Debates of March 10th, 2026

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 6, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government's side. Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Jewish community, from one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, I do not believe that Bill C-9 will do anything to accomplish the protection of the Jewish community, but I would like to ask the minister a professional, legal question. The Liberals flaunt the new obstruction and intimidation offence, but it is already criminal to obstruct someone from entering a synagogue or a school. It is called assault. It is already criminal to intimidate someone from doing something they have a lawful right to do, because that is contrary to the Criminal Code section 423. It is called intimidation.

The minister does not have to listen to me. He should listen to Mark Sandler, a lawyer who understands this better than anyone. He testified before our committee at the invitation of the Liberals and said that the “proposed intimidation or obstruction sections don't make criminal conduct that is not already criminal.”

Why is the minister representing that the new intimidation and obstruction offence will do anything, when in reality such conduct is already contrary to the Criminal Code?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, just before I address the member's question squarely, I would like to point out with respect to the witness that he made reference to, Mark Sandler, that I actually had the chance to speak with him personally. He is supporting this bill. In addition to the intimidation and obstruction measures that the questioner has put to me, he has left out other important changes that would increase the penalties for people who commit a crime against a person on the basis of their identity, including their religious identity and including the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation.

With respect to the intimidation and obstruction offences, we believe that a gap exists. There could be some crossover with pre-existing offences that exist in the Criminal Code that may also constitute intimidation and obstruction, but we learned through other contexts, including to protect health care workers during the pandemic, that there is a gap that will allow us to protect religious communities and to ensure that they can practise their faith free of obstruction and intimidation and fully realize their right to freely practise their religion in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has a history of violating the charter rights of Canadians, from freedom of expression to freezing their bank accounts under the illegal Emergencies Act, etc.

Thirty million people of faith in Canada are expressing concern about Bill C-9 and removing the religious exemption under the hate speech law. We have heard from Christian evangelists, the Catholic Church, Muslim associations and Jewish associations. They all say that this bill is going to cause them to not be able to read their religious texts, because somebody will find them offensive and they will end up in prison.

Why does the minister not care what 30 million people of faith in this country think?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I care deeply what communities of faith think. I have had the opportunity to engage not just with members of the House and all parties who care deeply about the issue, but directly with organizations who represent people who are expressing very real concerns.

What I heard when we had an opportunity to dig into those concerns was that there were some reservations about the removal of the religious exemption, but there was a path forward. In fact, there was a flaw in the Conservative position that many of the stakeholders raised with me, because what they are advocating for is to recognize that the ordinary practice of faith could constitute the wilful promotion of hate, but a defence should accrue. I disagree with this approach, by the way.

We believe that we should actually define hate to make clear that the ordinary practice of faith is never a hate crime to begin with. In addition to that changed definition, which the Conservatives were seemingly willing to work with us on before they continued their filibuster, there are additional protections in the charter that will give Canadians faith that they will be able to practise their faith freely, including the reading of religious texts.

Everyone in this House should know clearly that the government position is to defend the ability of Canadians to practise their faith.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am hearing overwhelmingly from my constituents the concern they have about Bill C-9, in general on how it attacks free speech and freedom of expression, but specifically about the amendment tabled by the Liberals and the Bloc to remove the exemption for good-faith religious discussion about texts. We have already heard the former chair of the justice committee, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, cite several books of the Bible as being hate books, and we know that is blatantly false.

Many schools and churches in my riding teach the Bible as it is written. What guarantee would there be under this legislation that the professors and teachers in these institutions would not be criminalized?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the very clear and well-established charter protections that exist, we heard concerns that people wanted more certainty. That is why we were prepared to make further amendments to this bill to make absolutely clear that reading holy texts, participating in one's community of faith, engaging in services that are part of life as a community of faith, as a religious leader or as a member of a congregation, would all be permitted. We are willing to amend the legislation to put words to that effect directly in the bill, in addition to the charter protections. When the Conservatives realized they were getting “yes” for an answer, they picked up their filibuster and started using this issue to raise money by spreading misinformation to cause fear among Canadians.

