Debates of March 9th, 2026

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned in his speech that this was a hill for him to die on. This is something he takes very seriously. I am wondering if he could expand on that and explain why our caucus and he, personally, feel so strongly about this matter.

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

Madam Speaker, to respond, I would like to share a quote that I did not have time to include in my speech. It is from John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, who writes, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

We all, as free people, have the right to express who we are and express our values. We respond to that with other values, with debates, and we do not respond with censorship. Attitudes change over time. Indeed, slavery ended because of the religious convictions in the British Parliament of Wilberforce. It is a position that was unpopular but was morally correct, and history bears that out. Only when we allow free speech do we have the opportunity for truth to win.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Mirabel. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that I will be delivering a preview of, or a preamble to, my colleague from Mirabel's speech, which I am sure will be particularly entertaining. I will not say any more, but I hope my colleagues enjoy this teaser.

Before I begin, I would also like to highlight two events that affected deeply me over the weekend and this morning.

First, my thoughts go out to the family of the young cadet who passed away in an accident involving a school bus in Sainte‑Rose‑de‑Watford. I can only imagine the pain that his parents and loved ones are going through. My thoughts also go out to the wider cadet family across Quebec. It is a tight-knit family, and I know this big family is in mourning. I am keeping them in my thoughts.

Second, before I get into the subject matter of today's debate, tragedy struck in Drummondville this morning when a woman was found dead in a residential neighbourhood. We do not have any details or context at this time, but when things like this happen in a peaceful area, in another tight-knit community, the whole community is shaken. My thoughts go out to the people in Drummondville who were affected by today's events.

Let me get back to Bill C-9. This circus will soon come to an end because at some point, we have to call a spade a spade. We are witnessing a manipulation of the facts and the truth, as well as the spreading of disinformation and a manipulation of these facts and this truth for financial gain and for dishonest purposes.

I will start by reminding members of the Bloc Québecois's demands, which I think were very reasonable in the context of a bill like Bill C‑9.

First, we proposed reinstating the requirement to obtain consent from the Attorney General before initiating prosecutions for inciting hatred, which adds another layer of security aimed at reassuring people who say that this measure could be misused and that anyone could wake up one day and decide to launch a case. It would not be something that would become automatic just because the religious exemption was removed from the Criminal Code. There is another layer of security, even though Quebec already has its own independent institution, the director of criminal and penal prosecutions. In our opinion, this guarantee, which would apply across Canada, would strengthen this kind of religious freedom of expression.

Another very important element at the heart of the whole circus that the Conservatives mounted in committee is obviously the elimination of the religious exemption that allows someone to sidestep criminal charges for fomenting hatred. It is okay to have a religion and to practise that religion. It is okay to have faith and to live that faith, that belief system. That is completely legitimate. That is just fine. We have always respected that. It is a fundamental right that the Bloc Québécois will never attack, contrary to what the Conservatives claimed while putting on that circus in committee.

I know of no religion that does not claim to be a religion of love and peace. I know of no religion that says its followers must spread hate and violent messages. Once again, let me remind my colleagues to listen closely to what my colleague from Mirabel has to say because he might have a different point of view. As I said, I know of no religion that does not claim to be a religion of love. Therefore, I do not see why anyone who is committed to a religion and practises their faith would disagree with the idea of eliminating the possibility of using religious conviction as grounds for inciting hate or calling for violence against a particular group.

People often cite the infamous Adil Charkaoui, who called for the wholesale murder of Zionist Jews in a speech he delivered right in downtown Montreal a few years ago. People often use him as an example, but letting people use religion as a shield in order to call for such acts of violence is abominable.

I do not know anyone—not personally, anyway—who would say that that particular protection should remain in place. I do not know anyone who would say that our priests, our pastors, our imams or our rabbis should be allowed to call for the elimination of a segment of society or a group on the basis of religious texts. No one is saying that. I have certainly never seen anyone say it. The way the Conservatives have manipulated the facts around this issue is disturbing. Frankly, I find it appalling.

