Debates of March 10th, 2026

Food and Drugs Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent so that we can return to Government Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-9, in particular Liberal efforts to shut down debate on Bill C-9, to prevent any further debate at committee, in particular to shut down consideration of a Liberal-Bloc proposal to remove the religious defence. If successfully passed, this bill would allow the prosecution of individuals under so-called hate speech if they read religious texts in what the government deems to be the wrong way and the wrong situation. Those provisions, combined with the words of the heritage minister, who has said that reading from certain books of the Bible should be considered hate speech, have caused great alarm and the unanimous opposition, or close to unanimous opposition, of faith leaders across this country.

In the process, the Liberals have said that we should shut down debate because we have discussed this enough. They think we have discussed this enough. The religious exemption was not even studied at committee. No witnesses were called on the religious exemption at committee at all. Some members of the House have said, “Well, yes, but informally, members brought it up in discussion at other points in the committee.” That is true, but there were no witnesses who were called, invited to testify or heard from on the issue of the religious exemption. It was merely something that the Bloc member brought up from time to time. This is something that has had no study at committee. To suggest that enough debate has occurred on the religious defence, when it has not even been studied at committee, is truly outrageous. The committee should be able to hear from witnesses on the removal of the religious defence, and it is not being allowed to.

Liberals have falsely claimed today that they have made changes and compromises to accommodate the concerns of religious communities. They have suggested that it is just Conservatives who have been recalcitrant in our opposition. The facts objectively show that all of the religious organizations and individuals who had concerns when the removal of the religious defence was initially proposed continue to have those concerns, in spite of the false claim that the government has somehow fixed the problem or clarified the language. Over 350 Muslim organizations signed the joint letter. The Toronto rabbinical council, various Christian organizations, and a broad range of faith leaders have highlighted their ongoing concerns, and I trust them. I listen to them to speak on behalf of their communities.

Liberals have said not to worry, because religious freedom is protected in the charter. We know that just because something is protected in the charter, that does not mean the government cannot move against it. It simply means there is a remedy in case the government does. Yes, in a case where the government violates someone's charter rights, that individual can raise the money required, take the issue through the various levels of court and maybe, hopefully, get a remedy at the end of that long process. In the meantime, they are constrained. There is a chilling effect, and they must go through this extensive process. We are better off not violating charter rights than violating them and then forcing individuals to go through this extensive process.

Finally, members of the government have, quite rightly, pointed out that there has been a massive spike in hate crimes in this country. In the last 10 years, while Liberals have been in power, there has been a significant increase in hate crimes, in particular targeting faith communities. Let us talk about the causes of that. One possible cause might be that the principal secretary of the previous Liberal prime minister, Gerald Butts, tweeted, at a time when churches were being spray-painted and burned, that these actions were “understandable”. In fact, the government at no point condemned these attacks on churches, and still has not.

Maybe if the Liberals are concerned about hate crimes, one natural step would be to be clear and precise in condemning acts of violence against faith communities. Maybe the government needs to reflect on how it has not effectively engaged with faith communities and listened to their proposed solutions, because when it comes forward with a bill that it says is going to address hate crimes against religious communities and every single religious community is against it, maybe we have a problem. Maybe it should listen to and engage with faith leaders when it is proposing legislation that is supposed to address hate crimes against faith communities. The government is so out of touch with the realities of these communities and with the problems it claims to solve, and the members have been so dishonest in today's debate, but we stand with all faith communities across this country in opposing this terrible bill.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when someone wants to promote hatred, that is an offence. That is what we are talking about today.

There is a religious exemption that allows people to promote hatred based on a religious text. My colleague says we should keep that because it is part of religious freedom. He says people should have the right to promote hatred if it is based on religion.

Furthermore, he said at the beginning of his speech earlier that the government should not interfere in religious matters. The way I see it, religious matters are interfering in government matters. There is a law that says it is illegal to promote hatred. No church or person representing a church should be able to say it has that right based on its beliefs. I cannot fathom why my colleague does not understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear that the issue is not whether or not a person can foment hate. I do not think there are any religious communities in this country that want to foment hate. The issue is who gets to decide what is and is not acceptable speech, because I do not trust the minister of heritage to decide what clergy in my church can and cannot say.

I believe these communities should be free to have their own conversations and their own debates. By all means, people should debate religious ideas. They should be free to criticize and disagree with religious ideas, as religious people sometimes do among ourselves, but the government should not be telling imams, rabbis and pastors what they can and cannot believe in the context of reading and sharing religious texts.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the increase in the number of hate crimes. I believe it has gone up 85% since 2016. It all started with this division, inequality and exclusion. It divided Canadians. It seems like it was done intentionally.

