Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
Bill C-9 did not start out as a debate about religious freedom. It was presented as a modernization measure, a technical reform that we were told would strengthen protections against hatred while ensuring that Canada remained a country defined by tolerance, pluralism and mutual respect. That, at least, was the stated objective when the bill first came to Parliament, yet the legislation has changed in a way that few Canadians anticipated. Even fewer were properly consulted.
During committee, the Liberal government, supported by the Bloc, voted to remove from the Criminal Code a safeguard that has existed for decades, a provision that recognizes that the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs, when offered in good faith, does not constitute criminal hate speech.
This safeguard was not accidental wording inserted into the law without deep reflection. It represents Parliament's understanding that Canada is home to citizens whose deepest convictions are shaped by many different faith traditions, stretching back centuries. These are traditions that speak openly about morality, human dignity, family life and social responsibility, in ways that may at times challenge prevailing cultural opinion. In acknowledging this reality, the Criminal Code drew an important distinction that disagreement, even profound disagreement, must never be confused with criminal intent.
When religious communities across Canada began raising concerns about the removal of this safeguard, and these were concerns voiced by Jewish congregations, Christian churches, Muslim organizations, Sikh gurdwaras, Hindu temples and Buddhist communities, the government responded by introducing what it described as clarifying language to assure Canadians that nothing essential had changed and that religious expression would remain protected under the bill. However, when we take a closer look at this so-called clarification, a fundamental question arises. If religious expression truly remains protected, if sermons, scripture reading, theological teaching and moral discussions are still lawful, then why remove the explicit protection that guaranteed that certainty in the Criminal Code in the first place?
For decades, the Criminal Code contained something very concrete, a good-faith religious defence that recognized that sincerely held religious teachings, expressed honestly and without the intent to promote hatred or violence, fell outside criminal sanction. That clarity mattered not only because it guided prosecutors when deciding whether charges were appropriate, but also because it reassured ordinary Canadians that the practice of their faith, expressed peacefully and in good conscience, would not suddenly expose them to criminal charges, yet the government now proposes to replace that certainty with verbal reassurances alone, asking Canadians simply to trust that their freedom remains secure, even as the explicit protection that guaranteed them is removed from the law. However, verbal reassurance is not the same thing as protection, so I rise today with a sober sense of duty because the responsibility now falls to the members of the House to defend the religious freedom of Canadians.
Over the past weeks and months, thousands of Canadians, pastors, rabbis, imams, community leaders and ordinary citizens, have taken the time to call and write their members of Parliament, expressing deep concern about this bill and asking that it not proceed in its current form. Despite those voices, the government has chosen to press ahead, even shutting down debate in an ironic twist of government censorship of free speech.
If the government were confident that Bill C-9 represented sound legislation capable of withstanding careful examination, it would welcome debate and allow amendments to be discussed openly. It would permit members of Parliament to do the work Canadians sent them here to do, to examine legislation thoughtfully before it becomes law. Instead, the government that insists Bill C-9 is necessary to regulate harmful speech is now censoring debate on its own censorship bill.
Religious freedom holds a unique place among our democratic liberties because it speaks not simply to opinion but to belief, to the deeply held convictions through which people understand duty, morality and the meaning of their lives. History shows us again and again that, when governments attempt to control belief, even claiming to preserve harmony or protect the public good, the result is rarely unity and almost never justice. Over centuries, societies have learned that peace in diverse countries is not achieved by forcing everyone to agree but by allowing people with very different beliefs to live together without fear that the state will dictate what they must believe.
History gives us a lot of examples of what happens when governments try to control belief. A friend of mine recently shared the story of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of the Sikh faith. In the 17th century, during a time of increasing religious pressure in Mughal India, Hindu families from Kashmir were being forced to abandon their faith and convert under the authority of the state. Desperate to preserve their freedom, they travelled long distances seeking someone who would defend their right to follow their beliefs. They turned to Guru Tegh Bahadur, a Sikh spiritual leader, because they believed he understood something essential, which is that freedom of conscience belongs to every person.
Guru Tegh Bahadur could have chosen silence and avoided a confrontation with imperial power, yet he understood that, once a government claims the authority to dictate the beliefs of one community, the freedom of everyone becomes vulnerable. Knowing that risk, he refused demands that he convert or force others to convert. For taking that stand in defence of the right of a faith community to exist, he was imprisoned and ultimately executed in Delhi in 1675.
For this reason, he is remembered in Sikh tradition as the shield of India, because his sacrifice protected the freedom of others. His life reminds us of a truth that reaches across centuries and cultures, which is that religious liberty cannot be divided. When it is taken from one group, it eventually becomes fragile for everyone. That lesson echoes throughout history, because societies thrive when people are free to speak openly about their convictions, even when those convictions challenge the thinking of the day. Many ideas we now celebrate as moral progress began as minority voices standing against the consensus of their time.
I want to be very clear about why I raise this example. The point is simple, and it is that moral arguments, including those shaped by faith, have always been a part of public life, and history shows that silencing those voices cost society dearly. Few stories show this more clearly than the life of William Wilberforce.
At the height of the British Empire, the transatlantic slave trade was deeply embedded in the global economy, with powerful institutions defending it and many believing Britain's prosperity depended upon it. To oppose slavery at that time was widely seen as extreme, yet Wilberforce, guided by his Christian faith, believed moral responsibility required action. He began a decades-long struggle in Parliament, standing year after year to argue for abolition, all while facing defeat, ridicule and warnings that his efforts threatened Britain's economy. For nearly 20 years, his efforts failed, but perseverance eventually prevailed when Parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807.
What began as an unpopular moral conviction ultimately reshaped law and history. The lesson is clearly that freedom of expression does not exist simply to protect views that are comfortable or widely accepted, but to protect the voices that challenge the thinking of the moment. The lesson is not that every moral argument wins, but that a free society must allow those arguments to be made.
Canada's success as a pluralistic society rests on that principle. People came here seeking the freedom to live according to conscience, bringing different languages, cultures and faith traditions, which could exist side by side because the law did not demand ideological conformity. Faith communities helped build our country precisely because they were free. Long before government programs existed, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and gurdwaras helped establish hospitals, schools, food banks, shelters and charitable organizations that continue to serve Canadians today.
Removing religious safeguards from the Criminal Code does not strengthen our democracy; it weakens the legal clarity that allows this pluralism to flourish. Canadian courts have already made it clear that violence, threats and incitement to harm are not protected speech and never have been, which is why these actions are already criminal offences. What the good-faith defence protects is something very different. It is the right of Canadians to express sincerely held beliefs without fear that disagreement itself might one day become a criminal matter.
Canada has never required uniformity of belief to maintain peace. Our strength has always rested on freedom under law and the ability of people with very different convictions to live together without coercion. If the government truly believes religious expression remains protected, then leaving the safeguard in place should present no difficulty because its presence harms no one, while its removal creates uncertainty for many Canadians.
A confident democracy does not silence debate and certainly does not use closure motions to rush through legislation that touches on the freedoms of conscience and expression. In a free country, we respond to ideas we disagree with through debate, persuasion and democratic engagement, not through criminal law and shutting down Parliament to prevent discussion.
Canadians deserve clarity in their law, confidence in their freedoms and a Parliament willing to defend both.
