Debates of June 16th, 2026

Combatting Hate Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I think that, as Canadian citizens, we all need to take notice when symbols are used to promote hate. We do not need to be personally affected. As members of Canadian society, we are all affected when our colleagues, friends or community members are the target of hateful behaviour.

Last night, we heard a Conservative member downplay the symbolic impact of the noose in Canada. He even said that it was odd to include it as a hate symbol in the bill. I think those remarks are completely out of place. That is why I rose in the House this morning to speak out against these remarks and to remind members about the importance of Bill C‑9.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Heritage had suggested that passages of religious scripture could be viewed as hateful. We know that this government, which the member is a part of, has moved to limit debate once again, specifically on Bill C-9, since that is what we are debating, but it is happening on a lot of things.

I am wondering why the member thinks that his government should continue to ram this bill through before the end of the session instead of killing the bill and coming back with something that is not so divisive and that actually can unite Canadians.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would rather hear my colleague tell me whether she supports the remarks made by her colleague from York—Durham. Yesterday, he made comments that downplayed the impact of the noose in Canada. He said it was odd to include it as a hate symbol. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

I would be very interested in hearing from more Conservative members and finding out what their positions are with respect to what their colleague said last night.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Windsor West. Today, I rise to speak on their behalf to Bill C-9.

Before I do, I would like to take a moment to recognize two brave police officers who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving their communities. Last week, Toronto police officer Marc Pinizzotto was killed in the line of duty while taking part in the execution of search warrants connected to a series of shootings, including attacks at the U.S. consulate and a synagogue in Toronto. Just days earlier, OPP officer Tarun Bali also lost his life while serving the people of Ontario. To their families, friends, loved ones and fellow officers, I offer my sincere condolences.

These losses hit close to home for me. More than 30 years ago, I began my career in public service as a police officer with the Toronto Police Service. I spent nearly seven years there before continuing my police career in the Windsor-Essex region, serving a total of 29 years in law enforcement. I still remember what it felt like to put on the uniform and head out on patrol. I remember the pride that came with it, but I also remember the risks that came with the job. Police officers leave home every day not knowing what the next radio call will bring. Their families understand that reality too.

That is why the deaths of Officer Pinizzotto and Officer Bali are felt so deeply, not just by their families and colleagues, but by police officers and former police officers across this country. Their sacrifice deserves our respect and our gratitude, and their memory deserves to be honoured. One officer came from an Italian Canadian family, the other from an Indo-Canadian family. Different backgrounds, different communities, yet both wore the same uniform, took the same oath and made the same sacrifice in service to Canada. They protected everyone. That is what police officers across this country do.

As I thought about these officers, I could not help but think about the debate we are having today. A police officer has lost his life while investigating violent criminals connected to attacks on places of worship and innocent people. That reality should remind all of us that hatred is not an abstract concept. It has real consequences. It destroys lives. It tears at communities. When left unchecked, it can lead to violence.

A few weeks ago, many Canadians joined Rwandan communities across this country by marking Kwibuka, the remembrance of genocide against the Tutsi people in Rwanda. Kwibuka means “to remember”. It is a solemn reminder of one of the darkest chapters in modern history. Last Saturday, I had the privilege of attending such a commemoration in Windsor, where I listened to Kizito Kalima, known to many as “Big Z”, and to other members of Windsor's Rwandan community as they shared stories of loss, resilience, reconciliation and hope. Their message was powerful. It was not a message rooted in bitterness or revenge. It was a message rooted in remembrance, healing, reconciliation and hope. That message stayed with me, and I believe it carries lessons for all Canadians.

Let me be absolutely clear: Canada is not Rwanda. Our institutions are strong. Our democracy is strong. Our people are united by far more than what divides us, but history still has lessons to teach us. One of those lessons is that hatred rarely begins with violence. It begins when people stop seeing their neighbours as fellow citizens. It begins when stereotypes replace understanding and when fear replaces trust. The lesson of Rwanda is not that hatred suddenly appeared. The lesson is that too many leaders ignored the warning signs for far too long. Fortunately, Canada is not facing those circumstances, but that does not mean we should ignore our responsibility to build trust, strengthen communities and unite Canadians.

General Dallaire has spent decades reminding Canadians that the lessons of Rwanda are not simply about one country at one moment in history. They are lessons about humanity. They are lessons about leadership. They are lessons about the responsibility we all share to confront hatred before it turns to violence. That is why this debate matters. Racism is real. Anti-Semitism is real. Islamophobia is real. Hinduphobia is real. Every one of us has a responsibility to challenge those things wherever they appear.