A few years ago, the Bloc Québecois tabled a motion to abolish the religious exemption. That was before Bill C-9 came along. The Bloc Québecois's position goes back a long way, because this issue speaks to a core Quebec value. At the time, a Conservative member stopped me in the hall and asked me to tell him a little bit about our proposal and to explain what it was all about. I told him that it was simply aimed at preventing someone from calling for violence or promoting hatred under the pretext that their religion allows or commands it. I told him this did not mean that a person could not quote a text. It would still be permissible to quote texts that may be particularly violent or texts that feel odd and unsettling to readers in 2026 without promoting hatred. I explained that to him. I told him that it was simply a way of not providing a refuge under the Criminal Code to somebody promoting hatred. His response was that he did not agree with that because if this measure was adopted, his pastor would not be able to speak out against homosexuals if he wanted to.

I was dumbfounded. I asked him whether he was telling me that his pastor could call for violence against the LGBTQ community because of some religious text. He told me that his pastor ought to have the right to this freedom of expression. My first thought was: What kind of pastor would call his flock or his followers to hate or rally against any community? I said to him, “Man, you should change pastors. You should change religions and find one that is actually a religion of peace, or at least find another messenger because that messenger is broken.”

Given everything we saw in committee during the Conservative filibuster, we all understood that they were probably getting a huge financial boost and that money must be pouring in. All MPs from all parties have no doubt received dozens of emails from citizens across Canada asking them not to attack this provision of the Criminal Code. I am sure it made for an extraordinary windfall. I am sure it was fun for them to feed the flames and keep the money rolling in, but it has to stop.

We have reached the point where MPs are showboating with Bibles in their hands and bashing the Bloc Québécois. Enough is enough. The parliamentary process, and democracy, must be allowed to take its course, as my colleague stated earlier. Enough is enough. We need to be able to work and move forward. There are important things in these bills. We may not agree on certain things, but at some point, members will have to realize that they are filibustering, that they are going nowhere and that they will end up looking crazy if they keep hammering away at the same nail over and over.

In fact, there is something that I am still not sure about. I know that we sometimes need to give people the benefit of the doubt and that some of these members may truly believe that removing the religious exemption is an attack on their fundamental right to practise their religion. There may be some who sincerely believe that. However, I wonder which is worse: that a federal member of Parliament fails to understand the scope of an amendment like the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois, or that they understand the amendment perfectly but choose to abuse their constituents' trust by leading them to believe that it will limit their religious freedom? I actually do not know which is worse: to be downright incompetent or downright evil. There is a fine line between the two.

As my colleague said earlier, at some point, a little hype and sensationalism is all right, but disinformation must never be tolerated, much less manipulation of the facts or truth. I think it is time for that to stop, which is why the Bloc Québécois supports this motion to limit debate and move on to something else so that this Parliament can actually do its job and we can discuss other important issues.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize that my question is not in French, but I really appreciated the speech from the member opposite.

The combatting hate act was developed in close consultation with impacted communities, with faith communities and with police across Canada.

The member made some important points, including that the show, the performance, we are seeing from the members opposite is extremely unfortunate. I really question the motivation for what the Conservatives are doing. I would like the member opposite to comment on what he sees as the damage of this performance, of building the bill up to be something it is not, in a purely cynical way, to fundraise and gain followers, likes, clicks and subscriptions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time we have seen this kind of behaviour from the Conservatives. They also misrepresented the facts regarding Bill C-11, which they described as an attack on Canadians' freedom of expression, when that was not at all the case. That was not part of the bill's substance or intent.

