Debates of March 10th, 2026

Consideration of Government Business No.6

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague across the aisle on the justice committee.

My question is very targeted and direct. How many times did that particular member and other Liberal members of the justice committee ask questions in support of the removal of this 50-year-old defence?

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is fully protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that protection remains unchanged.

When concerns were raised by faith communities, the government listened and introduced a “for greater certainty” clause to make it clear that peaceful religious expression, such as sermons, teachings and readings of scripture, is not captured by the legislation. Canadians should be able to practise their faith freely, and this bill respects that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can think of a few examples where religious texts have been used to incite hatred.

For example, one time, someone said that Jews were the worst of humanity and should be massacred on judgment day. There have been several such examples. In Quebec, for instance, Adil Charkaoui once prayed for the death of Jews.

The director of criminal and penal prosecutions wanted to lay charges and investigate the matter. However, he decided not to, indicating that the evidence would not be accepted under the current legal framework. People in the Jewish community argued that the legal framework should be reviewed, and that is what happened.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

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

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for standing in the House and delivering those remarks with bravery. I know he has done a lot of work at the justice committee as well, so I thank him for that.

In his remarks, the member mentioned the amount of time that has been spent at the justice committee debating this particular bill, over 30 hours, I believe he said. He mentioned some of the content that has been presented by opposition members of that committee. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the use of government resources, taxpayer dollars and time that has been spent on this excessive amount of debate at committee and whether or not his constituents see value in those resources being spent that way.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has received extensive scrutiny. Parliament has debated it for more than 30 hours. The justice committee heard from more than 30 witnesses and considered amendments.

Debate is important, but at some point, Parliament must also make decisions. Otherwise, meaningful legislation to improve the lives of Canadians would never be able to make an impact. Canadians expect us to examine legislation seriously and then vote on it. That is what this motion allows the House to do.

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

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

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

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have spent more than 30 hours on this bill, and there were more than 30 witnesses who testified before committee.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those reasons, I oppose this motion.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the despicable behaviour from the members opposite continues. We have had six months of debate on this topic, and the members opposite are now bemoaning the fact that we are finally calling the question on this. It is ridiculous.

As for the impact on communities in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, we have seen an unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism. There have been white nationalist rallies in Hamilton. We are seeing an ongoing erosion of reproductive rights for women. These tactics and emulation of the politics from the United States are absolutely reprehensible. Your leader and your deputy leader have called for action on anti-Semitism. Will you follow their example and vote in favour—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Brampton West.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, basically, if I understand correctly, my colleague believes that the religious exemption should be maintained. In other words, preachers or other individuals could incite hatred and encourage the killing of members of a nation without being prosecuted.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about what has already been addressed in the Criminal Code. My message is simple. Their voices matter. Faith communities play a vital role in Canada, and their freedom must be protected. I will continue to speak up for them and defend their rights, which are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

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

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

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to meet with constituents and Canadians. We conducted a town hall meeting in Brampton, like he conducted in Hamilton. I am receiving hundreds of emails. I am receiving hundreds of calls asking for the religious defence protection. Something is going wrong on the opposite side. They do not understand what Canadians need, and something needs to be addressed in the House so that Canadians can have the protection they deserve.

I will say one more thing about this. My message is simple. It is that their voices matter. When I ran for office, I promised my constituents that I would be a champion for religious freedom, and I will continue to do that until it comes into effect. We will do our best to protect religious freedom, which plays a vital role in Canadian society.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite, especially those drawing on his experience in policing and the need for clear laws and enforceable rules. These are exactly the requests that the Hamilton police have made in our consultations about the combatting hate act. There has been a 35% increase in hate-related crimes in Hamilton, primarily against Black, Jewish and LGBTQ individuals. White supremacist rallies with hate symbols are routinely going through municipalities across Canada, including in Hamilton.

My question for the member opposite is this: Will he listen to the requests from law enforcement across the country or the extremist wing of his party?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen to my communities and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Myron Demkiw, the chief of police for Toronto, said that the laws that are needed to address hate already exist. We do not need more laws. We just need the courage to enforce them and the courage to carry on. Instead of being drawn by political pressures, we need to use what we already have in front of us. The laws are there. The Criminal Code has the ability to charge people. Let us show some courage. I was going to use some colourful language, but I will not. Suffice it to say, the laws are already there. Let us use them to pursue the people who are spreading hate and causing hate in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the last two years, there have been attacks on the Jewish community. There have been 113 Christian churches burned to the ground. There are already laws against these things, and the government has done nothing to enforce the rule of law.

Being a former police officer, I wonder if my colleague could comment on what resources are available if the police are having difficulty enforcing the law.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a different tack. Let us say this legislation does pass for some reason. How many cops would be needed to address every call that comes in to say that somebody pissed someone off.

Pardon my language, Mr. Speaker—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member promised not to use colourful language. I do not have to consult the big book here to know that is unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw the comment.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment.

Let us say, for instance, I am upset about something and 10 other folks here are upset about something and I call the police. Now those police officers have to respond to my complaints with respect to a hate crime. That is going to compound the whole aspect of response times for police agencies when they have much better things to do. They have extortion, homicides, assaults and traffic collisions to deal with, yet they are going to be pulled away from those to address complaints coming into the office based on people's perceptions of hate. Adding hate crime legislation is going to cause a bottleneck that we do not need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only say, having listened to that last answer, that the hon. member has not read the bill, because it does not change whatsoever the way one levels a complaint with respect to a hate crime or the definition of a hate crime.

The hon. member talked about enforcement. Can he talk to us about what he believes the role of the federal government is when it comes to police enforcement at a local level? Has he ever had a federal member of Parliament or a federal minister tell him what to do as a police officer? What does he think the federal government is going to do with respect to local law enforcement, which is a provincial jurisdiction, manned by municipal police?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, no politician is allowed to tell a police officer what to do, end of story.

Second, the laws as they exist now are more than sufficient to deal with the issues we are talking about. We do not need additional laws. We need clarity. We need rules of evidence that help enforce these laws, not additional legislation that is going to cause more confusion. A policeman out on the road should not be confused. He needs clear, enforceable laws so he can go to a judge, or a Crown attorney for that matter, and say what has happened, what the elements of the offence are and what charges need to be laid. That is not what is being proposed here. That is why I am opposed to it.