Debates of March 23rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is the problem. The government chose not to call any evidence whatsoever to support the Bloc amendment that would remove this 56-year-old religious defence. We asked for more meetings, something that was denied by the Liberal Party. In fact, it was even denied by the member from the Bloc Québécois who sits on the justice committee. We asked for a proper and vigorous study on this defence. We were turned down.

We could have focused on the real issues that Canadians are facing, such as the rising crime levels based on 11 years of a soft-on-crime agenda. We wanted to get to Bill C-14. In fact, we raised the issue before Christmas on 16 occasions. The government chose, every time, to stifle our ability to prioritize community safety instead of going after—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has deep knowledge on this issue. One thing I often hear from constituents is about an attack on faith organizations by the Liberal government, and its response is, “Just trust us.”

I am wondering if my colleague would like to speak to that and give a bit of context about why constituents may feel this way based on previous decisions made by the government.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. As I indicated in my speech, I am sure that the Liberal Party is a deeply divided caucus when it comes to Bill C-9.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the people who are heckling me now and to the member for Winnipeg North, we heard from people from Winnipeg, we heard from faith leaders in Winnipeg, and they are absolutely disgusted with the antics of the Liberal government in choosing to ram through a piece of legislation without proper consideration or proper debate. This was for political reasons, not through evidentiary issues or proper debate in the House of Commons. It is disgusting.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, which is a great honour that the good people of my community have given me.

I am very much looking forward to speaking again on Bill C-9, which is a very important piece of legislation. It emanates from a platform commitment that my party, the Liberal Party of Canada, made in the last election after consulting many groups around the country about the importance of having strong anti-hate legislation so that all members of our respective communities feel safe.

I was really proud when this was part of our campaign platform. I am even prouder that it was then converted into a piece of legislation and that we have come to this stage, very close to hopefully passing it through this House and then off to the other place. The context of this legislation is extremely important. We hear about this often from our communities and it has been debated in this House. There has been a very significant rise in hate crimes in our country, particularly when it comes to anti-Semitism. In the last two years, we have seen a very dramatic rise in anti-Semitic acts, not to mention within the Muslim community. The data confirms that there has been rise in Islamophobia, and there are other groups that also have faced hate.

This has led to the question of making sure that we have strengthened provisions within the Criminal Code so that we can deal with this odious hate that is spreading in our communities, especially as it relates to anti-Semitism and, of course, Islamophobia.

I will very quickly share some data with the House. In 2023, there were 4,777 reported incidents of hate, which marked a 32% rise from 2022 to 2023 in hate incidents. This was the third consecutive sharp increase in four years, with the total number of hate crimes more than doubling, to around 145%, since 2019. All this is extremely important, and it provides the necessary context by which we need to bring this legislation.

Just debating it and just issuing statements saying that hate has no space in our country is not sufficient anymore. I have heard that from my community members, especially from the Jewish community here in Ottawa Centre. They have implored the government and all members of this House, including in the opposition, to pass Bill C-9 as quickly as possible so that we can strengthen those positions.

As my colleague from Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations was saying, he is a former prosecutor, so he knows the application of law really well. I have had the honour of serving as the attorney general in this province as well, and I have had to deal with hate crime-related offences and charges. I do bring some experience to the context of why this important piece of legislation is so necessary.

The bill, is targeted, presenting a suite of Criminal Code reforms to protect safe access to community spaces. It denounces hate-motivated crimes. It clarifies the meaning of hatred. It would criminalize the wilful promotion of hatred by publicly displaying hate or terrorism symbols. These are some really important aspects of the bill. If I had to provide a summary, there are five important pillars to this bill that I want to articulate for the benefit of all members.

The first pillar, and the most important aspect of the bill, is the proposal to create a new obstruction offence. The bill would create a new offence that would prohibit blocking or interfering with lawful access to a building primarily used for religious worship, or by an identifiable group, such as a community centre, school or seniors' residence. An example would be a group of people forming a chain in front of a synagogue, for example, or lighting a fire at the entrance of a school to stop people from entering.

The second pillar that is also important is the creation of a new intimidation offence. This bill would create a new offence to prohibit behaviour meant to intimidate, threaten or scare people from entering a building primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group such as community centres, against schools or seniors' residences. An example would be masked individuals staring down worshippers outside a mosque or shouting threats at parents dropping their children at a religious school.