My view is that we have had an opportunity to listen to communities and to address their concerns with thoughtful amendments. If we could come to an agreement, we could have a bill that would combat hate that all parties could support.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice continues to misrepresent what has happened. The Liberal government was not elected with a mandate to remove long-standing protections for religious speech. When facing the millions of Canadians affected by this and their concerns, the minister said he would consult and listen to those over the winter break. When coming back, the only response he has had is to say not to worry, the bill does not say what it says.

Even now, the minister says charter rights will protect Canadians, while the government has not said whether it will accept the Federal Court of Appeal finding that it violated the charter rights of Canadians with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Canadians have every reason to be concerned with a government that does not have a record of upholding these fundamental freedoms.

If Canadians truly have nothing to fear, will the Minister of Justice stand up right now and denounce the words of his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who said it should be illegal to quote verses of the Bible that he says are inherently hateful? Will he denounce those comments right now?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the first charge that my hon. colleague has levied against me is that I may not have come through on the commitment to meet with religious organizations. I have a list of almost 30 in front of me now that I met with during the holiday break to ensure that we heard their perspective.

The second charge that he has levied against me is that we have not listened to the feedback. I would correct the record again. We were willing to take their feedback and put an amendment in the bill, an amendment, by the way, the Conservatives seemingly were going to put forward. They decided to continue their filibuster only when they realized we agreed with their position and wanted to add clarity to ensure that communities of faith would continue to be able to read their holy texts, preach the lessons of their faith of choice and live freely in Canada.

The position of the government is that the ability for Canadians to pray freely and practise their faith should continue fully, not only by virtue of the charter protections that exist but also by reflecting the feedback that I personally heard from religious leaders to change the language of the proposed bill to make this eminently clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, the intentional spreading of misinformation is what we continue to witness from the Conservatives. The motivating factor behind their opposition to Bill C-9 is that of fundraising. I could table, if they wanted, an email in which the Conservative Party is attempting to raise money by spreading misinformation and asking the recipients to donate to the party.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Are those the member's speaking notes, or is that a prop?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they are speaking notes, but I could table the document, if they like, which clearly shows that the motivating factor for the Conservative Party is to raise money by spreading misinformation.

Is the minister concerned about misinformation being spread by political entities in the House of Commons?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

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.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have received petitions from thousands of people in my community of Cambridge who are deeply concerned about Bill C-9. It is not misinformation when Canadians took the time to write, call and sign petitions because they want their voices heard in this place, yet today the government is not only advancing legislation that many believe threatens freedom of expression and religious freedom, but also moving to shut down debate on that very bill. To my constituents, that feels like double censorship, as the government is limiting their freedoms and then limiting Parliament's ability to even debate it.

Why is the government so determined to silence debate on Bill C-9 instead of allowing Parliament the time to fully examine legislation that Canadians believe threatens their fundamental freedoms?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, there is no such limitation on the rights of Canadians contained in the bill. That is precisely the nature of the misinformation that has been the subject of the back-and-forth that we saw in the previous question. There are people who have real concerns. Those real concerns can be addressed by sharing valid information and by engaging in making changes where appropriate.

On the issue of limiting debate, I would point out that this bill has been debated now for nearly six months. It was tabled in September of last year. We moved to clause-by-clause in late November, almost four months ago. This bill has 12 clauses and is only a few pages long. The reason it has taken so long is that there has been no participation in debate by the party opposite. Instead, members opposite have used every opportunity to obstruct and filibuster to prevent that debate from happening.

When months have gone by, and when we have demonstrated a willingness to look under every stone, have every conversation and hear every argument, but the Conservatives continue to obstruct, at a certain point, we have to realize that Canadians expect the members they elect to the House of Commons to behave like grown-ups, advance legislation and allow full debate, but not obstruct just for the sake of obstruction.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I believe we are discussing a serious offence here, that of promoting hatred.

Can the hon. minister remind us what promoting hatred means in legal terms?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It would be difficult for me to respond in French.

I think some details need to be clarified.

