This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 20 wordsI will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Gateway, a former wrestler whom I respect a lot.Greeting Claims · 36 wordsI rise today to speak in strong opposition to Bill C‑9, legislation that threatens some of the most fundamental freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Procedure · 7 wordsLet me begin by stating something clearly.Procedure Positioning · 11 wordsConservatives condemn hatred, racism, religious unfairness and violence in all forms.Positioning Reasoning · 45 wordsEvery Canadian, regardless of faith, ethnicity, background or identity, deserves to live safely, worship freely and participate fully in our society without fear. The question before us is not whether hate should be condemned but whether the government should weaken fundamental freedoms in the process. Claims · 173 wordsUnfortunately, that is exactly what Bill C‑9 would do. Under Canada’s current hate speech laws, there is an important safeguard in the Criminal Code that provides a defence against prosecution for the promotion of hatred when a person expresses, in good faith, an argument or opinion on a religious subject or belief based on a religious text.1 Many Canadians may not realize that this defence is very limited. It does not apply to threats, advocacy of genocide or any criminal conduct under the Criminal Code.2 In other words, the current law already strikes a careful balance; Canadians remain free to discuss, teach and express their religious beliefs in good faith, while those who engage in genuine criminal behaviour remain subject to prosecution. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the importance of this balance. The court understood that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are essential pillars of a free, democratic society. It recognized that without safeguards, hate speech laws could become vulnerable to constitutional challenge because they risk criminalizing legitimate religious expression. Reasoning · 31 wordsThat is why the religious freedom defence exists. It was not by accident. It was included because lawmakers understood that protecting freedom of religion is just as important as fighting hate. Claims · 59 wordsBill C‑9 seeks to remove this safeguard.3 Bill C‑9 proposes new offences related to the promotion of hatred and the public display of certain symbols.4 The meaning of a symbol can vary depending on the circumstance in which it is displayed. Schools, museums, historians, journalists, artists and researchers often study symbols in ways that are uncomfortable but very important. Reasoning · 18 wordsCanadians should never have to wonder whether legitimate expression could expose them to investigation, prosecution or legal uncertainty. Claims · 37 wordsOne of the most troubling aspects of Bill C‑9 is its proposed expansion of Criminal Code provisions related to hate speech and hate propaganda.5 The government claims that the bill would target only extreme forms of hatred, Reasoning · 24 wordsyet history teaches us that when governments are given broader power to regulate speech, those powers rarely remain limited to the most obvious offenders. Claims · 52 wordsFreedom of expression is not a privilege granted by the government but a fundamental freedom protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The result of the bill would be that people of faith could face criminal prosecutions for the simple act of quoting, discussing or teaching from their own sacred texts. Reasoning · 46 wordsCanadians should be concerned by this possibility. Whether someone is quoting from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad‑Gita or another holy text, they should not have to fear that expressing their religious belief could expose them to criminal liability. Anecdote · 41 wordsAs a Sikh, I find this issue especially troubling. Sikhs came here seeking opportunity, freedom and the ability to practise their faith openly. Like many faith communities, we rely on our holy teachings as a guide for moral and spiritual life.Anecdote Claims · 12 wordsThe Sri Guru Granth Sahib is central to Sikh faith and identity. Reasoning · 62 wordsThe freedom to discuss its teachings is fundamental. The same is true for Christians and the Bible, Hindus and the Bhagavad-Gita, Muslims and the Quran, and members of many other faith communities. This issue is not about one religion. It is about protecting the rights of all religions. Once government begins restricting religious expression, every faith community has reason to be concerned. Claims · 54 wordsWhat makes this legislation even more troubling is the attitude some Liberals have shown toward religious texts. Canadians have every right to ask what happens when legal protections for religious expression are removed while Liberal voices describe portions of sacred texts as hateful. The government argues that this legislation is necessary to address hate. Reasoning · 29 wordsHowever, removing the safeguard would not make Canadians safer. It would not stop violent criminals or prevent acts of hatred. It would not protect vulnerable communities from genuine threats. Claims · 25 wordsThose who advocate violence are already subject to criminal penalties.6 Nothing in the current law prevents authorities from prosecuting individuals who engage in criminal conduct. Reasoning · 12 wordsInstead, Bill C‑9 would risk threatening lawful expression rather than unlawful actions. Positioning · 8 wordsThat is a dangerous path for any democracy.Positioning Reasoning · 85 wordsFreedom of expression is not meant to protect only popular opinions. It is not meant to protect only views that government approves of. It exists to protect the ability of Canadians to express opinions, beliefs and convictions without fear of state punishment. The same principle applies to freedom of religion. Canadians should be free to worship according to their beliefs. They should be free to teach their faith, discuss their beliefs and quote their sacred texts without wondering whether it could result in criminal investigation. Claims · 13 wordsThese rights belong to all Canadians, regardless of political affiliation or religious background. Positioning · 12 wordsConservatives believe that Canada can fight hate while still protecting fundamental freedoms.Positioning Reasoning · 6 wordsThese goals are not mutually exclusive. Claims · 55 wordsIn fact, our legal system has long recognized the importance of balancing both. Bill C‑9 abandons that balance. It would remove a safeguard that the Supreme Court recognized as important. It would create uncertainty for faith communities across the country, and it would risk people’s religious expression without providing any meaningful improvement to public safety. Promise · 69 wordsThat is why Conservatives will stand up for people of faith, for freedom of expression, for freedom of religion and for the Charter of Rights that Canadians cherish.Vague promise Conservatives will fight against this attack on our freedoms.Vague promise We will defend the constitutional right that the government is attempting to take away.Vague promise We will continue to stand with Canadians who believe that faith, freedom and democracy must always be protected.Vague promise
Analysed on