I will respond to one aspect of my colleague's question. What this does is fuel Quebeckers' and Canadians' cynicism about our system, about Parliament and about the work we do. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view. It is okay to express and debate differing viewpoints, but this must not turn into disinformation and manipulation for purely partisan purposes.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member accused the Conservatives of being cynical and of spreading misinformation and disinformation about the Liberals' religious exemption. How can he say that after the minister said at committee that pastors who cite the Bible should be charged criminally? This is exactly why the Conservatives are against this. We do not trust the Liberals to be the arbiter of our thoughts, decisions and what we believe in. How can he square that circle?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the minister's exact words in front of me, but I would be extremely surprised if a minister had said in committee that a pastor who quotes a passage from the Bible could be tried or prosecuted. I cannot imagine in what kind of medieval world something like that could have been said. I will refrain from answering the question because I do not have all the facts.

What I do when I do not have all the facts is I get all the information I can before taking a stance.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech.

I have a lot of concerns about Bill C-9, but that is not what we are talking about today. I do not like the idea of putting so much importance on using motions like these to study a bill quickly.

I have a problem with the part of Bill C-9 that makes it possible to break the law during a demonstration for being too close to a building. A demonstrator might not realize that there is not enough space between the demonstration and the building.

What does the member think about this problematic aspect of Bill C-9?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that, in any bill, there is an opportunity for parliamentarians to debate, discuss, clarify and amend. However, this could not be done as effectively because of Conservative filibustering in committee.

There are always protections in a bill. There are always safeguards that are put in place. What is more, there are always remedies available afterwards if a bill is found to infringe on charter rights and freedoms.

As they say, there are safeguards in all circumstances. That is what I would say to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands at this time.

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

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, there is a strong consensus in favour of this amendment. In Quebec, there is a strong consensus against using this exemption to incite hatred. However, the people I am seeing today on the Conservative benches are from western Canada: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They represent the Conservatives' extremely radical religious wing.

Why does my colleague think that the Conservative members from Quebec are afraid to speak up about this?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the great privilege of serving as a Bloc Québécois member, so I am not faced with that dilemma. However, if I belonged to a party that had members across Canada and that had to cater to all Canadians on an issue like this one, I would likely also be hiding behind the curtains.

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

Madam Speaker, I will read a quote:

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them—

Indeed, it is important not to cut down trees.

—you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.

I was raised in a very religious family. Both of my parents are theologians. I decided to highlight Deuteronomy, chapter 20, which is in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, which is also the Devarim in the Torah.

This reminds us of one thing. Most religious texts were written before medieval times. These texts were written by humans at a time when the killing of ethnic or religious opponents or those with a different way of life was the norm. Of course, military leaders at the time were careful to include, as needed, whatever moral guidelines suited them. However, these texts all include passages that clearly constitute hate speech and calls for massacre. In any case, that is clearly the case for the three Abrahamic faiths.

Does that mean people do not have the right to read them? I just read them in front of everyone for educational purposes. Will I be put in jail? No. Did I commit a crime? No. I want to reassure everyone that I do not know any Hittites, Amorites or Hivites. I do not know any Jebusites either. However, I do know that some interpretations or explanations of these texts in the hands of rogue prelates or pastors could lead to a crime being committed. If I were a believer who thought these texts had historical value, the last thing I would want is for them to be used by malicious people. I actually think these texts do have historical value, but there is no doubt they can be used for such purposes.

That is how those texts could be used, because the last thing a reader would take away from them is that they should mend fences and spread love. Religions have evolved, but most religious texts are legislative texts that have not been amended as we are going to do with Bill C‑9. With the amendments to Bill C-9, with the way they are written, with the protections included in the amendments, with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—which Bill C-9 and its amendments will be subject to—and with the case law that calls on us to adopt these amendments and clarify the law, we are protecting religious speech.

We are protecting religious values. We are protecting peace. We are protecting love. We are protecting the best parts of religions without allowing certain people to use them to their own end. That is what Bill C‑9 is all about. I will say one thing: There is a reason we are discussing Bill C-9.

The Conservatives are making noise on the other side.

I listened to the Conservatives. I am a respectful guy, most of the time. I listened to them and I want to tell them that no one has a monopoly on faith-based hate crime. In 2023, a total of 1,284 hate crimes were committed against a specific religion, 516 more than in 2022. These crimes were not necessarily triggered by a cleric's remarks. That is not what I am saying. However, each of these crimes was an attack on freedom of religion, freedom of worship and the freedom to go to a mosque, church or synagogue. These crimes are also a much more serious attack on freedom of religion than what the Conservatives are claiming about Bill C‑9.

