“I do not want this bill to pass. It removes protections for religious speech and will make people afraid to share their faith. Attacking places of worship is already illegal, so police should just enforce the laws we already have.”

“Madam Speaker, today I rise on a topic of great concern to people in my community and to many Canadians from coast to coast. Perhaps no piece of legislation in this place has drawn as much public interest as Bill C-9. Combined, our offices have received tens of thousands of emails from concerned citizens opposed to the bill. The bill is about trust: who we trust with our beliefs, who we trust with our words and whether we can still trust that the government will protect our right to hold both. That trust is challenged when 240,000 postcards to MPs and senators remain in boxes at the Senate, undelivered. I have personally sponsored and presented petitions that have received signatures from people who value free speech and civil liberties. In my community of Cambridge, whether it is at events or just in the parking lot of a grocery store, I have had people come up to me to say that I should not let this one pass without a fight. It is no secret that religious freedom across this nation is under threat. We have seen churches burned, people threatened in the streets, synagogues vandalized and violence amongst different groups of people. This is not what life was like in Canada just a few years ago. Conservatives unequivocally condemn this hatred, and we want the chaos in our streets to come to an end. The government would have people believe that the response, Bill C-9, is some innocent bill. It calls it the combatting hate act. Nobody here is opposed to combatting hate. Nobody wants their church, temple or mosque to be attacked, but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether the tool the government has chosen to use to address hatred is one that respects the very liberties that make Canada the best country on earth. It is about whether the legislation would actually protect religious freedom or just restrict it further. When people from across the political spectrum, from the Canadian Labour Congress to Catholic bishops, Muslim imams, rabbis, academics, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and more, come out in opposition to the bill, I think we know what the answer is. Their main concern centres around the removal of the religious text defence under section 319 of the Criminal Code. I would also like to recognize that I would like to split my time. For years, Canadians who expressed a sincere, honest religious belief have had a legal defence available to them when they expressed views on moral and social questions. That defence existed to protect freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are enshrined in our charter. That was not a loophole. It was a deliberate choice by Parliament to recognize that sincere religious expression deserves protection, even when others find it uncomfortable. The Liberals, with help and encouragement from the Bloc Québécois, agreed to strip that defence out of the Criminal Code. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that this would create a chilling effect on religious expression. One wrote that Canadians should not be criminally prosecuted for sincere, truth-seeking expression made without malice and based in centuries of religious tradition. He is right. The people in my community, from all faiths and backgrounds, wrote to me to say the same thing. They are afraid, not because they want to spread hatred, but because they are now uncertain whether what they believe and how they speak about it could one day be used against them in a court of law. Members can think about what that chilling effect looks like in practice: a pastor who self-censors a sermon because he is not sure where the line is anymore; a mother or father who is uncertain whether what they say around the dinner table could one day be characterized as something it was never intended to be; and the person who fought their way out of addiction through faith, who credits their belief with saving their life and who now wants to share that story openly, to tell others there is another way. That person now has to wonder whether speaking from their own lived experience, drawing on the very thing that pulled them back from the edge, could one day be used against them in a court of law. I have heard from all of them, people who picked up the phone or sat down to write to me because they genuinely do not know what the bill would mean for their lives. The government itself has mused about this. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, one of the people in charge of writing, introducing and implementing the bill, named specific parts of the Bible he found hateful. There is little in the bill to stop him from acting on those beliefs once it is passed. Let us talk about what the bill would not do. It would not actually address the root causes of hatred or offer the tools many people in our communities are asking for as they deal with this new wave of hatred. Burning a church, attacking a synagogue or calling for the death of someone in a particular religious group is already illegal. Bill C-9 would not have stopped any of the heinous offences we have seen in the news over the past months and years. We already have laws against obstruction, against threats and against the incitement of violence. If those laws are not being enforced consistently, the answer is not to add new vague offences. The answer is to resource law enforcement and the courts to apply existing law with consistency and fairness. The answer is also to not ram a divisive, threatening bill through the House of Commons under the guise of unity and freedom. The government introduced this bill only a few months ago. It has silenced the opposition and made backroom deals to move it forward. It has ignored organizations of all stripes and the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Canadians from communities like mine who took the time to write, call and petition. This is not how we stop hatred. This is how we build resentment. This bill would amend the Criminal Code. It is not a minor administrative matter. Changes to the Criminal Code affect every Canadian in every province and every courthouse in the country. They affect what can be prosecuted, what defences are available and what the state can do to a citizen who says the wrong thing at the wrong moment. This deserves more than a rushed timeline brokered with the Bloc Québécois, while the official opposition was left on the outside. The tens of thousands of Canadians who wrote to MPs like me deserve a full debate. The Catholic bishops deserve a full debate. The Muslim imams deserve a full debate. Even the rabbis and civil liberty advocates who raised the alarm bells deserve a full debate. The pastors, teachers and parents who contacted my office deserve a full debate. I want to close by bringing this back to the people who sent me here. There is a woman in my neighbourhood, someone who has given decades to our community, who wrote me a letter about the bill. She is a woman of faith. She told me she is not a hateful person. She would never want anyone to be targeted, threatened or made to feel unsafe. She asked me in plain and honest language if the bill would mean that what she believes about the world, drawn from her faith, could one day be used against her in a courtroom. She asked if this bill means her grandchildren will live in a country where sincere belief is a liability. I did not have a reassuring answer for her, and that is precisely the problem. When a law aimed at combatting hate creates fear in the hearts of law-abiding, community-minded, faithful Canadians, when it drives them to petition their MP and write letters by hand, something has gone wrong in the drafting, in the process and in the government’s willingness to listen. Our party, at its core, is about protecting what is worth protecting: the freedom to speak, to believe, to gather and to live according to our conscience without the state breathing down our neck. It is about trusting Canadians rather than managing them. It is about building policies that are durable, fair and based in common sense, not laws that are stitched together in backroom deals and rushed through a House that was not given adequate time to examine its implications. When people in my community hand me petitions and write to me by the thousands to oppose Bill C-9, they expect me to be their voice in Ottawa. They trust me to stand here to say clearly that this bill, in its current form, goes too far. The government has consulted too little and sacrificed the freedoms of too many Canadians in the name of a goal that could have been achieved more carefully, more fairly and more honestly. I am proud to be their voice in a Parliament that needs to hear it, because that trust, the trust Canadians place in Parliament to get it right, is worth protecting. I will never stop fighting for it.”