Over the last 10-plus years, does the member think that perhaps the government was intentionally trying to divide Canadians, foment hatred, so it could bring in Bill C-9 and use it to muzzle us?

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

Mr. Speaker, I always like questions from my Conservative colleagues. I do want to point out the general absence of Liberals from this conversation. I invite them to ask me questions to offer some explanation for why they introduced this provision to remove the religious defence. They have been keen to tell us what it would not do, but they have not offered any explanation of why they chose to propose the removal of this point.

To my colleague's point, I am reluctant to be too definitive in ascribing motives to other people. I suspect there are many people with good intentions, some with less good intentions, but looking at the reality over the last 10 years, we can see a big increase in hate crimes. I think the government should look in the mirror a little and ask what it could do differently to bring Canadians together.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague across the way could describe why he continues to obstruct after there has been the introduction of a “for greater certainty” clause that would address the concerns that Canadians have and clarify that it would absolutely not be prohibited to read scripture, to preach or to read a religious text under this legislation.

Why does the member opposite continue to obstruct this bill when we have clearly set out that the religious exemption and religious teachings have been protected in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is such a nonsense question that is objectively false. The member just said the religious defence has been protected. It has not been protected. This circular “for greater certainty” clause that says that something is not a hate crime if it is not a hate crime means nothing.

Moreover, the fact that it does not reassure me is not the point. It has not reassured any individual or group who had concerns initially. The Rabbinical Council of Toronto is not reassured. The 350 Muslim organizations are not reassured. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is not reassured. There is not a single organization that has said everything is fine now as a result of this nonsense “for greater certainty” clause. The Liberals should actually listen to faith communities if that is what they care about.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

I rise today to speak to the motion before the House regarding the programming debate on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. I do so at a moment when the urgency of this legislation could not be higher.

Over the past week, Canadians have, once again, been confronted with the disturbing reality of hate-motivated violence in our country. In Toronto, we have had gunfire at three synagogues over the past week. There are bullet holes in the buildings where members of the Jewish community, families and children, gather to pray and come together. I went to the Shaarei Shomayim synagogue and saw where the rounds cut through three layers of doors into the inner halls of the building. This is serious. This is criminal. This is a despicable act of anti-Semitic hate and intimidation.

When a synagogue is shot at in the middle of the night, the message is clear. It is an act meant to intimidate, to create fear and to send a signal to Jewish Canadians that they are not safe in their own communities.

In Toronto—St. Paul's, I have heard from families consistently over the past two-plus years about the rising sense of fear in our city. I have heard of protests in Jewish neighbourhoods that seek to hold a community responsible for events overseas, deliberately failing to distinguish between a diverse cultural and faith community here in Canada and the actions of a government abroad. As I have said before in the House, it is unacceptable for any Canadian to have to endure a torrent of hate to go to worship, to take their kids to school or to just go to work on any given day.

Stopping the fear and intimidation outside of places people can reasonably expect to gather or access services was a commitment that we campaigned on as a Liberal caucus last spring. When the Minister of Justice introduced this legislation earlier in this Parliament, we stepped up to fulfill this commitment. He spoke about the responsibility we have as legislators to ensure that Canada's legal framework keeps pace with the realities that our communities face. He spoke about the need to respond to law enforcement, who have asked for clarity in law.

This bill would strengthen the Criminal Code's response to hate-motivated conduct, including intimidation and the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. These provisions are designed to protect Canadians in the most fundamental sense by protecting their right to gather, to worship and to participate in a society free from intimidation and fear. It would also prohibit the public display of symbols associated with listed terrorist groups in Canada. These are important gaps to clarify in our laws, and they are consistent with the Canadian approach to freedom of expression and to the prohibition of hate speech that has been a feature of Canadian law for over 60 years.

The government introduced this bill in the first week that the House returned in September, and here we are more than six months later. The time for filibusters and for delay has come to an end. If members of the House, and the opposition in particular, acknowledge that the attacks that we have been seeing are unacceptable, and if they acknowledge that anti-Semitism and other forms of hate are rising in Canada, then now is the time to move this legislation forward.

It is one thing to condemn hate in a statement or social media post. It is another thing to support concrete legislative changes to the Criminal Code that would protect Canadians from that hate. This is why this motion before the House today matters.