The 45% increase in hate crimes in 2023 worries me a lot more. It was largely the result of the increase in hate crimes reported by police against Jewish populations. Jewish communities experienced a 71% rise in hate crimes. For Muslim communities, the increase was 94%. This is what needs to be addressed.

What does this bill do? I want to remind the Conservatives that we have a time allocation motion before us. Earlier, they said that that the committee dragged its feet at until two in the morning and that it had wasted everyone's time because it did not hear from enough witnesses.

Personally, I watched the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights meeting. People may not know how patient I am. The member for Rivière-du-Nord asked all the witnesses who appeared before the committee a question about the religious exemption. Some people agreed with it, while others did not, but the question was asked. However, getting on everybody's nerves does not count as debate. Spreading disinformation does not count as debate. Wasting time does not count as debate.

What does this bill do? It reinstates the requirement for the Attorney General to give consent before charges can be laid for the offence of inciting hatred. It aligns the definition of hatred with the definition in Keegstra to be consistent with case law. It abolishes the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for the offence of inciting hatred. According to Keegstra, it does not in any way interfere with the freedom to read and teach religious texts.

It is not normal to hide behind a particular provision of the Criminal Code in order to commit crimes. If I were a deeply religious person, the last thing I would want would be to be associated with someone who uses and exploits my religion to commit crimes. The case of Adil Charkaoui in Quebec is well known. That is why there is a consensus in Quebec for the kind of amendment we are proposing to Bill C‑9. There is a consensus, and that is why the Quebec Conservatives are hiding in the sub-basement.

In 2017, Imam Sheikh Muhammad ibn Musa Al Nasr stated that Jews were the worst of mankind and that they should be slaughtered on Judgment Day. An arrest warrant was issued against him. In August 2024, in his mosque in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Imam Adnan Abyat called for the death of Jews and Christians. Is that what love and kindness look like? In October 2024, Adil Charkaoui prayed for the death of Jews during a protest. Praying at a protest is a loophole. He is so good at loopholes that he would make a good tax lawyer. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to prosecute him, concluding that he had taken refuge behind the problematic Criminal Code provision. If we had said the same thing, we would have had to face justice.

Priest Calvin Robinson was defrocked by the Anglican Catholic Church after giving the Nazi salute at a pro-life rally associated with Trump. Wow, this religion of love is so nice. Islamic preacher Uthman Ibn Farooq was denied entry to Canada, where he was planning to give a lecture. This was thanks to, among other things, the intervention of the Bloc Québécois and my colleague who is now the House leader. This preacher was banned from coming to give his lectures because he believed that members of the LGBTQ+ sexual minority did not have the right to live.

These are crimes, and these actions and words must be treated as crimes.

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

Madam Speaker, I must commend the Bloc Québécois for so successfully enlisting the Liberal government in its assault on religious freedom in this country. I know the Bloc has long tried to do what Bill C-9 would do. Good on the Bloc for getting the Liberals on board.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois has once again misrepresented the facts of the Adil Charkaoui case to justify removing the religious defence. Will he acknowledge that the religious defence does not apply, and has never applied, to Criminal Code provisions dealing with violence or the threat of violence, and acknowledge that prosecutors did not invoke the existence of the religious defence when they did not proceed with charges against Mr. Charkaoui? Will he clear the record and stop misrepresenting the record?

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

Madam Speaker, let us come back down to Earth. The list of cases I gave are obvious cases where so-called religious freedom was used to commit a crime by calling for murder, hate and execration. The fact that the director of criminal and penal prosecutions, after consulting in-house lawyers, decided to use another technique to lay charges does not change anything.

