Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern that a lot of misinformation has come to characterize the politics of this debate rather than thoughtful deliberation on what would expand religious freedoms in this country, which is what Bill C-9 was designed to do from inception.
One of the reasons I have some skepticism over the nature of the complaints that have been registered by the party opposite is that its members have actually raised substantive objections to the text of the bill that have now been accommodated. They raised concerns about the role of the Attorney General's consent, which we are willing to accommodate. They raised concerns about the precise nature of the definition reflecting the court's decisions on the issue of hate crimes, which we are willing to accommodate. They have raised concerns about the removal of the religious exemption, which we are willing to make changes to to accommodate and to ensure that communities of faith continue to practise their religions freely.
When each of the concerns that were raised have been accommodated, or we have demonstrated a willingness to accommodate them in full, we have to ask ourselves what the motivation is to not only continue to oppose, which would be fine, but also obstruct and filibuster for months at a time.