This is not about cutting off debate, as members opposite are claiming. The bill has been debated in committee since October of last year. This is about ensuring that the debate actually leads somewhere, that the committee completes its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, that amendments are voted on and that Parliament can move forward in addressing a very real challenge in our country.

Opposition to this bill is rooted in misinformation. Canadians have a charter-protected right to freedom of expression. That right is vital to any well-functioning democracy. However, as Canadian courts have ruled repeatedly, this right is limited when an individual's actions infringe on the rights of others or cause harm to them.

Prohibiting hate speech is, and has always been, a reasonable limit on free expression. Prohibiting protests that impede access to community centres, schools or places of worship is a reasonable limit on free expression. Prohibiting the public display of hate symbols and symbols of registered terrorist groups is a reasonable limit on free expression. This balance is at the beating heart of the rights and obligations we have to one another as citizens protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For the members opposite who see Bill C-9 as an unwarranted restriction on free expression or, worse, who twist and misrepresent the provisions of this bill to incite opposition on false grounds, it is time to stop. Jewish Canadians should not have to wonder whether Parliament will act when synagogues are targeted. Muslim Canadians should not have to question whether their mosques are safe. Members of racialized or LGBTQ communities should not have to fear that hate directed toward them will go unanswered. Every Canadian deserves to know that their Parliament stands firmly against hate in all of its forms. Bill C-9 delivers that commitment in line with the charter and with respect for the freedom of conscience and religion.

I have heard concerns and had discussions with faith communities in my own riding about the protection to read scripture and sacred texts. At committee, these were taken seriously. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice introduced a “for greater certainty” clause to make clear that legitimate religious expression and the quoting of sacred texts in good faith are not and will not be criminalized. Above all, the charter protects this right.

Let us agree that the status quo is not an acceptable option. Police forces have asked for clarity. Jewish Canadians have asked for protections. We want to see terror symbols off our streets. We expect fear and intimidation in our communities and neighbourhoods to stop. We want accountability for violent and hateful acts, and we want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When synagogues are targeted by gunfire, when communities are living with fear and when hate crimes are rising across the country, Canadians expect their elected representatives to act responsibly and decisively. They expect us to work together. They expect us to move beyond procedural stall tactics in the House and in committee, and to focus on the safety and well-being of the people we serve.

That is what the motion allows us to do. It ensures that Parliament can complete its work on legislation that seeks to protect Canadians from hate and violence. Hatred thrives when institutions fail to respond, but Canada has always been strongest when we stand together, across faiths, across communities and across political lines, to defend the values that define this country. Those values include freedom, dignity and safety for every Canadian.

That is why this legislation matters. That is why I am going to be supporting the motion before us today.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the fact that the Liberals are not really acquainted with the truth at all.

The member kept referring to misinformation, disinformation and falsehoods. She knows full well that the very things she described are not anything that this legislation would touch. It is already addressed in the Criminal Code. This would not change any acts of violence or criminal activity. This is about hate speech and hate expression.

My religious community and constituents outside of my religious organizations have bombarded me with emails, phone calls and letters asking me not to let this bill move forward, but to oppose it as long as I possibly can. They are not in favour of it, and I would like to see it end.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill actually does make very material changes to the Criminal Code. It establishes a new stand-alone hate offence. It creates a new offence around obstruction of places that communities gather. It creates a new offence around intimidation outside of places where communities gather.

What is most important about this is that all Canadians are seeking public safety and community safety in their neighbourhoods, so much so that police associations have asked us for this clarity in law. It never ceases to surprise me how the members opposite, who pretend to be strong on crime, cannot get behind a bill that actually provides law enforcement with the tools that they are asking for to be able to properly police, enforce and hold accountable the people who break the laws in our neighbourhoods.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to something important that we seem to have forgotten since this morning. The bill aims to remove the exemption that allows religious speech to promote hatred.

For ideological reasons, I will use another example: a socialist. Conservatives have a special fondness for socialists. A socialist could not promote hatred against individuals with a different ideology, say libertarians, and justify it in court. Someone who is religiously motivated can do so, however.

