Debates of March 10th, 2026

Consideration of Government Business No.6

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I am a Quebecker. My colleague is a Quebecker. I am a practising Catholic, and I know just how important this bill is, because there are threats against people who practise their faith.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how obstruction threatens religious groups who wish to practise their faith freely.

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

Mr. Speaker, every day that this bill is delayed, lives are lost and safety is compromised. Threats and hatred, however, are not abating. As the days go by, we see them increasing.

We must respond to this. It is our responsibility as legislators. It is our responsibility as elected officials. It is our responsibility in Parliament to pass this kind of legislation to protect citizens and ensure that hatred does not continue to spread in this way.

[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.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it shameful that the Conservatives are calling this is a censorship bill. Hatred is real in our communities. In Brome—Missisquoi, I have constituents who have been subjected to acts that I consider to be highly reprehensible.

Do the Conservatives believe it is acceptable to threaten synagogues, threaten Arabs, target LGBTQ people simply because of who they are, wave a Nazi flag, or call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue before us, it is not about supporting protections against hatred. We all support protections against hatred.

However, on whether the government should remove a safeguard that has protected the good-faith expression of religious beliefs for decades, the question Canadians are asking is very simple: If religious expression is already protected, why remove the protection that made it clear in the Criminal Code in the first place? That is the concern faith communities across the country are having, and they have been raising it. That is the concern Parliament should be addressing.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, so far, several members of my caucus have asked Conservative members the same question, but we have not received an answer. The Conservatives are saying that existing laws are already sufficient to address these issues.

However, here is a specific example. In October 2024, Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer during a protest. It was an invitation to kill. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions said that he could not prosecute him because he was limited in the options available to him.

Last weekend, people were calling for jihad in Montreal. Does my colleague think it is acceptable that threats of violence and calls for violence like that are constantly being made and that the police can do nothing about it because of issues in the Criminal Code?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have repeated many times, the tools are there, and they have not been used correctly. What I have been hearing from Canadians is not political theatre, but genuine concern. Over the past weeks, thousands of people, rabbis, pastors, imams and ordinary citizens, have taken the time to write and call their members of Parliament because they fear the good-faith expression of their beliefs could someday be treated as a criminal matter. When so many Canadians raise that concern, Parliament's responsibility is not to dismiss them or rush the bill through, but to ensure that their fundamental freedoms remain clearly protected in law.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the proposal to remove the religious defence was not studied at all at committee. Witnesses made passing reference to it, but that amendment was not proposed until after witness testimony was done. Unfortunately, the lack of study is demonstrated by the complete disinterest of Liberals, in particular, to engage with the substance of the bill and some of the misunderstandings about the legislation.

For example, the religious defence applies to hate speech, not to incitement to violence. The Bloc claim that the religious defence had something to do with an issue of incitement to violence not being charged in Quebec is completely legally incorrect because the religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence. What the Quebec prosecution service said in that case was that, in its view, there was a lack of clarity around the identifiable group, which is why it did not lay a charge, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the religious defence, as the religious defence does not apply to incitement.

Why is there so much ignorance from the other parties on the basic provision of the bill when it has not been properly studied at committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a wonderful explanation. The thing that really strikes me the most is that the government told Canadians not to worry because it just added in a clarification clause, yet when we read that clause, it simply says that speech is allowed as long as it is not hate speech. That is not really a clarification. It is just circular reasoning.

The previous safeguard actually drew a line that Canadians could understand, which is that sincerely held religious teaching expressed in good faith was not criminal. Removing that clarity while claiming nothing has changed is exactly why so many Canadians remain concerned.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member focused a great deal on a defence that has never once successfully been used in the history of Canada, and she talked about the monumental change this would make to the criminal law when, again, it is a defence that has never once been successfully used. The only people who could avail themselves of this defence are those who are charged with wilfully promoting hate, which is the very high standard the Supreme Court set in the Keegstra decision.

Could the hon. member elucidate for the House with an exact example of where the defence could properly and successfully be used? Give me an example of somebody who is charged who you think should be able to use this defence, and how it would be used.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again I would remind members to address their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply tell my hon. colleague to ask that question to his colleague who spoke at the justice committee and gave his opinion on what should happen in such a case as the member is speaking about.

I would add that the government's motion is truly not about protecting places of worship. It is about shutting down debate to force through a controversial amendment and, which the member knows, to remove the religious defence in the Criminal Code. It is an amendment that was not in the original bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is based on the Criminal Code's prohibition against promoting hatred, which is a criminal offence.

There have been situations, like that of imam Charkaoui, for example, who promoted hatred against the Jewish people. He was not prosecuted because of the religious exemption. Eta Yudin, vice-president of the Quebec chapter of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said that this demonstrates clear shortcomings in the Criminal Code, meaning that, in its current form, the legislation is incapable of protecting the public against hate speech. That explains the call for change that we are making today.

What does it mean to defend freedom? Yes, everyone must be able to practise their religion and have their own ideas, even if it causes discomfort, but collectively, we must set boundaries. Prohibiting the promotion of hatred is one guideline, and yet there is a religious exemption.

Why does the hon. member want to defend this tooth and nail?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will refer back to the comments I made in my speech on this very issue. The Supreme Court, the highest court in Canada, has recognized that the religious defence is necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. When it made this ruling, it understood how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are.

I will end by saying that we already have laws in the Criminal Code that allow people to be prosecuted for inciting others to violence on the basis of hate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to be quite blind to the impact their legislation would have on freedom of belief, expression and religion. Can the member share whether she agrees that it is not so much blindness but that they really do not care about these rights and would prefer censorship rather than Canadians' having different perspectives, for whatever agenda or ideology they are propagating?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was clear in my speech that what is deeply concerning to me, and perhaps to my colleagues on this side of the House and to the individuals I represent back home in Saskatchewan, is that the government does not seem to care about the implications for our country or our citizens who want to practise their faith. This would have an impact on them that would not be easily unwound.

They are censoring a censorship bill by imposing closure on this debate. I believe that speaks for itself.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, coming from the airport, I had the cab driver tell me, unsolicited, that he wanted Israel wiped off the map, and I have to assume Jews also.

What we are seeing in Canada is an 800% increase in hate speech. This craziness has happened under the Liberal watch in every respect. An Iranian dissident I knew was killed in Vancouver last month. This is going on.

The Liberals have not been enforcing the laws that are there, so they come up with this bill that censors religious speech. I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that the Conservatives wanted to split the bill to keep the crime pieces in and move out the censorship aspect.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada writes the Criminal Code. The enforcement of the Criminal Code is provincial, and most of that is carried out by municipal police. The idea that the federal government can interfere with enforcement, which is a provincial jurisdiction, when it is mostly carried out by municipal police that we do not hire or fire, is a fantasy.

What we can do is what the Jewish organizations across this country have asked us to do, which is to improve the Criminal Code to give police more tools to prosecute people who are creating hate in this country. That was done in consultation with police groups across the country. I cited hearings of police officers from Toronto, Montreal and other places, who told us that they wanted the tools in this bill.

We are doing what we are supposed to do. We are rewriting the Criminal Code to make things better for police to enforce.

[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, 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.

[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, freedom of religion and freedom of expression are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, when I was mayor of Côte Saint-Luc, I held a rally for religious freedom. I very much believe in religious freedom. There is nothing in the bill that would stop anyone from preaching, reciting, reading or doing anything that they are doing today. This defence has never been successfully used in Canadian history, and it is used only if someone is charged with wilfully promoting hate, which no good-faith religious person in this country should or would ever do.

[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.