“This bill will not make Canadians safer or stop violent crime. We do not need this bill. We need to enforce our current laws and make them stronger.”

“Madam Speaker, the member across the way is the one who has been fighting against mandatory minimums, so I do not see how he is going to want to be strengthening the laws. The Liberals created this problem, and the Conservatives have the solution. Removing the religious defence will not make Canadians safer. It will not stop repeat offenders. It will not stop violent criminals, and it will not stop gang violence. It will not stop extortion. It will not stop human trafficking, and it will not stop criminals who continue to terrorize communities across Canada. What we need is for the laws we currently have to be strengthened and enforced.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals say anyone who opposes this hate crimes bill is racist. But Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders also oppose big parts of it. We need to study this bill more instead of just insulting the people who disagree with it.”

“Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North, bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9, actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this. However, we have seen the leadership of all the Abrahamic faiths in Canada oppose big parts of Bill C-9. I wonder if my colleague agrees that perhaps there is more to this issue that needs to be studied and that we should not just label everyone who opposes it as being racist, as the Liberals seem to be doing.”

“Jewish people deserve protection from hatred, but our laws already make these acts illegal. The real problem is that current hate crime laws are not being enforced. We do not need a new bill that repeats existing laws and removes legal protections for religious texts.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. Anti-Semitism is real, and Jewish communities deserve protection, but the Criminal Code already provides that. A lawyer the Liberals themselves brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal. The real conversation is about why existing hate crime laws are not being enforced consistently. We agree on the goal of protecting vulnerable communities. The question is whether duplicating existing law, while removing the religious text defence, actually gets us there.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Our laws already allow people to share their religious beliefs without being charged with spreading hate. That protection does not allow anyone to call for violence or genocide. Inciting hatred and violence is already illegal, even if someone uses religion as an excuse.”