This means that my Conservative colleagues agree that it is possible to promote hatred on religious grounds. It is as simple as that. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the purposes of this bill is important because it is about creating and protecting freedom of religion and the freedoms of conscience and expression for all Canadians. No Canadian should have their rights stepped on and impeded when they are faced and confronted in their day-to-day lives in places where they gather by the types of hate and violent and intimidating acts that we have now, unfortunately, over two years of experience, seen on our streets. That is what this bill seeks to address. That is what we are fighting for here and what we intend to deliver for Canadians.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her hard work on this and for her community. Temple Emanu-El in my riding was targeted last week in the spate of violence towards synagogues, and these were clear acts of intimidation towards the Jewish community. I just want to ask the member to speak to the importance of the speedy passage of Bill C-9 and also to the importance of coming together to work towards peace and security.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last week has been supremely difficult with the shootings that we have seen at synagogues in our beautiful city. It is imperative that we pass this bill with speed. We often talk about how the hate around us, the hate we see online and the hate we see on our streets normalizes hate for everyone. It empowers people who want to incite and spew hate.

Part of Bill C-9 is saying to all Canadians, “This is where we draw the line. This behaviour is not acceptable, and we are going to empower our law enforcement with the tools to be able to do something about it.” That is the core idea that we are trying to address with this bill and why I believe this is one of the most important commitments we are making to communities of different faiths, cultural backgrounds and sexual orientations right across the country. This is not unique to a single community. It actually touches all of us as Canadians.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating more than a procedural motion. We are debating the principle of how laws in this country are supposed to be made. What the Liberals are asking Parliament to do today is not simply to move a bill along. It is asking Parliament to cut short the process of scrutiny that exists for a reason. It is asking us to do that while amending the Criminal Code of Canada, the law that determines when speech crosses the line into criminal liability, and that matters. Once criminal law becomes regulating speech, the line between protecting Canadians and policing belief becomes dangerously thin.

Our parliamentary system was never designed to make passing legislation easy. It was in fact designed to make passing legislation difficult, and it was designed that way deliberately. The founders of our democratic system understood a simple truth that every generation, it seems, eventually has to relearn: When governments can change the laws too easily, the balance of power rarely remains with the people.

Our founders therefore built safeguards into the legislative process: multiple readings in the chamber, committee study, witness testimony, and amendments debated line by line. Members raise concerns on behalf of the people who sent them here. We ask whether we have thought this through. Have we heard the arguments? Have we tested the consequences before the law is imposed on millions of Canadians?

That process is not a flaw in democracy. It is the safeguard that protects Canadians from bad laws. That safeguard matters even more when Parliament is amending the Criminal Code and touching freedoms protected by the charter. Difficult does not mean dysfunctional. Difficult means careful. Difficult means thoughtful. Difficult means Parliament takes the time to get the law right.

However, the motion before us today would do something very different. It would instruct the justice committee to immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration and vote through the remaining clauses and amendments without any debate. It would prevent the committee from adjourning until the bill is finished. It would limit debate in the chamber to a single day at report stage and a single day at third reading. In other words, the motion would sharply compress the opportunity for Parliament to examine the consequences of what we are doing in this place.

Some members have suggested that members raising concerns are simply trying to delay the bill, but there is a difference between delay and diligence. There is a difference between obstruction and representation. Members of Parliament do not arrive in the chamber carrying only their own opinions. We carry the voices of the people who elect us to be here.

Over the past weeks, members of Parliament from every party have been contacted by Canadians via emails, letters and phone calls. There have been hundreds if not thousands of them to each of us, all expressing concern about the proposed removal of the religious good-faith clause from Bill C-9. These Canadians are asking serious questions about freedom of religion, questions about freedom of expression and questions about where the line would be drawn when sincerely held beliefs are discussed in public. Those questions deserve to be heard in Parliament. That is not obstruction; that is representation.

It should also be said that there was a constructive path forward. Conservatives proposed splitting the bill. The provisions protecting places of worship and cultural centres could have passed relatively quickly. There is broad agreement across the chamber that Canadians must be able to practice their faith without intimidation or obstruction. Those changes could have become law quickly.

The remaining provisions affecting freedom of expression and the removal of the religious defence could then have been studied separately with the care that they deserve. That approach would have protected religious communities immediately, while still allowing Parliament to carefully examine changes to the Criminal Code. The government, shockingly, rejected this compromise. Instead of co-operation, it chose speed. Instead of scrutiny, it chose closure. Instead of debate, it chose control.

Part of what has raised these concerns is a decision made during committee. The government supported a Bloc Québécois amendment to remove the religious expression defence that has existed in the Criminal Code for more than 50 years. That safeguard was not inserted casually. When Parliament created Canada's modern hate propaganda laws in 1970, lawmakers understood a fundamental truth that the power to criminalize speech is one of the most serious powers that a state can exercise.

They built safeguards directly into the law. Truth was written into the Criminal Code as a legal defence. Public interest discussion was protected. Good-faith religious expression, grounded in sacred texts, was protected. Those protections were not merely afterthoughts. They were part of the balance that Parliament deliberately created.