What are the Conservatives waiting for? Are they waiting for one, two or three serious crimes to be committed? Are they waiting for more hate, more attacks on mosques and synagogues? This problem has to be addressed with amendments that are perfectly logical and consistent with case law, and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. What we often hear about are the hate crimes that get publicized. There are literally thousands of hate crimes that take place in Canada.

Could he provide his thoughts on that and on why it is so important to have legislation of this nature?

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

Madam Speaker, there is a fairly simple mathematical reality to crime statistics. The statistics we read always skew low because they reflect crimes that are reported. That is what happened with sexual crimes at one point. When people started talking about sex crimes and awareness grew, the number of crimes reported went up because victims knew they would be listened to.

How many people have been in situations that went unreported, situations involving social coercion? We do not know. However, one thing we do know is that the statistics for religious hate crimes are alarming. All Quebeckers and Canadians must be made aware of this situation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Mirabel on his speech, which was as principled and relevant as it was entertaining.

The Conservatives talk a lot about Adil Charkaoui and the fact that no charges have been laid against him. Picking up on that, I would like my colleague from Mirabel to tell me whether, as far as he knows, the Attorney General of Quebec or Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions typically explains the reasons for which they do not lay charges in a particular case and include the Criminal Code provisions upon which they base their decision in that explanation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but from what I understand, the Crown always has a strategy. When charges are laid or a decision is made to not lay charges, authorities always try to use the strategy that is most likely to lead to a conviction.

However, there is one thing we are seeing. We are legislators, and what we are seeing is that this is a hate crime. It is hate speech based on a religious text. Sometimes a prayer is said at a protest just to hide behind the law. I personally am convinced that that was the intention.

I was protesting with local farmers about the Alto high-speed rail project two weeks ago, and no one said any prayers. We obeyed the law and did not hide behind it.

I firmly believe that Adil Charkaoui deliberately used that protection in the Criminal Code to push things a lot further than any other citizen could, and I think that, as legislators, we really need to focus on the intentions of those individuals.

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

Madam Speaker, to start off, I will make it very clear that I truly believe, as I know my colleagues believe, that no one in Canadian society should feel unsafe because of who they are.

Bill C-9 deals with a critically important issue that was raised in the last federal election: a commitment that today's Prime Minister made to Canadians less than a year ago to come forth with legislation that would actually have a real and tangible impact on dealing with the issue of hate crime.

As indicated in the question I just posed to the member from the Bloc, we are all aware of many horrific hate-motivated crimes that have taken place in Canada. Many of them get publicized to the nth degree, but there are a whole lot more that take place that we never hear about. I believe that the passage of Bill C-9 would raise the profile of the issue in a positive manner.

There are two things I would like to divide out in terms of the debate. The first is to deal with the motion we have before us and the purpose of the motion. The second is to deal with Bill C-9 itself.

We have before us a motion that would ensure that the legislation actually gets voted upon. Even though we have a minority of members of Parliament in the House, we believe we have a majority of MPs who clearly support Bill C-9. Our problem is that the Conservative Party of Canada has made the decision to prevent the legislation from passing, at all costs.

I have said in the past that with any group of 12 students at a public high school in Canada, I would be able to put up a filibuster that would prevent legislation from passing unless a government were able to bring in some form of time allocation. It is not because the Conservatives are outstanding parliamentarians that they are able to frustrate the system, but rather there is a motivation within the Conservative Party that does not want the legislation to pass.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, some are saying, “hear, hear”, and another is saying, “free speech”.

I will add something else. The Conservatives are more interested in the Conservative Party of Canada and what is happening internally within their party than what is in the best interest of Canadians, and I will expand on that. With respect to Bill C-9, there is a great deal of misinformation out there, and a lot of that misinformation is rooted in the Conservative caucus of Canada, the official opposition. I will clearly demonstrate some of that.

I do not know how it is, but I get fundraising emails from the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives can take me off the list, and I have told them before that they can take me off it whenever they want.

I will read a couple of emails. This is really important, because I believe there is a split in the motivating factor in the Conservative Party. It has the far right, but many others will be quiet on the issue because of the leadership of the Conservative Party. What is the motivation? In good part, it is about building up a data bank and raising money. That is a real issue for the Conservative Party.