However, laws alone cannot solve them. No Criminal Code amendment can teach respect, build trust or replace leadership. The words spoken by elected officials matter. The examples set by government matter. The way we speak about one another matters. Good intentions matter too, but good intentions alone are not enough. What ultimately matters is the results of government policies.

We are living in unprecedented times. Many Canadians are carrying real burdens. Some are worried about paying their bills. Some are worried about finding a home for their family. Some are worried about crime in their communities. Some are worried about discrimination and hatred. Some are worried about the future their children will inherit. When people are worried, frustrated or uncertain, the tone of public discussion can change. That does not excuse hatred, racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and it certainly does not excuse violence. However, it should remind us that leadership matters. The responsibility of leaders is to lower the temperature, build trust and bring people together around our common values. That is how strong societies remain strong. That is how diverse societies remain united.

The question before us is not whether hate is wrong. The question is whether Bill C-9 is necessary and whether it will achieve what the government says it will achieve. There are provisions in this legislation that deserve support. Every Canadian should be able to attend a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, gurdwara, community centre or school without fear of intimidation or violence. I also support the Senate amendment adding the noose as a prohibited symbol of anti-Black hate. As a former police officer, I understand the historical weight that symbol carries and the fear it is intended to create.

There is value in providing clarity to police officers and prosecutors dealing with such cases. After spending nearly three decades in policing, I tend to look at legislation through a very specific lens. I look at it and ask two questions. First, is it enforceable? Second, will it make Canadians safer without stepping on their rights and freedoms? Those are the questions all police officers ask. Those are the questions Parliament should be asking as well.

The government speaks as though Canada has no laws to deal with hate crimes. That is simply not true. We already have laws against the public incitement of hatred. We already have laws against the wilful promotion of hatred. We already have laws against threats, intimidation, harassment, vandalism and violence directed at people because of their religion, race, ethnicity or background. Judges can already impose tougher sentences when crimes are motivated by hate. These tools already exist.

The problem is not that we lack laws. The problem is having the courage to enforce the laws. This is where I believe the government is missing the point, unfortunately. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. They are concerned about violent repeat offenders. They are concerned about organized crime, gang violence, extortion and human trafficking. They are concerned about the lack of consequences for repeat offenders. These concerns are real. They are being discussed around kitchen tables and at coffee shops across this country.

After 10 years of policies that have weakened confidence in our justice system, Canadians are asking whether Parliament is focused on the right priorities. Removing a long-standing protection for good-faith expression will not stop a gang shooting, a human trafficker or an extortion ring. It will not stop repeat violent offenders or the transnational gangs that continue to terrorize communities across Canada. Officer Pinizzotto was not investigating a sermon; he was investigating violent criminal activity. That is where the danger is, and that is where Canadians expect their government to be focused. As lawmakers, we should always ask whether a proposed law addresses the problem it claims to solve. In this case, I am not convinced it does.

One of the most significant concerns with this legislation involves the government's decision to remove long-standing protections in the Criminal Code for good-faith expression of religious beliefs. For decades, Canadian law has struck a careful balance. It protected vulnerable communities from genuine hatred while protecting good-faith expression of religious beliefs. That balance was not preventing police from investigating crimes or prosecutors from laying charges. It certainly did not stop courts from handing out convictions.

These distinctions matter. Acts of hatred, intimidation and vandalism should be investigated, prosecuted and punished. No one disputes that. However, the way we do it matters. At the end of the day, we have to understand that Canada's strength comes from our ability to live together despite our differences. It comes from our ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It comes from our willingness to remember that before we are Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc members or Greens, we are Canadians.

As we remember Officer Pinizzotto and Officer Bali, let us remember what they were doing. They were protecting innocent people. They were protecting communities of every faith and every background. They were confronting violent criminals and standing up against those who would use fear, intimidation and violence to divide us. That is the Canada they served.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member opposite for his years of dedication and service. My father was a police officer for Peel Regional Police for 30 years, and I deeply respect our members of all police forces.

The law enforcement leaders in our communities on the front lines have been asking us for additional tools. The tough-on-crime agenda the Conservatives purport to support every single day in this House is all predicated on this idea that if only we had tougher laws and tougher penalties for serious crimes, everything would get better.