The problem is not only with what the law could punish but also with what people began to fear saying at all. When criminal law moves into questions of belief, interpretation and moral conviction, the chilling effect spreads far beyond the courtroom. Faith leaders begin to wonder what can be safely said. A pastor quoting scripture at a sermon or a priest answering a theological question should not carry the shadow of a potentially criminal liability simply because someone disagrees with the belief being expressed.

For more than 50 years, Canadian law has tried to preserve that balance. Removing that safeguard is not merely a minor technical adjustment. It is a significant shift in how the law interacts with freedom of conscience and expression. When Parliament removes a protection that has existed in criminal law for more than half a century, the burden of proof should be clear. The government should be able to show Canadians exactly why such a change is necessary, yet the amendment was not part of the government's original bill. It appeared late in the committee stage.

Parliament is now being asked to accelerate the legislative process before Canadians have had the chance to fully understand the implications. What is striking in this debate is that the government has not provided a single concrete example explaining why this change is necessary. After weeks of discussion, no one has pointed to a prosecution that failed because of this clause. There is not one case, not one failed prosecution, not one real-world example.

When Parliament removes a safeguard that has existed in the Criminal Code for more than half a century, Canadians rightfully deserve to know why. They deserve to see the problem the government is supposedly trying to fix. That explanation has so far not been provided. Some will say that other protections remain. They will say that the charter still protects freedom of religion and freedom of expression, but that misses the point. When Parliament removes an explicit safeguard from the Criminal Code, it narrows the zone of certainty for Canadians. It sends a signal that a protection once considered essential is now considered unnecessary. This is not a decision Parliament should make lightly.

Across the country, religious leaders, civil society organizations and all sorts of diverse groups are raising concerns. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and those not of faith are saying the same thing, which is to slow down, listen and get it right. These are not radical voices. These are community leaders who care deeply about the freedom of Canadians to live according to their own conscience, to their own values. When so many Canadians from so many different backgrounds raise the same concern, Parliament should take the time to listen. Instead, the government is choosing to move faster.

Strong laws should not and do not fear debate. Good ideas grow stronger when they are tested. When a government limits debate and accelerates legislation, Canadians inevitably begin to ask the simple question, why the rush? They ask this question especially when there are no real examples of why this change is necessary.

Parliament is not a rubber stamp. It is the place where the voices of Canadians are heard. It is the place where our laws are tested before they are imposed. It is the place where freedom is protected, not only by the words of legislation but by the care with which they are written. The question before us today is not simply whether a bill moves forward faster. The question is this: Do we still believe in the purpose of Parliament?

The duty of Parliament is not simply to pass laws. It is to guard the freedom of the people who live under them. It is to restrain power, and when those laws touch belief, conscience and expression, that duty becomes even greater. Let us take the time to get this right, because history teaches us a hard truth. Freedom is rarely taken all at once. It disappears gradually, one safeguard at a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jonquière has the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that the government had not presented any cases where hate speech had been uttered based on religious principles. In Quebec, there is the case of Adil Charkaoui, who called for the death of Jews. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions decided not to prosecute him because of the religious exemption.

My question for my colleague is very simple. Does he agree that Adil Charkaoui can call for the death of Jews without being prosecuted in court? Tonight, that is exactly what he is defending.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. He should have been prosecuted. People cannot stand up and say things like he said in a public space, talk about exterminating certain types of people or incite specific violence against specific types of people. That is already in the Criminal Code. He most definitely should have been charged. He should be in prison for such vicious language and vicious incitement of violence. That is the problem. This bill would not change that.

The government needs to stand up. The prosecutors need to stand up and actually pursue the laws on the books and put people who are spreading hateful language like that behind bars.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to actually get up to speak to Bill C-9, and here we have a closure motion to censor debate on Bill C-9, which is now going to be used to censor free speech and freedom of expression, as well as freedom of religion by actually outlawing some of our sacred texts in the Bible.

When I look at the charter, it leads off with, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”, and in clause 2, it says:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression

We are talking about actually now making parts of the Bible hate speech. That is what the Liberals have inserted into Bill C-9. We have to stop that if we believe in the Charter of Rights, in freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and if we believe in the “supremacy of God and the rule of law”. I will read from the book of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

I want to ask my colleague for Portage—Lisgar, who eloquently laid out all the dangers around what the Liberals are doing in their amendments to Bill C-9, is this actually more censorship and an attack on our freedom of religion?