It sees Bill C-9 as a way in which it can promote fear, spread misinformation and raise money. Let me quote from a couple of emails. This is what the Conservative Party of Canada has sent out to thousands of Canadians: “Kevin, the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts. These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be stopped at once.”

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the far right members in the Conservative caucus applaud the comment. Sure they would. They are the authors of the letter. It goes on: “Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to stop this reckless and unprecedented attack on our freedoms and defend the Canadian Charter of Rights.” What a joke this is. This is actually ridiculous.

What is the purpose of sending the letter out? It is all about raising money. The Conservatives are sending out thousands of emails across the country, spreading misinformation and fear in order to raise money. That is what that email is, and it is coming from the Conservative Party.

Another email says, “The Liberals and Bloc want to prosecute people quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah and other sacred texts.” In this one, they are not looking for money, but rather they are building a data bank.

We wonder why we finally got the bill through second reading and to committee, months ago, and the Conservative Party is continuing to filibuster at committee stage. The Conservatives do not want the legislation to pass, even though the essence of the legislation is sound, it would make a difference and it was a part of an election platform from Canada's new Prime Minister and 300-plus Liberal candidates from coast to coast to coast, dealing with the issue of crime. I am not surprised.

We have a substantial legislative agenda dealing with crime. If the Conservatives would only recognize what Canadians even in Conservative ridings are hearing, which is that people want legislation. They want action. They want co-operation on the floor of the House of Commons and its standing committees so we can make and pass good, sound public policy. That is what Bill C-9 is, but it is not alone. For this bill, we finally got the okay by getting an opposition party, in particular the Bloc, onside, which would allow our minority Liberal government to ultimately get it through committee and pass it to become law.

All we have to do is read the propaganda that comes out of the Conservative caucus and listen to what the members say inside the House or in committee, and we will understand that the Conservatives have no intention of passing the legislation. Then if we say we have a motion before us that would guarantee its passage, they try to link it to democracy and freedoms and so forth.

I sat in opposition for over 20 years. There is a time when the Conservatives have to really reflect on just how effective they are being and question the motivations even within their own leadership. The leadership of the Conservative Party today is an absolute disaster.

When we have good, sound public policy to deal with issues that Canadians want us to be dealing with but we continue to have the type of filibustering that we see coming from the Conservative Party, I say shame on the Conservatives who continue to promote that type of behaviour. They should not try to say that we as a government are trying to be anti-democratic. I stood in my place, as I have highlighted before, and asked for the leave of the House to be able to sit until midnight for weeks.

It is the Conservatives who say no to that, even though they will say they want more time. When they are provided with the opportunity for more time, what do they say? They say no, because it would mean they would have to put in a bit of extra work. They talk about how they want to be able to debate things. That is not the reality. The reality is that they want to use the argument in order to justify their poor behaviour in terms of delivering for Canadians. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming for us to actually get Bill C-14, bail reform legislation, through the House. They have to be shamed into doing it.

Let us reflect on what is happening with Bill C-2. The Conservatives cry about certain issues, but when it comes time to actually do something, such as pass legislation, they want to filibuster. Let us take a look at what is happening with Bill C-2. Again, it is an absolute dead end because the official opposition, the Conservative Party, has made the determination that it does not want to deliver for Canadians. It wants to deliver for the Conservative Party alone. That is what its motivation is.

Let us take a look at some of the substance of the bill itself, if I could get off the motion and look at what Bill C-9 would do. There are some substantial changes that are being proposed in it. Let us think in terms of obstruction and intimidation that are used in order to prevent individuals from having access.

The Conservatives talk about religious freedom. What about having the freedom to be able to go unimpeded to a church, a mosque or a synagogue? They do not understand it. These are stand-alone hate offences that we would be creating. These are offences—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. All members will have the opportunity to speak when the time for questions comes. Let us allow the hon. member to finish his speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.