Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the motion before the House, but also about something larger than procedure. I rise to speak about responsibility, the responsibility we hold as legislators when Canadians are facing real threats in their communities.
Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, has now been before Parliament for months. It was introduced on September 19, 2025. It has been debated in the House. It has been studied at committee. More than 20 witnesses have appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours debating and studying this legislation.
That is what we call serious scrutiny. That is responsible legislative review, yet despite all of that work, the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate and not because the legislation has not been studied, but because procedural tactics have been used to delay the moment when Parliament must make a decision.
I want to speak plainly today. Members of the House are free to oppose legislation. They are free to disagree with provisions. They are free to vote against a clause. They are free to vote against the amendment, and they are free to vote against the entire bill. That is democracy, but democracy also requires that Parliament eventually vote. It cannot function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely through procedural manoeuvres. Members of the opposition have had months to present their arguments. They have had hours and hours and hours to debate. They have had the opportunity to propose amendments throughout many, many months. What they do not have is the right to stall Parliament indefinitely, because while this chamber debates procedure, something else is happening outside these walls.
Communities across Canada are facing rising hate and intimidation. We see it in the data. We see it in police reports, and we see it on the news. Just recently, shots were fired at a synagogue in the greater Toronto area. Shots were fired at a place of worship, a place where people gather and pray, a place where families bring children, a place where Canadians should feel free and protected. That incident is not isolated. Jewish communities have reported rising threats. Mosques have reported rising threats and facing intimidation, and many other religious institutions have been subjected to hate crimes. Community centres from all backgrounds have been targeted, and hateful symbols have appeared outside schools and cultural institutions.
These are not theoretical concerns. They are real events affecting real people. When Canadians see incidents like this, they expect Parliament to respond with seriousness and efficiency. They expect Parliament to strengthen protections, and they expect Parliament to act.
Bill C-9 is part of that response. The legislation does three simple things. First, it creates an offence to prevent people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places like synagogues, mosques, churches, schools, community centres and any other places of worship. Second, it creates a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence, so that when crimes are committed because of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes that harm clearly. Third, it addresses the public display of symbols used to promote hatred and intimidate communities.
These are practical measures. They are targeted measures, and they respond directly to what communities have been asking Parliament to address. The legislation before us is only eight pages long, eight pages, yet Parliament has now spent more than 30 hours studying it. Witnesses have testified. Experts have spoken. Communities have shared their experiences. Amendments have been debated. That is thorough scrutiny by any reasonable standard, yet the delays continue.
Much of the opposition's argument has focused on the removal of the religious exemption provision in the Criminal Code. Let us examine that argument carefully. Freedom of religion in Canada is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection is fundamental. It is one of the cornerstones of our constitutional system, and it is not changing. Courts in Canada have repeatedly confirmed that hate propaganda offences require an extremely 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.
In fact, the religious exemption provisions that have become the focus of this debate have never been relied upon in a prosecution, not once. The protection for religious expression in Canada comes from the charter and from the high legal threshold built into the Criminal Code of Canada. Nevertheless, concerns were raised, and when those concerns were raised, Parliament responded responsibly. A “for greater certainty” clause was introduced to explicitly confirm that peaceful religious expression, including sermons, teachings and discussion of scripture, would never be criminalized under this legislation. That clarification was introduced in good faith. It addressed the concern directly, and it reaffirmed what the charter already guarantees, but even after the clarification, the delay continued.
Canadians watching this debate might reasonably ask a simple question. If the Charter protects religious freedom, if the courts already set a very high threshold, and if the bill now contains an explicit clarification protecting religious expression, then why does the delay continue? That is a question members of the opposition should answer, because Canadians expect Parliament to deal honestly with the facts, and the facts are clear: Freedom of religion is protected, and peaceful religious expression is protected.
This legislation targets something entirely different. It targets intimidation. It targets harassment. It targets the deliberate promotion of hatred. When people block the entrance to a synagogue, to a mosque or to any other place of worship to frighten worshippers, that is intimidation. When people surround a mosque, shouting threats, that is intimidation. When hateful symbols are displayed outside synagogues, schools or community centres to frighten families, that is intimidation. Canadians are asking Parliament to respond to that intimidation.
There is another consequence to this ongoing delay that we must acknowledge. Parliament's time is not unlimited. Every hour spent delaying one bill is an hour that cannot be spent advancing other legislation, including legislation addressing public safety, legislation addressing justice reform and legislation addressing economic issues that Canadians expect Parliament to address. When procedural tactics are used to stall legislation indefinitely, they slow the entire work of Parliament. That is not responsible opposition.
Responsible opposition means debating legislation seriously. Responsible opposition means proposing amendments. Responsible opposition means voting according to one's principles. What it does not mean is preventing Parliament from reaching a decision.
The motion before us today is straightforward. It would not eliminate debate. Debate has already happened for hours and hours and months and months, with more than 30 hours of it just in committee. What this motion would do is ensure that the committee could complete its work and that the House could finally vote on Bill C-9. Every member of the House would then have the opportunity to make their position clear. Those who support confronting hatred would vote for the legislation. Those who oppose would vote against it. That is how democracy functions. Canadians are watching this debate.