“Madam Speaker, Canada’s hate speech laws currently provide a defence against prosecutions for the wilful promotion of hatred where a person, in good faith, expresses an argument or opinion on a religious subject based on a belief found in a religious text. The defence applies only to that specific offence. It does not apply to advocating genocide or counselling violence or threats. It does not apply to any other Criminal Code offence. Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and are not protected by the religious defence.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill or the government's other new laws on internet safety and privacy. This bill will not protect Jewish or Muslim Canadians. Everything it tries to ban, like blocking people from synagogues or threatening people at schools, is already illegal. The government should enforce the laws we already have instead of passing new ones that threaten free speech.”

“Madam Speaker, it is finally sunny in Ottawa, but to me, this is one of the darkest weeks in the history of Canadian democracy. Bill C-9 is back in the House after a brief stint in the Senate that did not make a dent in the problems with the bill. Predicated on false pretenses, the repeal of the religious defence to hate speech remains. The new hatred offence would still criminalize conduct, contrary to a civil statute. Nothing that minority communities are actually worried about in terms of security would be changed by Bill C-9. The Liberals are ramming it through at the end of the summer sitting as the government-subsidized media is already at the cottage. In the same week, the Liberals are ramming through Bill C-22, a bill that would require telecoms and Internet companies to seize all Canadian metadata, including their geographic location and who they called or texted in the last year, without their having committed an offence and without a search warrant. Bill C-22 would allow the Minister of Public Safety to order Internet providers to break encryption, something that has never been done before, even though every security expert is sounding the alarm that the privacy of law-abiding Canadians would be at major risk. In the same week, the Liberals are also introducing Bill C-34, the digital safety act. Of course, we have to protect children, but that does not mean that we have to deny children their charter rights to access media communications, which is an explicit right, or prevent them from communicating with each other through popular apps. It is a plan that failed in Australia and that will fail everywhere else. Unless we are prepared to implement a Beijing-style, authoritarian Internet surveillance regime, this is unenforceable. Are Canadians ready for that? Obviously, they are not. In the same week, which is the last week before the legislature rises, the Liberals are introducing so-called privacy legislation, which would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner in favour of their so-called digital safety czar, who would regulate, enforce and judge all at the same time. This would be a Liberal government appointee reigning over what we do on the Internet, with unlimited powers over how we communicate and how the world’s most innovative companies do business. Surely by coincidence, the same thing is now happening in England this week, and it just happened in Australia. I was trained in the common law. It was the beacon of hope for any modern civilization. Anywhere the common law went, prosperity followed, but now we have these egomaniacs, career technocrats and misguided lefties who think they know better than everyone telling us how to live for our own benefit and how to keep us safe. I want to be safe from them. Bill C-9 would do nothing to protect the Jewish or Muslim communities. It would not protect any community. This entire thing has been a major Liberal failure. The Liberals wanted to eliminate the Attorney General’s ability to consent to prosecutions. They realized how bad an idea it was and rolled it back. They wanted to redefine the term “hatred”. It is a definition that the Supreme Court used for 40 years. I am proud of this. It is one of the greatest accomplishments of my career that the Liberals have accepted my amendment to keep the old definition of hatred and not dilute it. People would not have to go to jail when they offend someone. Just when I thought we were out of the woods, I saw the digital safety bill that attempts to regulate harmful conduct online. Surprise, surprise. Harmful content would include content that foments hatred. The bill states, “content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group”. The Liberals are at it again. We just fixed the definition in Bill C-9, and now they have come back with a digital safety bill to regulate our conduct online and they have a different definition for hatred. Why is it “detestation or vilification”, not “detestation and vilification”, as the Supreme Court says? Where is the extreme or intense emotion that is required by the Supreme Court, like we agreed on in Bill C-9? Where is that in the digital safety act? Why