House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-9.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Jail Not Bail Act Second reading of Bill C-242. The bill, C-242, proposes amending the Criminal Code to tighten the bail system. Conservatives argue it prioritizes public safety by removing the principle of restraint to combat crime. Conversely, Liberal and Bloc members oppose the legislation, arguing it is duplicative of Bill C-14, potentially unconstitutional, and ignores the operational realities of provincial resources. 7300 words, 45 minutes.
Combatting Hate Act Report stage of Bill C-9. The bill aims to combat hate crimes by reforming the Criminal Code. Conservatives, led by Larry Brock, oppose removing a long-standing religious defence, arguing it threatens free speech and religious expression. Conversely, Government members maintain the legislation is necessary to address rising hate while upholding legal protections. The Bloc Québécois supports removing the exemption, contending that religion should not provide a shield to publicly promote hatred against identifiable groups. 40700 words, 6 hours in 3 segments: 1 2 3.
Amendments to Bill C-8 Kevin Lamoureux raises a point of order questioning whether three Conservative amendments to Bill C-8 exceed the bill's scope, while other members debate the procedural validity of challenging committee rulings at this stage. 500 words.
Adjournment Debate - Industry Greg McLean accuses the government of complicity in the failed Lion Electric venture, demanding transparency on Export Development Canada's financial liability. Andrew Scheer and Arpan Khanna criticize Liberal carbon taxes and economic policies for rising food and fertilizer costs. Wade Grant defends government programs and investments, citing overall economic resilience. 3900 words, 25 minutes.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is a different point of order.
The member opposite earlier today was calling a member on this side a grifter. He did not apologize for it. He was told he was not allowed to make those comments. He did not apologize for defaming a member in the House. He should not be allowed to stand up and ask another question until he apologizes for his disgraceful and disrespectful comments. I want to see that happen.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Again, I am going to invite members. I was not in the chair when this statement or non-statement was made, so I am not aware of this. I will get to the point—
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Is this on the same point of order?
The member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is a long-standing tradition that members are all honourable members in this chamber, and if something was to take place, members have the ability to rise and withdraw or retract. It is not for any member in this chamber to police what happens in here. Mr. Speaker, I think you are doing a good job and that you should have confidence in the job that you do.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I am going to remind members again that there is a standing order, Standing Order 18, which dictates how members are supposed to behave. It is a fixed rule. It is not up for interpretation. I would invite members again to be judicious in the words they use. I was not in the chair earlier at the time the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley was mentioning. I did hear the completion of the question from the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, so I now invite the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies to continue with his response.
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify for anyone who has tuned in to the recent diatribe back and forth about conduct in the House, I do not believe any of it was directed at me because I had been conducting myself in a manner appropriate to the House. The Speaker's comments, I think, were directed at others.
However, it has been so long since the member asked the question, I have forgotten the name of his riding. However, I would just like to remind him that he has forgotten to mention a few things while he was up and had an opportunity to speak. He did not mention the crime and chaos that has been unleashed on Canada's streets since the Liberals took power over 10 years ago. He did not mention the burning of churches. Over 100 churches have been burned, and the Liberals have been silent on that. He did not mention the shootings at synagogues that have happened over the past number of months. He did not mention the extortion that has taken place because Liberals have unleashed crime and hatred on the streets like we have never seen in Canadian history.
David Bexte Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech, and I think it causes us to have a lot of thought.
I wonder if my colleague could comment on the really insidious nature of what we are facing here right now related to the likelihood of self-censorship that would happen if this bill is implemented.
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, the aspect of self-censorship or censorship is really paramount to some of the discussion we are having here.
We have seen how the Liberals are shutting down debate or censoring a censorship bill. I do not think there is anything that could be more troubling from a government that has always sought to have ultimate power by censoring the people. That, I believe, is what the government is truly seeking.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat misleading when the member says that the government is attempting to censor by rushing the debate, when in fact the government could not do it alone. We have an opposition party working with the government because of an irresponsible official opposition that refuses to let the legislation pass, not recognizing that Bill C-9 combats hate. There is a great deal of intentional hatred in terms of victims out there, and this legislation assists in dealing with it.
Does the member not recognize that there are many aspects of Bill C-9 that are very positive, even from a Conservative perspective?
