Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.
First let me say that, as always, it is a privilege to stand in the House and represent the great people of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, whom I have the honour of representing. I rise today to speak in support of the motion before the House. This debate is about more than procedure. It is about how Parliament chooses to do its work. It is about whether we allow legislation to move forward after thorough study, or whether we allow it to be stalled indefinitely through procedural obstruction.
Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced in the House of Commons on September 19, 2025. It is now March. It received second reading debate. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where witnesses appeared, experts testified, communities shared their experiences, amendments were proposed and clauses were debated. In total, Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation. That is not rushed consideration but serious parliamentary scrutiny. This is exactly how our legislative process is supposed to work, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to decision.
Parliament cannot function if debate never leads to a vote. Opposition parties play a critical role in our democracy. Their responsibility is to challenge legislation, question its provisions and propose improvements. That is healthy, and it is necessary. That is how good legislation becomes better legislation, but there is a difference between debate and obstruction. Debate is when members raise arguments, propose amendments and explain their position to Canadians.
Obstruction is something very different. Obstruction is when procedural tactics are used to prevent Parliament from doing its job. Obstruction is when hours are consumed not discussing the bill itself but discussing procedural manoeuvres. Obstruction is when legislation cannot move forward, even after extensive study. This is what we have seen repeatedly during the study of Bill C-9. The opposition parties have prolonged debate in ways to prevent clause-by-clause review from progressing. Every hour spent on procedural delay is an hour in which Parliament is prevented from completing its work. This is the simple reality.
Members of the House are free to disagree with legislation. They are free to oppose it and to vote against it. That is their right. That is democracy. If a member believes a clause should not be adopted, they can vote against that clause. If a member believes an amendment should be rejected, they can vote against the amendment. If a member believes the entire bill should fail, they can vote against the bill. This is how the legislature functions. Members make their arguments and cast their vote, and Parliament reaches a decision.
What is not responsible is attempting to delay the legislative process indefinitely through procedural tactics. That does not strengthen legislation, it does not improve legislation and it does not serve Canadians.
The legislation before us addresses an issue that communities across Canada have been raising for years. Hate-motivated intimidation and harassment have become increasingly visible in our communities. We have seen individuals threatened as they approach their places of worship. We have seen hateful symbols displayed outside schools and community centres. We have seen people intimidated simply for being part of a particular religious, cultural or identity group.
These are not theoretical concerns. These are real experiences reported by Canadians across the country. Jewish communities have spoken about threats directed at their synagogues. We have only to look at this past weekend in my city of Toronto. Muslim communities have reported intimidation outside mosques, Black Canadians have spoken about racist harassment, Asian Canadians have faced hostility fuelled by misinformation and prejudice, and LGBTQ Canadians have experienced intimidation in spaces meant to provide safety and support.
These incidents undermine the sense of safety that Canadians expect in their daily lives, and Bill C-9 responds to those concerns. It strengthens the Criminal Code to address intimidation and obstruction directed at spaces primarily used by identifiable groups. It creates clearer tools for law enforcement when crimes are motivated by hatred toward a person's identity. It addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities. These measures respond directly to what community organizations, law enforcement agencies and human rights groups have been asking Parliament to address.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined these issues in depth. In December 2024, the committee released its report on heightened anti-Semitism in Canada and how to confront it. The report contained recommendations aimed at strengthening Canada's response to hate-motivated crimes and intimidation. Many of those recommendations are reflected in Bill C-9. In other words, the legislation before us today is not the product of a sudden idea. It reflects a parliamentary study, expert testimony and the voices of communities who have asked Parliament to act.
Some of the debate surrounding this bill has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us address that clearly. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental and is not changing. Courts in Canada have consistently confirmed that hate propaganda offences require a very high legal threshold. That threshold requires proof that someone wilfully promoted hatred against an identifiable group. Reading scripture does not meet that threshold. Teaching religious doctrine does not meet that threshold. Practising one's faith does not meet that threshold. Those freedoms remain fully protected under the charter.
Nevertheless, concerns were raised by some faith communities about how the legislation might be interpreted. When these concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression is not captured by the legislation. That is how legislative collaboration should work. Concerns were raised, members worked together, clarifications were introduced and legislation was strengthened. Collaboration requires participation from all sides. It requires members to bring forward amendments, to debate provisions and to vote, but collaboration does not mean using procedural tactics to prevent Parliament from completing its work.
There is another important point that must be understood. When legislation is stalled, the consequences extend beyond a single bill. Parliament has a significant legislative agenda. There are bills that address public policy, justice reform, economic policy and issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When one bill is repeatedly delayed through obstruction, it consumes time that could otherwise be used to advance other legislation. It slows the entire legislative process, which affects Parliament's ability to respond to the needs of Canadians.
The motion before us today is not extraordinary but simply ensures that the committee can complete its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9 and that the House can proceed to a vote. Debate has taken place. Studies have taken place. Witnesses have been heard. Amendments have been proposed. The next step in the legislative process is decision. That is what this motion allows Parliament to do. Members of the House will have the opportunity to vote. They will have the opportunity to support the legislation or oppose it, but Canadians deserve to see Parliament reach a decision.
The issue before us ultimately comes down to responsibility. As legislators, we have a responsibility to debate legislation thoroughly, to listen to witnesses and to examine the amendments, but we also have a responsibility to complete our work. Communities across the country are asking for stronger protections against hate and intimidation. They are asking Parliament to respond. They are asking Parliament to act. After months of study and debate, it is time for Parliament to fulfill that responsibility. It is time to move forward. It is time to vote.