The third pillar of this bill proposes a new stand-alone hate crime offence, and it is extremely important. This stand-alone hate crime offence means that when someone commits any crime because of hatred towards a specific group, such as one based on race, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, that hate is treated as part of the offence itself, not just something considered later at sentencing. In other words, the law would formally recognize the crime as a hate crime from the outset, relying on the existing legal definition of hatred, which is also codified in this bill. I will come to that in a moment.

What does this mean? For example, if someone assaults another person because of their religion or sexual orientation, that assault would be treated differently from a regular assault and could lead to a tougher penalty to clearly denounce crimes committed against people because of who they are.

The fourth pillar, as I mentioned earlier, is the codification of the definition of hatred. Believe it or not, we do not have a definition of hatred in our Criminal Code. We have guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada. What we have done in this instance is we have taken the definition from the Supreme Court of Canada and are now codifying it in the Criminal Code. Importantly, hatred is being defined as an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

Lastly, the fifth pillar proposes a new prohibition on the display of certain symbols. The bill contemplates the existing offence of wilful promotion of hatred by recognizing a modern form of expression, which is the public display of hate and terrorist symbols. When someone displays these symbols with the intent to wilfully promote hatred, beyond just mere display, it becomes a distinct offence. There are many examples of protests taking place where somebody is displaying the Nazi hakenkreuz or the Nazi double Sig-Rune. These are hateful symbols that hearken back to the Holocaust and the senseless murder of six million Jews. As well, symbols associated with terrorist entities listed under the Criminal Code, such as the Proud Boys or al Qaeda, will be covered under this.

We may hear from the opposition that this bill is about one small issue, but this is an extensive piece of legislation that covers so many things. This bill has gone through 30-plus hours of study. More than 35 witnesses, including community organizations, legal experts and faith leaders, have contributed to this bill. What we see from the opposition is obstruction, which is regretful. In my view, the end result is that this is a more thoughtful bill.

Changes have been made to this bill that make it even better and stronger. An example is the removal of the “religious defence” that was added in 1970 before the charter. Now, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have religious protection within the charter. We do not need a stand-alone defence. Regardless, there is a better “for greater certainty” clause included in it. The Attorney General consent piece has been reinstated. The definition of hatred has been strengthened, and there have been some changes in relation to hate symbols.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I am thankful it has come to this stage, and I am hopeful that it will pass through the House very soon, so that we can start working together, enforcing law like this and making sure that all our communities are safe for our Jewish neighbours, our Muslim neighbours and all Canadians.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his thoughtful speech.

This morning, I listened to the debate from the Conservative Party talking about somehow believing our government was not standing with victims of violence and crime. This bill stands with victims of violence and crime, particularly hate crime.

How is it possible that Conservatives are not supporting this bill, which would stand with Jews who have been targeted for hate crimes, with Muslims who have been targeted for hate crimes, and with people like me, gay and lesbian people, who have been targeted with hate crimes? Is this not a victim-centred approach to actually address hate head-on?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is somebody who, by the way, wears a collar. He knows what it means to work with communities and to protect communities. We have seen so much victimization happen in the country over the last few years because of people's religious beliefs. It is incumbent upon us to provide protections for them, to make sure that people are not being victimized because of their faith, sexual orientation or identity. That is precisely what the bill is trying to do. It is an important piece of legislation. Let us not obstruct this any further and pass it through the House as quickly as possible.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite's speech. I picked up on something he said about the many hours of consultation around the legislation. I am wondering if he could be very specific about the witnesses who were called in relation to the contentious amendment that we are discussing here today.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we are considering here today is the entire bill, Bill C-9. I went through, in quite some detail, the five pillars of the bill, that make the bill. The Conservatives have chosen to divide our communities. They have chosen to just pick one very small aspect of the bill, as opposed to looking at its entirety, something that is supported by Canadians coast to coast to coast, something that was part of our platform, upon which many people voted for us.

We are fulfilling this commitment. There have been hours and hours of deliberation, debate not only here in the House but in committee. I am grateful that the bill is better because of that process. It is important that we pass the bill through the House, so that it can be law as soon as possible.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues we could have discussed in committee, so many concerns we could have addressed, had we been able to properly debate Bill C‑9, which, as we all agree, deals with some very sensitive issues. Unfortunately, the Conservatives engaged in extensive filibustering. Nevertheless, we can still ask the government some questions, including, for instance, on subjects that some folks may view as violating their rights and freedoms.

The right to protest comes to mind, for example. Bill C‑9 would criminalize the act of intimidating or preventing someone from accessing their place of worship. However, where do we draw the line between the legitimate right to protest—given that protesting is perfectly legal—and the feelings and experiences of folks trying to get to their place of worship who feel threatened or intimidated?