The member opposite seems to lay blame at the feet of the forces that he was once a part of. It sounds to me like he does not care about changing the law and thinks that having tougher penalties does not matter. Can he speak to whether he thinks—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would say that, yes, there is a lack of courage and a degree of timidity among the ranks, especially the higher ranks, not the frontline folks. They are ready to do the work they are assigned, but one has to have the courage to do what needs to be done. Courage has to be shown by prosecutors, as well as judges. When somebody drops the ball, it is not a judge who goes to a mic and answers questions, or a Crown prosecutor for that matter. The guy who is left holding the bag is the police officer, who has to explain why the judge made a certain decision or why the Crown prosecutor did not proceed. These are the challenges that our friends from the opposite side are not quite getting.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the laws already exist and that they need to be enforced. At least one area does require a legislative amendment, specifically the religious exemption for incitement to hatred. Under that exemption, anyone who quotes a passage from the Bible or the Quran to incite hatred will be protected and cannot be prosecuted.

Does my colleague agree that a legislative amendment is needed in that regard?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The legislation already exists. If anybody, regardless of what text they use, is inciting violence against any Canadian, or non‑Canadian for that matter, that is already an offence and we have the tools necessary to lay those charges. As I said, we just need the courage to lay those charges.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expressed many concerns in his speech on Bill C‑9.

Bill C‑9 removes the long‑standing good‑faith religious defence from the Criminal Code. As a justice and human rights committee member, I spoke with many religious leaders and faith communities who have expressed concerns that sermons, religious teachings and sacred texts could be drawn into a criminal investigation.

My question for the member is this: Why is the Liberal government weakening protections for freedom of religion instead of strengthening them?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Officer Pinizzotto did not die investigating a sermon. He died investigating hate crimes. He died investigating a shooting at the U.S. consulate.

I can tell members from experience that, generally speaking, police officers are not out there challenging people at a religious ceremony to say whether the sermon is allowed or not allowed. Police officers are not the experts. They do not have the wherewithal to do all of those things. The challenge is that when we have unclear legislation, it causes confusion. That lack of clarity is going to cause more harm in our country, rather than solve any problems.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I do not understand. If the member opposite is suggesting that we simply need the courage to enforce the law, and the laws already exist, why is it that the blame comes on the government to enforce those laws, when in fact it would be up to law enforcement, in accordance with the way our justice system works, to do that? I wonder if he could explain that a bit.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very valid question. The question is about leadership. The leadership starts from the top. It starts with the government of the day. The government has to provide that leadership. The words should match the actions. Hence, we would have the results to prove that we are doing what we need to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, off the top, I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for London—Fanshawe.

Canadians of faith must be free to practise their beliefs without fear of intimidation, violence or persecution. That freedom is fundamental. It was secured by the generations that came before us, and it has been defended time and again. It remains our responsibility to protect and safeguard it for generations to come.

There is no doubt that we are seeing a troubling rise in hate crimes across our country: Christian churches have been burned and vandalized, synagogues have been shot at and firebombed, mosques have been targeted and temples have been attacked. These are not just acts of vandalism; they target entire faith communities, undermine the sense of belonging and safety that these places provide and erode the fundamental freedom of Canadians to gather, worship and live out their beliefs in peace. This trend is serious. It demands attention. These crimes must be met with real consequences. Those who commit them must be prosecuted. The law must be enforced, and the government must show leadership. Threatening the religious freedom and expression of the very people being targeted is not the solution. That remains the serious concern with Bill C‑9.

It would not target just hate. Even as amended, Bill C‑9 would still risk undermining the very religious freedom and freedom of expression that it should be strengthening. While the amended bill would add to the list of prohibited hate symbols, it would not undo the proposed removal of the religious defence in the Criminal Code. This defence has long been part of Canadian law. It was introduced when Parliament created our modern hate propaganda laws. At the time, Parliament made a deliberate choice to create strong laws to combat hate, but also to include clear safeguards. Those safeguards include defences for truth, for statements made in the public interest, for lack of intent and for good‑faith religious expression. The purpose was simple: to ensure that while we prohibit hate, we do not criminalize belief; that Canadians can speak out about their faith; and that religious texts can be discussed, taught and debated without fear.

Let me be clear: The defence has never protected hate speech or calls to violence. If somebody promotes hatred or incites violence, that is already illegal, and it has always been illegal. The religious defence does not change that. It simply ensures that good-faith expression of religious belief is not swept into the Criminal Code. That balance has worked for decades. It is part of what has made our laws constitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized this protection as essential to keeping Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. It is part of what has protected both freedom of expression and freedom of religion in this country.