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North did point out that there are many pieces of Bill C-9 that are positive. Conservatives offered to split this bill and deal with those components expeditiously, so they could have been passed long ago. It was this ultimate censorship that the government is invoking and then ending the debate on it and not allowing members who represent Canadians across the country to continue the debate so that the reality and truth could be told.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The hon. member for Ponoka-Didsbury will have around seven minutes for his speech.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB
Mr. Speaker, that feels like censorship, but it is not. I know we are just going to run out of time. I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House today for this very passionate debate on an issue that I think many Canadians are paying attention to.
I would like to start with a quote from someone who is considered to be a great Liberal prime minister. Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said, “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.” Where is this freedom today in regard to religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, when it pertains to Bill C-9? Where is the Liberal Party of Wilfrid Laurier? As a matter of fact, I think many people today are wondering if there are any Liberals left in the Liberal Party.
Former Prime Minister Laurier was born and baptized Catholic. In December, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote the justice minister and said the following:
The proposed elimination of the “good faith” religious-text defence raises significant concerns. This narrowly framed exemption has served for many years as an essential safeguard to ensure that Canadians are not criminally prosecuted for their sincere, truth-seeking expression of beliefs made without animus and grounded in long-standing religious traditions. Courts have made clear that only the most extreme forms of speech fall within the scope of hate-propaganda offences.
That says it all. Of course, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is only one of hundreds of Christian organizations. There are hundreds of Muslim organizations. There are people from all different faiths who practise here in Canada, like the Jewish community and those practising other religions from other parts of the world. All of them have come here so they can be part of that great Canadian cultural phenomenon, which used to be that we were a nation premised on freedom.
That same letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops goes on to say, “The removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.”
This is called the “chill effect”. It is actually part of this legislation, not by accident, but by design. The Liberals know full well what they are proposing in this legislation and it is the chill effect that they are looking for.
Meanwhile, as this is a priority for some reason for the Liberal government, violent crime in Canada has skyrocketed in the last 10 years. Instead of going after violent criminals and repeat offenders, the government is targeting good neighbours, solid people and churchgoers. Folks back home in central Alberta, and indeed across Canada, have a great right to be concerned with the contents of Bill C-9 when it comes to removing the religious exemption.
While violent crime surges and our local RCMP detachments are left to try and handle surging rural crime, the government has decided to crack down on religious freedoms and faith-based groups. This is insulting, it is dangerous and it is completely out of touch.
My neighbours in Ponoka—Didsbury are right to be alarmed. The Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 would remove long-standing protections for religious expression and in doing so, risk criminalizing sections of the Bible and other sacred texts simply because they contain teachings that some may find disagreeable. This is a deeply troubling path.
Canada has always upheld the principle that people of all faiths must be free to speak, preach and live according to their beliefs. That freedom should never depend on whether the government of the day approves of those beliefs or not. Conservatives oppose this latest Liberal assault on the freedom of expression and religion, and we will defend the rights of Canadians to discuss, debate and express their convictions. We will fight to keep the Liberal thought police out of Canadians' places of worship.
Canada already has clear laws against threats, violence and inciting hatred. Section 319 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. Similarly, section 318 makes it an offence to advocate for genocide. These laws have worked reasonably well to limit harmful hate speech, while respecting the charter rights of all Canadians. What Liberals are attempting now goes far beyond that. When the government begins redefining “hate” as anything that hurts feelings or contradicts activist narratives, it endangers open dialogue and the very foundations of a free and democratic society.
Over 80% of Canadians voted for either the Liberals or the Conservatives in the last election, yet the Liberals are partnering with the vehemently anti-faith, anti-religion Bloc Québécois to make amendments to Bill C-9. This would be like the Liberals allowing Albertans to make all the decisions related to oil and gas in Canada. This is what they are doing. Over 80% of Canadians voted for the Liberals or the official opposition, and one would think they would try to find common ground with the official opposition rather than a party that is basically a smaller fraction of Canada, a party that, frankly, knows it will never be in government in this country. This is who they are choosing to partner with.
The Liberals are taking Canada down an incredibly dangerous path through their partnership with the Bloc Québécois. No Canadian voted for this. The Liberals are penalizing Canadians of faith through support from the Bloc Québécois to target people and beliefs that they simply do not agree with. This is an unjust and barbaric assault on the freedoms of Canadians who merely think differently from the government, while the real criminals are able to reoffend.
It is quite telling that the government is using procedural tactics to push this bill forward when it could have used those same tactics to change the bail laws. It is telling that this is what the government's priority actually is.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, March 10, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, we would request to have it defeated on division, please.
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