There are some grey areas that would have been worth discussing in committee, but we did not have the opportunity to do so. I would like my colleague to comment on this specific issue of access to places of worship. I would like to know what he thinks about this grey area, specifically.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

This is a very important point, as to where those lines are. I think it is important to clarify that the bill is not a bubble-zone legislation. I know it is more commonly referred to as creating some sort of a bubble zone around places of worship, community centres or schools. That is not what the bill does. It does not talk about distances or exclusion zones, nor does it put any prohibition on having gatherings or holding signs on a public street. Of course, people have the right to protest. What we are talking about is obstruction or interference. What we are talking about is the intent to prevent somebody from going to their place of worship, school or community centre.

That is a very specific thing that has been addressed in the bill. The legislation would not create some sort of bubble zone. Frankly speaking, the federal government really does not have the jurisdiction. That falls more within property rights that are within the provincial space or municipal space.

I believe that there has been very thoughtful and clear deliberation in the manner in which the bill has been designed. It is on the right track.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that we are in full agreement with Bill C‑9. I am pleased to see that the finish line is finally in sight. We may finally pass this bill. I was starting to doubt we would ever get this far, given how long the committee meetings were taking.

My colleague from Drummond just raised an important issue, namely access to places of worship. There is also the issue of the various insignia that may be prohibited. There were debates about that and witnesses who had things to say. We heard from some of them, but we could have heard more about where the line will be drawn and just how far the prohibitions will go in infringing on certain charter freedoms to protect others, such as freedom of religion or the freedom to live in peace and security. Where will the line be drawn? These are important questions that we looked at, but we may not have looked closely enough. We could have gone further.

Unfortunately, our committee had to deal with filibustering. The committee began its work last October and at the very start of the clause-by-clause review, it adopted the Bloc Québécois's proposal to eliminate the religious exemptions in the Criminal Code. It passed. I thought we were on the right track and that we would finish well before Christmas.

Unfortunately, things dragged on. I do not necessarily want to blame the Conservatives. I understand that they have a base that is attached to certain things and that they want to defend that position. However, this has left us at an impasse since before Christmas, and we have been dithering over this issue of the religious exemption.

We tried just about everything. We talked about it at length. In my opinion, the Conservatives sometimes presented their arguments in a rather clumsy way, to put it mildly, but they did so nonetheless. We listened to them. We kept arguing. We could not make any headway. We were in what I would call a deadlock.

There were two sides. On one side were the Conservatives and certain religious lobby groups who believed that religion should take precedence over the law. No matter what the laws of men—let us call them that—say, religious rules had to take precedence. On the other side, there was the Bloc Québécois, who said no and that the secular nature of the state is important. We often say that the Quebec state, like the Canadian state, is secular. Unfortunately, in practice, in the laws, there are remnants of non-secularism, of giving precedence to religions, and we must work to overcome these obstacles. We said that the state must be secular and that the laws must be the same for everyone. I do not want to live in a society where Buddhists have rules, Catholics have rules, Jews have rules, and Muslims have rules. That is a no. I believe that in Quebec, as in Canada, the state is secular; the laws are and must remain the same for everyone. Regardless of our religious beliefs or the languages we speak, regardless of our gender, race, or anything else, the rules must be the same for everyone.

I am quite proud that we have adopted this provision in Bill C-9. The previous section 319 had two exemptions, which came to be referred to as religious exemptions. One prohibited the promotion of hatred and the other prohibited the promotion of anti-Semitism. However, both allowed for a reasonable defence if the promotion was done in good faith based on a belief in a religious text.

The Bloc Québécois believed these provisions were antithetical. Indeed, I do not know of any case where someone can promote hatred or anti-Semitism in good faith. That does not exist, and there is a big problem if anyone thinks that that is possible. Good faith means equity. No one can promote hatred in good faith. The exemption was absurd, and it gave rise to a fair number of disjointed interpretations. Members will recall the events that occurred in Montreal two and a half years ago—I do not recall the exact date—when a preacher, Adil Charkaoui, said, among other things, that all the enemies of Gaza should be identified and eliminated. We spoke out against that, but the Crown prosecutor determined that he could not lay charges under the current law.

I would bet, rightly or wrongly, and I am not the only one, that if the religious exemptions in section 319 did not exist, this individual would have been tried and punished for a type of speech that nobody in either Quebec or Canada wants to hear.