This bill, in its current form, would remove that safeguard, and it would do so not after years of study, a major review of the Criminal Code or broad consultation with Canadians. In fact, it was not even in the government's original bill, but was added later without evidence to support it. This would be a significant change to Canadian criminal law, and changes like this are rare. When Parliament has changed or removed legal defences in the past, it is done so carefully, after serious study, hearing from experts and consulting with Canadians. That did not happen here. Witnesses did not call for the change, nor did religious communities ask for this, yet the Liberals are pushing it through anyway. They could have split the bill and built consensus around those measures, and they would have had broad support. Instead, the Liberals are using procedural tools to limit debate and accelerate the passage of this divisive bill. That should concern every single member of the House, because this would not be a minor, technical change, but the removal of a long‑standing protection that has been part of the balance in our law for over half a century. It would be removed without careful consideration that such a decision demands.

Canadians are paying attention, and they are sounding the alarm. I am hearing from my constituents, and I know colleagues in the House are hearing from theirs as well.

We do know that more than 200,000 postcards were sent to members in the other place, urging them to reject this change, yet those postcards were withheld and not delivered immediately. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure the voices of Canadians are received and considered. This level of public engagement demonstrates just how deeply Canadians care about protecting their freedoms. Faith leaders are speaking out. Experts are raising concerns. These are not fringe voices. These are thoughtful, engaged Canadians who understand what is at stake.

The Liberal government has once again limited debate on this issue. It is shutting down the voices in this place, and it is ignoring the voices of Canadians. The Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them and to trust their intentions, but the Liberal Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has already suggested that passages from the Bible are clearly hateful. He has said that prosecutors should have the discretion to lay charges in those cases. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a stated view on the record from a Liberal minister.

Canadians are also looking at the government's record. This is not an isolated case. There is a broader pattern here, a pattern of shutting down debate, dismissing experts and stakeholders, pushing through legislation without proper review and introducing policies that chip away at fundamental freedoms. We saw it with the Canada summer jobs attestation. Canadians were told that if they did not affirm to certain beliefs, they could not access funding. We saw it when the finance committee suggested removing charitable status from churches. That recommendation was an attack on religious freedom and completely dismissed the incredible work faith communities across this country do every single day. We also saw freedom of religion threatened when the Liberals banned public prayer at Remembrance Day ceremonies. Over and over again, when it comes to faith and expression, the government has shown its willingness to draw lines around what Canadians can say and what they can believe.

This is why Canadians are uneasy. When a government asks for trust while limiting debate, while dismissing and ignoring legitimate concerns, and while removing long-standing protections, Canadians are justifiably concerned. This is exactly what we are seeing in Bill C-9. What is needed right now is leadership. The growing number of hate crimes must be confronted, but we must also recognize that the rise has happened under the Liberal government's watch. The Liberal government has failed to show leadership. It has failed to enforce laws that already exist. Many of the measures in this bill are already covered in current law. Actions such as obstructing access to places of worship, acts of intimidation, promoting hatred and inciting violence are all already illegal.

Conservatives offered a reasonable path forward with this bill. We offered to split the bill, to pass the parts everyone agrees on right away to protect Canadians and places of worship without delay, but the Liberals refused. They also rejected Conservative efforts to add clear language to the bill that would protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Canadians should be free to practise their religion and express their beliefs without fear, and that includes being free from overreach by the Liberal government. We must not criminalize peaceful expression. We must not open the door to the persecution of faith. It is time for the government to reconsider. This bill should be completely withdrawn. Rather than rushing this divisive legislation through the House, the minister needs to bring forward legislation that combats hate while fully protecting religious freedom and freedom of expression.

It is time to listen to Canadians, and it is time for these Liberals to stop chipping away at the freedoms that define us as Canadians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of legal experts who say this bill would not do what the member opposite claims, such as chipping away at religious freedoms or others. In fact, this bill would step up, and the government is acting to enhance the Criminal Code to ensure that communities are safe, to ensure that people can express, can worship the way they choose to in their communities. This is exactly what I have heard in my community.

I understand that we may disagree on this fundamentally, but what I want to know is, can the member cite an example of the religious defence being used in a case where an individual was accused or charged with a hate-motivated crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was lack of consultation with this bill. We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada, and I would say individual Canadians as well.

I will also note that stakeholders have publicly raised concerns about this, many of them, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. There have been many organizations, not just one particular faith group, that have brought forward the concerns of not being consulted or seeing issues with the bill.