do the Liberals hate freedom of speech so much? The Liberals hate it because they are afraid of the truth. The Senate was asked to fix the new stand-alone motivated offence in Bill C-9, because this new offence that the Liberals dreamt up would not target criminal conduct only. It would target any offence under any act of Parliament. For example, people could violate the digital safety act or the human rights code, and that may attract criminal prosecution. The Liberals are turning our democracy into a banana republic. Earlier, I heard the member for Whitby ask my colleague why she is opposed to a new hate-motivated offence. Does she not want someone to be punished when they engage in hatred? First of all, hatred is already an aggravating circumstance in sentencing, so do not give us that. Second of all, if the Liberals want to introduce another offence, introduce it for criminal offences. Do not penalize civil conduct, thereby putting civil conduct at risk of criminal prosecution. The Liberals tout all of these benefits for the Jewish community, which is my own community. Let me tell the House something about what has transpired here. Everything the Liberals have done to clarify any existing law is already in law. They say they will have to protect people’s ability to enter synagogues and be free from obstruction. We are already free from obstruction in entering a synagogue. Nobody can obstruct me from entering a synagogue. That is called assault. How about intimidation? People should be free from intimidation when entering a school. Of course, that has not stopped the multiple school shootings that have happened in my riding. Nothing is happening about those. It is already a criminal offence to intimidate someone entering a school. It is called intimidation contrary to section 423 of the Criminal Code. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, they are heckling me because they know I am right. They are heckling me because they cannot handle what they are doing here. I welcome their heckling. I wear it as a badge of honour. The only thing the Liberals would do is eliminate the religious defence to an allegation of hate speech, and it is all because the Bloc says a guy named Charkaoui was not charged for calling for the extermination of the enemies of Gaza. The Montreal police said very clearly he was not charged because “the enemies of the people of Gaza” were not a identifiable group of people so as to attract prosecution under subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code. It is not because of the religious defence. The religious defence does not apply to incitement to violence. Everyone knows that. The Bloc knows that. The Liberals know that. The religious defence that the Liberals are looking to repeal does not apply. It does not excuse incitement to violence. A religious defence does not apply to statements that are not spoken in good faith. Calling for the extermination of people is not good faith. This is a charade. The main operation of the bill is predicated on a lie. The more lies we get, the more we go down a rabbit hole, like we did with Bill C-9 and Bill C-22, the digital safety act, and as we will now with the changes to the Privacy Act that would eliminate the Privacy Commissioner. Leave us alone and enforce the law. Stop trying to keep us safe. We need to be safe from the Liberal government. I am blessed to represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Every Sunday, thugs come to Sheppard and Bathurst and intimidate local neighbours. They deny us the enjoyment of property. That is mischief. Every Sunday, they try to walk down Sheppard and then make a right into Bathurst Manor or left into Clanton Park. That is intimidation. Every week, we see the arson or firebombing of a Jewish business or a store. Those are called assault or arson. Ryan Turnbull: You do not want to protect them. Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say I do not want to protect them, but I am pleading for help for my Jewish community. They are telling me that repealing the religious defence would do something about it. It would not, but enforcing existing laws would. That would send a message. We should do that, instead of sending another $100 million to Palestine and instead of hearing the Prime Minister accusing the state of Israel, which is engaged in a lawful, self-defence war, of engaging in genocide in Gaza. That, in fact, fuels hatred against the Jewish community. The Prime Minister fuels violence and hatred against the Jews by engaging in the greatest libel of the 21st century, which is that the state of Israel is engaging in genocide. The Prime Minister recognized the state of Palestine on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. We will never forget that. It was all for electoral politics. We should all be ashamed of the government for the way it is treating the Jewish community and the way it has betrayed all of us. We will never forget it. What the Liberals are doing to usurp Canadian democracy is inexcusable. Shame on all of them.”

“These groups have only hurt their own goals.”