I was pleased that the religious exemption was eliminated, and I still feel this way. I will be all the more proud of our Criminal Code when these anachronisms are finally removed from it. Once again, I believe that the rules should be the same for everyone. This is a major victory, which I am looking forward to celebrating once we have completed our study here and once the Senate has given its approval.

We believe that everyone in Canada should be able to practise the religion or life philosophy of their choice without any interference from the state and that the rules should be the same for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns the Conservatives have raised is the issue of trying to rush the legislation through. The member will know full well that it spent many hours in committee. There have been all sorts of opportunities for debate of the legislation.

Could the member give his perspective or the Bloc party's perspective in terms of the process we have had to go through to get the legislation to the point where it is today?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have often said in the House, in committee and even in private, I have a very hard time accepting filibustering.

I used to work in a sector where people try to be effective and where the challenges are enormous. I do not think that the challenges facing parliamentarians are any less significant. The challenges are significant, considering that we adopt rules that apply to the entire population.

I get extremely annoyed when I see time being wasted simply to block the passage of a law that someone may not like. I am not saying that filibustering is limited to the Conservatives. The Liberals have done it before and I am sure they will do it again. Filibustering is present in Parliament and I have learned to put up with it, but do not ask me to condone it. I find it appalling. We need to debate and pass legislation.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution to this discussion from the hon. member, my colleague.

I wonder if he could comment a bit on the lack of consultation with agents like those from the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, and with Orthodox rabbis. There has been no serious consultation on this particular contentious part of the bill, and that feedback would be most informative. There has been none, not at committee or anywhere else, much against what Liberal colleagues and others have said about this.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are aspects we did not have time to consider. Like I said at the outset, that is regrettable but, unfortunately, it is what it is.

There is a legal maxim that delaying justice is often tantamount to denying justice. I would say it is much the same in Parliament. Delaying the passage of laws is tantamount to failing to pass them at all, which is unfortunate.

If there were fewer delaying tactics in committee, if there were less obstruction, we might have time to hear from more witnesses and experts on various issues. Unfortunately, witnesses—who are often victims—come and tell us that these situations are untenable. I fully agree with them, but that does not allow us to pass laws. After that, we hear long speeches from MPs from one party or another who will sit around the table and talk for days on end with the sole aim of preventing us from passing laws.

Yes, the result is that, at times, we do not get as much work done as we would have liked. I agree with my colleague. I invite him to discuss this with his whip.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an article in La Presse this weekend, Éric Ouellet, a member of the Barreau du Québec, wrote:The fact that hate speech may be perceived as enjoying greater protection because of its religious nature undermines the credibility of the legal system.

He goes on to say:The real systemic risk is not an overuse of prosecution, but rather the normalization of rhetoric that targets protected groups under the guise of religious legitimacy.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code is likely to undermine the credibility of the rule of law, which is so important to Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The member for Mirabel always makes valid points. I could not agree with him more.

There was a time when that was happening in Quebec. Religion had a hold on the state. We have heard stories of situations where priests were telling families that they did not have enough children and that they had to have more. There was a lot of interference that did not make any sense. We do not want any of that today. We did everything we could to prevent that sort of thing, including removing religion from the laws of the state.

Under the Criminal Code, it is illegal to promote hatred, but if a person were to do so based on the Torah, the Koran, the Bible or any other religious text, then it is acceptable. We are saying no to that. No matter the reason, promoting hatred is unacceptable, regardless of the person's race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is a substantive piece of legislation, Bill C-9, which deals with combatting hate. This legislation was proposed by the government in the last federal election, less than a year ago. The Prime Minister and Liberal members from coast to coast to coast recognize the harm hatred is causing in our communities.

It is important to recognize that we do not tolerate anyone being made to feel afraid because of who they are, who they choose to worship or anything of that nature. Bill C-9 is substantive, positive legislation that would make a positive difference in our communities.

I am disappointed with the Conservative Party of Canada's approach to Bill C-9. I want to go into a bit of detail on that. This will be the second time now that I have quoted from the Toronto Sun in my political history, I suspect. It is the same article I quoted before, and I am requoting it because I think it speaks volumes to those individuals who are concerned about what Bill C-9 is proposing to do or not do. I underline the word “not”.

This is an article that was published back on January 13. The author of this special is Joseph Neuberger. He has been a criminal lawyer for decades. That is important for us to recognize. In the article, he states:

I also write as a supporter of political campaigns, including the Conservatives in the last election, and I want to be clear that the real danger is not that religious freedom will be curtailed. The real danger is allowing false claims about religious freedom to obscure the actual purpose and effect of the law, and to prevent Parliament from responding to conduct that undermines safety, dignity and social cohesion.