I will also note, though, that there are sections within the Criminal Code that address crimes against places of worship and obstruction. That would be section 176, for example. Acts of intimidation are in section 423.1. I could go on and on.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives are reluctant to engage in any real debate on a number of points.

My colleague said she would like to see this debated further. What solutions would she propose to ensure that we finally reach an agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we can kill this bill. This bill can be withdrawn. The government can do that and bring forward legislation that is uniting to Canadians, that immediately addresses the concerns that I mentioned in my speech.

I will say that the government cannot be trusted. We know that a minister of the Crown said there are parts of scripture that should be criminalized. That is the intent and goal of this. We cannot just take what Liberals say at face value. In my speech, I gave multiple examples of where the government is limiting Canadians' religious freedom and freedom of expression.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to criminalize anyone who dares to quote from scripture, a religious text, and that is crossing the line, as far as I am concerned and as far as a lot of Canadians are concerned. It is the difference between the state and religion, the state and faith.

The more concerning thing is that when we bring these issues to committee, as we have in all other committees, the Liberal members have been tone-deaf. They have basically shot down every single amendment brought forth by members of the opposition. Can the member tell me how she feels about her participation when she voices an opinion of her constituents and recommends very reasonable amendments that get shot down time after time by this manufactured majority government on the other side?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not something new under the Prime Minister. This was also a continued effort under former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

If anybody not wearing Liberal red brought forward thoughtful, meaningful amendments or even questions to debate, there was no entertaining it, which does a disservice. I think this is one of the reasons we have seen members from other parties crossing the floor. They are being enticed by being told they will be heard and listened to, as opposed to the governing party of the day acting like grown-ups, being respectful and thoughtful and having conversations. It is unfortunate that this does not happen in this place under the Liberals.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hatred is real. Jewish Canadians have faced ongoing intimidation, including gunfire, firebombings and repeated threats against synagogues, schools and community institutions. Muslim Canadians have seen the tragic consequences when hatred turns deadly. Just a week ago, I joined Londoners in remembering the Afzaal family, four members of which were murdered five years ago because they were Muslim. Churches across the country have been vandalized, desecrated and, in far too many cases, burned to the ground. Members of other communities have also faced hatred, threats and intimidation because of their identity, beliefs or background.

No Canadian should be threatened because of who they are, what they believe or where they worship. No one should have to pass through a hostile crowd to enter a place of worship, or wonder whether that place will still be standing in the morning.

Conservatives believe that the people responsible for threats, violence, intimidation, criminal harassment and vandalism must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. Canada already has laws to deal with this conduct. The government should make sure that they are enforced and that the people who terrorize communities are held fully accountable. Instead, the government is using the real fears of vulnerable communities to justify a bill that would blur the line between crime and lawful speech that may be unpopular or controversial.

In a free country, the right to speak cannot depend on whether everyone agrees. Freedom of expression matters most when people strongly disagree. If the government can restrict lawful speech simply because someone finds it offensive, the line will keep moving. What is protected today may be questioned tomorrow, depending on who complains and who holds power. That is the dangerous path that Bill C-9 would put us on.

The narrow Senate amendment now before us would do nothing to address the broader danger. It would simply add the noose to the bill's list of prohibited symbols. The noose carries a horrifying history as an instrument of murder and terror, but adding one more symbol would not fix the bill. It would not restore the long-standing protection for good-faith religious expression or answer the concerns raised across the country. The Senate has changed the list but has not fixed the bill.

Bill C-9 is presented as though Canada has no laws against threats, intimidation or hateful conduct. That is simply not true. Canada already has laws against threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, mischief, violence, public incitement and hate-motivated crime, so why does the government act as though Canada has no laws to deal with these offences? Why expand criminal law instead of enforcing the laws we have, while removing protections for lawful religious expression.

What has been missing is political leadership, consistent enforcement and consequences that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. More laws do not make up for weak leadership, and unclear laws around speech do not make communities safer. The clearest example is the proposed removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code. For more than 50 years, Canadian law protected a person who, in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text. The protection was narrow. It did not protect threats, violence, advocating genocide or encouraging a crime. It applied to one hate speech offence and protected good-faith religious discussion while allowing the law to deal with real hatred.

The government and the Bloc chose to remove that protection. They now tell Canadians not to worry. They tell faith leaders to trust prosecutors. They tell religious teachers to trust the courts, and they tell parents and clergy that lawful expression would probably remain lawful. However, if this protection were not needed, why was it kept in the Criminal Code for more than half a century? If the government still believes that good-faith religious expression should be protected, why remove the words that clearly protect it?

