“The rules say only a minister can make a motion to end debate. This person is a secretary of state, not a full minister, so she cannot move this motion.”

“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Standing Order 57 says that: Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole, any minister of the Crown who shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be.... It is a long sentence. The point of this is that Standing Order 57 is clear that a minister of the Crown must do it. This is the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, who does not have a department and is not the minister sponsoring the bill. I believe that the standing order does not actually permit her to move this motion of closure or to introduce this motion today.”

“The Liberals are rushing this hate crimes bill through the House. Many religious leaders and faith groups oppose it. I am asking the government to slow down and listen to them.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers. We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?”

“A minister said parts of the Bible and the Torah are hateful and should be prosecuted under this bill. I want the government to tell us if they agree with that.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the most concerning things about the bill is how it has been described by members of the cabinet across the way, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who suggested that passages of the Bible and the Torah are inherently hateful and are worthy of prosecution. I wonder if the secretary of state for thought crime would get up and say whether or not she agrees with that minister.”

“The government is rushing debate on this hate crimes bill. Rushing past bills caused backlogs and confusion. I want to know why we cannot take the time to study this bill properly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have risen just this week to talk about why the government’s inability to plan a legislative agenda should not become an emergency in the House. This is yet another move toward time allocation. I want to remind everyone in the House that the rush the Liberals did with Bill C-3, when they rammed it through the House and undid the amendments that were done at committee, showing a disrespect for the committee process, led to unintended consequences, creating a large document backlog, confusion for families and a very broad path to citizenship for people with a limited connection to Canada. I see another bill and another set of unintended consequences, and we have gotten so much mail about this. I would like the member to explain yet again why we cannot take the time to properly consider this important legislation.”

“Religious groups are worried about this bill because it removes protections for religious speech. I want the government to explain the line between practicing one's religion and committing a crime under this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, many religious groups have expressed concern about Bill C‑9, in particular about the removal of a long-standing good-faith religious expression defence. Now that the Liberals have decided to dismiss these very legitimate concerns, could the Liberal member clearly explain where the line now falls between the lawful expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and a criminal offence?”

“The government admits this bill limits free speech, yet it wants to shut down debate quickly. Many religious groups and over one million Canadians oppose this bill. I want the government to listen to them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the secretary of state just admitted that the government is thinking of this bill as a limit on freedom of expression. That means we are actually just debating whether it is reasonable. That is a very important concession, and it is the first time we have heard section 1 of the charter from the government in the context of Bill C‑9. I will note that the secretary of state put on notice her intent to seek closure 12 minutes after the debate on this bill began. She and her colleagues have no interest in listening to Canadians, and there are a lot of them. For example, 4 My Canada, led by Faytene Grasseschi, shares that there have been 194,000 phone calls; 1,000 organizations that have signed a declaration against Bill C‑9, representing 1.4 million Canadians; and 240,000 pieces of mail. When the secretary of state says that this is all Conservative misinformation, is she saying the United Church of Canada, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Canadian Muslims are misinforming, or is it just anyone they disagree with? This is a very important point, and the Liberal government has refused at every stage to listen to Canadians. Will it start now?”

“Hate has risen over the last ten years, and the Liberals have been in power. People are angry because this government froze bank accounts and shut down peaceful protests against vaccine rules. The government has divided Canadians and caused this frustration. It should take responsibility for what is happening on our streets.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to rise to my feet, but I do have an interesting question about Bill C-9. The Liberals talk about all the hate and mistreatment of other people. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Warren Steinley: Mr. Speaker, the member from northern Saskatchewan can beak all he wants, but this is a serious question about a serious bill. There has been such a rise in hate over the last 10 years, and who has been in government? Why are people so much more angry? Is it the fact that the Liberal government trampled rights and freedoms when it froze people’s bank accounts? Was it the fact that it brought police into Ottawa to tamp down a peaceful protest of people wanting their own choice on vaccines? The government has been the most divisive government in the history of Canada. It divided east versus west and rural versus urban, and people have had enough. That is the frustration. Should the government not take a bit of responsibility for what is happening on the streets under its watch? It has brought this to the point where people are so frustrated with how they have been treated, and they want answers.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“We already have laws against hate. The real problem is that the government and the police do not enforce them, even when protesters outside Parliament call for the destruction of Jewish people. This bill is just the Liberals pretending to do something.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such public upheaval over legislation since the gun registry was introduced in the late 1990s. The fact of the matter is that we have had anti-hate legislation on the books since the 1970s, and under former justice minister Vic Toews it was more clearly defined; that has been in place. The real problem is that the government does not want to enforce this and law enforcement is not enforcing what already exists. When we see protests, right outside this building, with people screaming at the top of their lungs that they want to see our Jewish population annihilated, there is a refusal to act on that, even on the grounds of the House of Commons. Is this bill not really about trying to make it look like the Liberals are doing something about combatting hate instead of really doing it and having it enforced?”

“I want to congratulate Paul and Elly Major on their 50th wedding anniversary. Synagogues have been shot at and churches have been burned, but the government has done almost nothing to stop these attacks on places of worship.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Paul and Elly Major, the parents of Dr. Blair Major, a faculty member of Thompson Rivers University in my riding, on their 50th wedding anniversary. I congratulate Paul and Elly. We heard a member talk about people who cannot go to synagogues. There was actually a synagogue that was shot up, and that has now been tied to a terrorist who was then alleged to have been connected to a police officer who has been killed. We have had an unprecedented number of churches being burned with nary a word from the government. We have had people who cannot access their places of worship, and the government has not sufficiently denounced it. Forgive me if I say that the government’s words ring hollow after 12 years of inaction.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I am worried this bill will let the government label religious texts as hate speech. Why should Canadians trust the government not to put people in prison for sharing their religious beliefs?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Oshawa. I would like to start my question by mentioning my father. Today would have been his 85th birthday. He passed away four years ago, just 10 and a half months after my mom passed away. When I was a teenager, there was a lot of talk about hate speech and hate crimes and defining them. I remember him saying to me, at that time, to watch carefully because this will turn into something else as time progresses. What it will turn into is that, one day, our government will say that a certain piece of scripture or religious text will be deemed hate speech or a hate crime. That is a real concern for me. Why should Canadians trust these guys not to do exactly that and imprison people for speaking their religious truth?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 34 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“A minister said prosecutors should be able to charge people for quoting certain Bible passages as hate speech. I want to know if the government agrees with him.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote: “[Bill C-9] has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” That was from the Liberal member for Nunavut a couple of months ago. I have a question for the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. Her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, is a lawyer. He said the following: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred.... There should...be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” Is he right or wrong in his interpretation of hate speech laws applying to scripture?”