This is someone who supported the Conservative Party and who truly understands the hate that is out there.

The title of the article is, “Bill C-9 doesn't threaten religious freedom. It draws a necessary line”. The subtitle is, “Bill C-9 does not regulate belief, worship, sermons or religious teaching. It does not criminalize disagreement or political debate.”

Again, this was published on January 13. It reads, “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust. Bill C-9 does not weaken it.” He says, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” It continues to read, “Much of the opposition to the bill rests on a misunderstanding—or misrepresentation—of free expression and religious liberty.”

The article continues with a point that people really need to understand, which is the fact that this is not coming from a partisan who supported the government in the last election. It is coming from someone who has had to deal with this on the front line.

I find it unfortunate. There is so much misinformation about a substantial piece of legislation that would deal with hate crimes in a very real and tangible way. Instead of dealing with the issue, the Conservative Party has made the determination that it is in its financial and political, partisan best interests to support misinformation.

If Conservatives want to say they do not support misinformation, they should make an apology to Canadians. Planting fear in the minds of those in churches, gurdwaras, mosques, synagogues and Hindu temples and trying to give the false impression that the scripture they talk about in their places of faith is somehow going to be criminal is absolutely ridiculous, and I question the motivation of the Conservatives in doing so. Why are they doing this? One of the things I hate most about politics is seeing the types of propaganda coming from the Conservative Party.

There are many emails about this. Let me give a sampling of two. I can assure everyone that there are more. I have just not had the time to go through all of them. Here is one email that was sent to me, which says the Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people for quoting scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts. This is a Conservative email that actually came to me. Here is another email. Again, it is Conservative email that came to me. It says Bill C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures that government considers politically incorrect.

These are the types of tactics we see the far right of the Conservative Party of Canada pumping out to Canadians.

The people we represent have a certain amount of trust and faith in what politicians are saying. If we have politicians in the official opposition spreading misinformation, of course there is going to be a reaction to it.

I am of Christian faith myself, and if I believed for a moment that this information was true, I would not support Bill C-9. It is just not true, and the Conservatives know it, yet they continue to support the type of misinformation that is divisive and has a substantial cost.

This legislation would protect our faith facilities. It would protect our community clubs and other gatherings where hatred and terrorism are being promoted and where individuals are being prevented from attending a facility. That is what it would do.

Bill C-9 would ensure that hate and the intentional promotion of hatred are taken into consideration in our laws. It would criminalize them, yet the Conservative Party of Canada is taking one aspect of the bill and using it to promote fear and misinformation at a substantial cost. We know that, and they cannot deny it, because of the information they have been caught circulating. They say there are some people within our faith communities who are really upset because of that aspect of it. When the official opposition is taking the position it has, it does not surprise me.

I would challenge members opposite to take a higher road on such an important issue.

I see my time has expired. I will leave it at that.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few things to speak to. First of all, the government is politicizing this issue and causing a lot of division among Canadian society. Secondly, the government has lost the trust of the faith communities in Canada.

As far as what we are hearing from Canadians is concerned, I have religious institutions in the double digits in my riding of Edmonton Manning. It is a diverse riding in Canada. There are a lot of concerns. I have been hearing about this for months.

The government has flip-flopped for political reasons to work with the Bloc Québécois on this issue. It had better tell Canadians the true story and should better explain its position.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have told Canadians the true story. I have provided, in a very clear and concise way, the misinformation the Conservatives have been pumping out to Canadians, whether it is in the form of press conferences, emails, social media or letter campaigns, no doubt. I do not necessarily have a letter, but someone can stand up and tell me if I am wrong. They will be pumping out letters and all sorts of other misinformation.

It is not the government that is providing misinformation. It is today's Conservative Party of Canada. It is actually a very destructive thing to be doing. Conservatives are not helping people of faith by spreading such misinformation.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr Speaker, I do not even have the words. The member across the way is very emotional, raising his voice to the level that he is about a topic that is very divisive for Canadians. The Liberals, as my colleague from Edmonton Manning has pointed out, have done a very good job of dividing Canadians.

There are a lot of reasons why Canadians and Conservatives do not trust Liberals. We know that, but here is my question for the member across the way. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture is a person who sits at the cabinet table. He stated that parts of the Bible should be banned and identified as hate speech. That is why we do not trust the Liberals.

What does the member have to say to that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is an absolute—