Debates of March 10th, 2026

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on two points very quickly. One is the motivation issue. I have received an email that has been shared with literally thousands of Canadians, sent by the Conservative Party of Canada, that is clearly meant to do two things. One is to raise money, because it is asking for a donation. The second is to plant fear in the minds of individuals concerned about faith.

The legislation and the Charter of Rights protect freedom of religion. It is time for the legislation to proceed. A majority of MPs want the legislation to continue. A smaller number of MPs, in the Conservative Party alone, want to prevent it, and they can stop it by just continuing to talk endlessly. That is why the motion is necessary, and I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The people who have not had the benefit of watching the committee go through this process should go back and review it, because the Conservative members on the committee do not even agree. They come to committee, meeting after meeting, with different approaches and conflicting opinions. This is simply designed to be political, in my opinion.

With respect to the emails that are going out to raise money, to my colleague's point, a number of people have approached me about what they perceive to be in the bill but is just completely false. This is because they have been told things that are not true, and we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, whether we agree with legislation or not, to act responsibly and to reveal information that is accurate, all the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard all day long that our charter rights would not be violated, but the Conservatives brought an amendment to the committee that said that nothing in this section is to be interpreted or applied so as to interfere with the freedom of expression or the freedom of religion, and the Liberals voted against it. Why is that?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should review my speech and reflect upon my comments about the “for greater certainty” provision. This amendment is designed to dispel all this misinformation. There is nothing in the bill, and I will say it again, that would prohibit anybody from practising their religion in any way, shape or form.

These amendments were designed to obfuscate, to misdirect and to lead people down a road in the wrong direction. I encourage people who believe what the member just said to go read the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want a chance to ask the hon. member if he is aware that it is not just the Conservatives who do not like the bill. The Greens will vote against it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was not really a question there, and there was not really any new information. As I also said in my speech, members are entitled to debate, suggest amendments and vote the way they want to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last point my colleague across the way made. He said there were Muslims who support the bill and Muslims who do not, Christians who support it and Christians who do not, and members of the Jewish community who support it and members who do not.

Would the member acknowledge that the members on this side of the House offered to split the bill into those areas that were supported and not controversial, and those areas to be set aside for further debate, the exact points that are controversial, in order to put in place the protections that I believe those members of the community who support the bill want?

Would he further acknowledge that there was no consultation with Canadians after the Liberal Party's joining with the Bloc Québécois to remove the religious exemption?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great degree of respect for my colleague across the way. We have many people in common in the city of Winnipeg, and I believe him to be a very thoughtful and honourable person.

Having followed some of the proceedings of the justice committee and having had a chance to review the bill and the amendments that were made recently, I do believe that much of the concern has been addressed. We can always have a debate, of course, and it is usually a subjective one, about how much debate is enough debate and how much consultation is enough consultation.

I do believe, given the urgency of the need for this legislation right now, that an appropriate amount of discussion has taken place in this country and that Canadians will have the opportunity to tell us how they feel.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debates all day and I want to say one thing: There is an immeasurable gap between what I am hearing and Quebec's position. People are probably familiar with the expression “the two solitudes”.

When it comes to religion, clearly not many members of the House are in tune with what Quebeckers think. There may be a few among the Liberals, but certainly not among the Conservatives. There is a major distinction made in Quebec: religion belongs in the private sphere, while the public sphere, the civic sphere, is reserved for politics.

In the debate we are having, it is as if religion could dictate to politics how it should behave. Not only are we having this debate, which is surreal to me, but the debate is in bad faith on the part of the Conservatives. It is the epitome of bad faith, as if this bill were going to prevent people from professing their faith.

Here is the question I have for my colleague. I am wondering what interest the Conservative Party has in acting this way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can explain where the interests of my colleagues in the official opposition lie. However, as I said during my speech, I think it is important to maintain a respectful tone and style of debate in the House. Over the past few months, in the course of this debate, I believe that our discussions have at times taken a rather more partisan turn. The tone used was unnecessary and did not serve us effectively in the House.

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

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

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

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

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

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I have a natural bond, being Jewish members of Parliament, and I enjoy the opportunity we often have to talk about the needs of the community and the country as a whole. I am not going to be partisan whatsoever.

One thing that my hon. colleague mentioned in her remarks was enforcement. I sometimes struggle to understand, even if I were to accept the argument in its entirety, which I do not, that the laws that currently exist are strong enough and it is an enforcement issue, I would like to understand from her perspective, aside from the IRGC, where I do understand where she is coming from, how, when we are talking about enforcement on the ground, let us say, at rallies, she believes the federal government has a role to play in discussions with police services.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the government needs to recognize this as a national security threat. It needs to recognize this as domestic terror, and that is exactly where the government plays a role, with an integrated capacity from law enforcement. Starting with the RCMP, with partnerships with, in my own province, the OPP and local police, it should start enforcing the law.

I almost cannot find anyone in this country who believes that what is going on in the streets right now in communities right across the country is legal. The lack of enforcement, including the push that the federal government can make, and all levels of government, is astounding. The very fact that the member does not recognize that is very concerning.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in October 2024, during a religious speech, Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer, citing religious reasons. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to move the case forward. He said that the reason was the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. What does my colleague think of that?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to make it clear, and I am sure others have made it clear to the hon. member, the prosecution was very clear that that is not why it did not charge him, and this defence is not for calling for violence. That is already illegal, and this bill would change none of that.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

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

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

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the government's motion is not about protecting places of worship. It is about shutting down debate to force through something that was introduced late in the committee stage, not in the original bill. We very clearly offered to the Liberals to take this out and to debate the things that would actually protect religious institutions. Again, after two and a half years of screaming about this in the House, they chose not to. I hope everybody at home sees that when they can act, they choose not to act every single time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in every community, there are people who are practising the faith to a greater or lesser extent, sometimes not at all. Obviously, that is the case with the Jewish community, as well as other communities. The member has noted that the rabbinical council of Toronto, which represents the Orthodox community, has expressed profound alarm about the removal of the religious defence.

We all want to see action on anti-Semitism, but why are they mixing that element in with this bill, creating division?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, claiming that a community supports the bill without speaking to clergy is political and government malpractice. The Liberals need to listen to what clergy say right across the country, right through every community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever quoted the Toronto Sun. This will be the first time. I would like to quote from an article that was published, by Joseph Neuberger, that was special to the Toronto Sun. He says, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.... I also write as a supporter of political campaigns, including the Conservatives in the last election, and I want to be clear that the real danger is not that religious freedom will be curtailed.”

The headline is “Bill C-9 doesn't threaten religious freedom. It draws a necessary line”. I wonder if the member would be interested in reading the full article, which ultimately says that what the Conservatives are promoting is just wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the bill was originally published, I had only two concerns about the bill. The first was the dilution of the definition of hate speech. The second was the removal of the oversight of the Attorney General over hate speech cases. That was put in place to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Fortunately, the Conservatives brought an amendment to fix that one in the bill and restore the oversight of the Attorney General.

It was not until this Bloc-Liberal amendment to remove the protections on religious freedoms was talked about that everything started to fall apart for the government. If it wants to see this move forward, it needs to split the bill so that we can move forward with what we agree will actually help people.