When we are dealing with the wilful promotion of hate, we are not dealing with disagreeing with or not liking another person; we are dealing with extreme vilification and detestation based on that person's identity. We are dealing with circumstances in communities where synagogues are being shot at, such as in Toronto, and where people are being harassed on their way to mosque. We are dealing with circumstances where members of the LGBTQ2 community cannot hold hands in public for fear they will face violence. We are dealing with people being assaulted on university campuses and in grocery stores because of the God they pray to.

These are not harmless crimes. We deserve to have laws that recognize when an entire community is impacted. It should attract a higher degree of moral culpability and more serious penalties when someone commits a crime not only for the sake of committing a crime but also for the sake of targeting a victim on the basis of who they are.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really troubling when the government brings forward a bill that is about potentially censoring people. The minister has pointed out that the bill has been in the process of being debated for a while. Part of that is because, as time has gone on, we have been able to discover more and more troubling items within this particular bill. Had it been just an easy bill that everyone could get behind, that would have been be fine. However, I have had so many people from my riding reach out to me with their deeply held faith positions. Whether they are from the Muslim community, the Christian community or the Hindu community, they are very concerned about what the bill would actually do and how it would impact their ability to counsel their children and live their lives the way they are choosing to do so, in peace and harmony.

Why is this the bill that the Liberals have decided they are going to ram through and not allow us to have a fulsome debate on when this is something that is so important to so many Canadians?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised two objections: one substantive and one procedural.

On the substantive objection, it is important that we recognize that, when concerns are sincerely held, they can be dealt with by either correcting misinformation or changing the bill when the concern is something that needs to be addressed. We heard examples that demanded changes, and we are willing to make those changes concerning the role of the Attorney General's consent, the definition of hatred and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely and with the certainty that it will not result in the commission of a crime.

On procedure, this is where I have to draw the members' attention: We are dealing with a bill that has been eligible for debate for six months, has been at clause-by-clause in committee for almost four months and has seen obscene obstruction, including Conservative members devolving into conversations about whether they and their spouses prefer puppies or kittens. If there were a serious debate to be had, we would entertain all arguments and would address them appropriately, but this debate ceased to be serious months ago.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the Liberal track record of flagrantly misusing government power, and I cite the misuse of the Emergencies Act, the freezing of citizen bank accounts, the intrusion on provincial jurisdiction numerous times, the arbitrary firearm confiscation by executive order and the elements of the Impact Assessment Act that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, if the government can punish speech it considers hateful now, what is stopping it from silencing any dissent tomorrow?

Furthermore, if the government can do that, what about future governments? Are they going to be able to silence dissent simply by ruling it hateful?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important, when it comes to our charter rights, that we look at not only statements of any government, present, future or past, but also at what that government is or was proposing to do to assess the validity against the rules that constrain the powers of government outlined in our Constitution and, indeed, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I will give some comfort to my colleague opposite by pointing out that the provisions he seems concerned with do not change the behaviour that is criminalized, but put more serious penalties in place, recognizing that a crime should be treated more seriously when someone commits a crime against a victim on the basis of their identity. I, for one, think it would be appropriate for Canada's criminal laws to reflect a higher degree of moral culpability when a Jewish person is targeted by virtue of their being Jewish, when a Muslim person is targeted on the basis of their being Muslim or when a person of colour is targeted on the basis of the colour of their skin.

We have an opportunity to move forward in a fashion that respects our Constitution, as we know that these crimes have been subjected to constitutional scrutiny in courts and have been previously upheld.

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

Mr. Speaker, why have hate crimes increased by 85% since the Liberals took power over 10 years ago?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, trying to attribute partisan blame to hate crimes in this country reflects the level of seriousness that the Conservatives are refusing to bring into this debate.

When it comes to hate crimes, there are a number of challenges that we need to overcome. Some of it is having tougher laws on the books, including crimes that make it easier to prosecute. We also need to have more support for the front lines, in collaboration with provincial partners, and we need to be making upstream investments to help build healthier people who will be less prone to commit hate crimes in the first place. To boil it down to one party being in power at one level of government or another is a disservice to the seriousness that the issue of hate should be dealt with.