“Mr. Speaker, all those organizations have done is undermine everything they wanted to do initially—”

“The Liberals ignored good advice on this bill and chose the wrong people to work on stopping hatred against Jewish people. We do not want this bill. We just want the government to enforce existing laws against assault, intimidation, and mischief.”

“Excuse me. Mr. Speaker, B’nai Brith said they wanted to repeal the Attorney General’s consent. What did the Liberals do? They rolled it back, because CIJA told them not to do it. CIJA told them not to criminalize civilized conduct. Did they listen to it? No. What did they do for the religious organizations? They called them last week. I saw them in the Ottawa airport lounge and told them we are going to announce a commission on anti‑Semitism. Who did the government bring in to that commission? Omar Alghabra. He lobbied to keep Hezbollah off the terrorist list. This is the same government that paid Marouf millions of dollars, knowing he was promoting anti‑Semitism. Do not do us any favours. We are not asking for this. We are asking that basic laws be honoured. Assault, intimidation, mischief—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want to ask my colleague what is missing from this bill. What needs to be added to keep people safe?”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an awfully heavy day in the House today, when we are supposed to collectively be trying to bring peace and unity not only to Canada, but to the world. Hearing the heckling toward my hon. colleague is pretty darn embarrassing. Equally, though, I am darn proud of the member for standing up for what is right. What is not in the bill, or what is totally missing? What needs to be put in the bill to ensure that people are safe?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 28 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 →

“The law needs to make promoting terrorism a crime. The Jewish community asked for this, and police chiefs support it. A Liberal MP tried to add this to the bill, but his party told him to drop it.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is one loophole that needs to be closed. It is the wilful promotion of terrorism. My bill, Bill C‑257, was endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In fact, the contents of Bill C‑257 somehow magically made it into the member for Mount Royal’s amendments to Bill C‑9, and then he was instructed to withdraw them. The one thing the Jewish community actually asked for was criminalizing the wilful promotion of terrorism. The Liberal member for Mount Royal wanted to bring it in, in furtherance to my bill, Bill C‑257, and he was instructed to withdraw it—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“A member tried to change this bill to make promoting terrorism a crime, but the government blocked him.”

“Mr. Speaker, it was brought in as an amendment to this very bill. The member for Mount Royal wanted to amend Bill C‑9 to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, but the government would not allow him to.”

“This bill makes it harder to convict people who attack or burn places of worship. The government removed older rules and added a standard that is much tougher to prove.”

“Mr. Speaker, nobody is mixed up. In fact, the government has eliminated and deleted the previous mischief and arson provisions for places of worship and added a much more difficult standard. By adding the fact that the act on which we could predicate one of those offences has to be wilfully promoting hate, they have actually made it tougher to convict of mischief or arson of places of worship. Mark Sandler even told them so.”

“The government is rushing this hate crimes bill through and cutting off debate. The bill divides Canadians, and the minister even suggested religious texts could be seen as hateful. The government should drop this bill and bring back one that unites people.”

“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.”

“I support parts of this bill, like banning hate symbols and protecting places of worship. But we do not need most of it. We already have strong laws against hate crimes. We just need to enforce them. This bill removes protections for people who share their religious beliefs in good faith, and it will not stop violent criminals.”

“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.”

“Prosecutors and judges need to be braver about doing their jobs. Frontline police officers want to do the work, but they get blamed when prosecutors and judges fail to act.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“That is wrong. Inciting violence against anyone is already a crime, and we already have the laws to charge people for it. We just need to enforce them.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill takes away legal protections for religious beliefs. Faith leaders worry their teachings and holy books could now be investigated as crimes. I want the government to explain why it is weakening freedom of religion.”

“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?”

“Police officers are not experts on whether a religious sermon is allowed, and they do not investigate them. This bill is not clear, and that confusion will cause more harm than good.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government needs to show real leadership. Its actions must match its words so we get real results.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It removes a legal defence that protects people who express their religious beliefs in good faith. We must stop hate crimes, but this bill threatens religious freedom.”

“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.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That should concern every single member of the House.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →