have received so much correspondence, whether handwritten letters, emails or phone calls, yes, from my riding but from right across the country. People are concerned.

Government members have a lot of gall to sit there and say, “Well, you're all wrong. You just don't understand what we're trying to do. Sure, we haven't laid out why on earth we might need to make this change, but you are all wrong, so please just don't worry about it. Trust us.”

People are sick and tired of trusting the Liberal government when it comes to censorship.

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

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

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

8:05 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

It being 8:07 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 6 now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

8:05 p.m.

Liberal

Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call for a recorded division.

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

8:05 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #84

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

8:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

I declare the motion carried.

It being 8:52 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:52 p.m.)