This is the slippery slope. It rarely begins with the government's openly saying it wants to criminalize ordinary religious teaching. It begins with promises that the law would be used only in extreme cases. The protection then disappears, and the line becomes less clear. A complaint is made against a faith leader, a teacher or a parent. An investigation and legal costs may follow. Even without a conviction, the process can become the punishment. Clergy and teachers would begin censoring themselves because the Liberal government has chosen to remove a clear protection and replace it with uncertainty.

That is how the slippery slope works. First the protection is removed. Then the line becomes unclear. Finally, people stop saying lawful things because they fear what might happen. However, self-censorship is not the only danger. Driving hateful ideas underground does not make them disappear. It can allow resentment and hatred to grow where they are harder to challenge, until they emerge in more dangerous forms. In a free society, bad ideas should be exposed and defeated in the open. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant. Criminal law should deal firmly with threats, violence and genuine incitement, but it should not push lawful discussion into the shadows, otherwise peaceful Canadians become afraid to speak, while real hatred is pushed out of sight instead of confronted.

Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They are weakened one step at a time, with every step described as small and reasonable. That is why the government must prove that these restrictions are needed, that existing law is not enough and that lawful speech will remain protected.

The government has not done that. Worse, it did not allow the full debate needed to test its case. The government used a programming motion to push the bill through committee. Debate was cut short. New amendments and subamendments could not be properly considered. Even the reading of amendments being voted on was restricted. Conservative safeguards for freedom of religion and freedom of expression were rejected. A government confident in its bill should welcome questions. Instead, the government shortened the process and pushed ahead without answering them.

Those concerns reach far beyond any one faith community. A joint statement opposing Bill C-9 brought together civil liberty organizations; Muslim, Jewish and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and other community organizations, from across Canada. They do not share one ideology, one faith or one political outlook. Their agreement cannot simply be dismissed.

Nor is opposition to Bill C-9 limited to Conservatives. At third reading, every participating NDP member and the leader of the Green Party joined Conservatives in voting against it. This is not simply a left versus right debate. The warning comes from across civil society and the political spectrum. The government also rejected the Conservative proposal to separate the broadly supported parts of the bill from those raising serious civil liberties concerns.

Now the bill has returned from the Senate with another symbol added to the list, while the main problems remain untouched. This is not a real fix. It is a distraction. The government would rather debate whether a noose is offensive than explain why it removed a 50-year-old protection for lawful religious expression. It would rather offer the appearance of action than provide the leadership and enforcement needed to make communities safer.

Freedom of religion means very little if it protects only beliefs that no one finds objectionable. Freedom of expression means very little if it protects only speech the government approves of. That does not mean every religious statement is wise or beyond criticism. People are free to disagree, challenge it and answer it with better arguments. Conservatives support protecting Canadians from threats, violence and intimidation, but we reject false choice between safety and freedom. Canada can enforce its laws against criminal conduct without placing peaceful religious expression under a cloud of fear and uncertainty.

The Senate amendment would not restore that balance. It would add a symbol, but it would not restore the religious defence. It would change a list but would not protect freedom of expression. It would do nothing to stop the slippery slope that begins when Parliament removes clear protections and tells Canadians simply to trust that government power would be used carefully.

Canadians deserve clear laws, strong enforcement, and consequences that match the seriousness of the crime. They also deserve firm protection for the freedoms of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Bill C-9 fails that test. The Senate amendment would not fix it. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Bill C-9.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's speech, although I fundamentally disagree with some of his arguments.

The previous Conservative member who spoke in the House could not cite an example of the religious defence's being used. I wonder if this member could.

What I do not understand is that the Conservatives talk a lot about wanting to protect communities and protect people's rights, but here they are with an opportunity to step up and support a bill that would amend the Criminal Code and would allow new tools to be given to law enforcement and to our criminal justice system to really protect people's rights to be able to worship and to express themselves in the way they see fit. Is that not fundamental enough? Does the member not believe that harsher penalties should come with hate-motivated crimes?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the real concern, which was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online. They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support. The leadership of the Abrahamic faiths, for example, has come out very strongly against parts of Bill C-9, especially around religious freedom. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the government's unwillingness to listen to anything besides the narrow confines of its interests rather than to the larger faith community.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to add to what I mentioned in my speech, yes, there are multiple organizations concerned about Bill C-9, and those opposed to Bill C-9 are from civil liberties organizations; Muslim, Jewish, and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and parties across the political spectrum that are concerned and oppose the passing of Bill C-9.