Gill presses for a long-term diesel tax break for truckers and farmers, arguing fuel costs flow into groceries and everything else Canadians buy, and works to defeat Bill C-9, saying its removal of the Criminal Code’s religious-freedom defence threatens Charter rights. He argues by pledging outcomes in broad terms—“We have the solution”—and grounds the case in Calgary trucking companies he names by owner.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
A–
The average grade of 13 analysed statements. 1 more was analysed but was too short to grade.
85 / 100 over 13 statements
Signal78 / 100
Relevance70 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity96 / 100
No habit stands out from the typical statement here.
Averaged over the 13 of 14 statements graded so far.
“This bill lets young people back onto social media once platforms follow new safety guidelines. But we do not know what those rules will be yet, or if they will keep kids safe. Big tech companies often have too much say in these decisions. Can the member promise that these rules will be written without big tech lobbyists, and put young people's safety first?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34 would allow young people back onto social media platforms once providers meet the guidelines that would be established by the commission, but we do not know yet what those guidelines would require or whether they would be good enough to keep young people safe. Too often, big tech companies and their lobbyists are given a seat at the table when these decisions are made. Can the member assure the House that these guidelines would be developed independently of big tech companies and their lobbyists, with the safety of young people as their priority?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-34 would allow young people back onto social media platforms once providers meet the guidelines that would be established by the commission, but we do not know yet what those guidelines would require or whether they would be good enough to keep young people safe. Too often, big tech companies and their lobbyists are given a seat at the table when these decisions are made. Can the member assure the House that these guidelines would be developed independently of big tech companies and their lobbyists, with the safety of young people as their priority?
“A record 2.35 million people visited food banks in a single month. High fuel costs make it more expensive to grow and deliver food. Conservatives want to make life more affordable so families do not have to choose between food and gas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all struggling families not just in my hometown of Calgary, but across the entire country. Every month, the Liberals manage to set new records. Unfortunately, these records are for food bank visits. Food Banks Canada recorded 2.35 million food bank visits in a single month, the highest number ever recorded in our history. This crisis is being made even worse by high fuel prices, which make it more expensive for farmers to grow crops and harder for truckers to deliver food to Canadians. That is why Conservatives will continue to fight to make life more affordable for all Canadians, so that no family has to choose between putting food on the table and paying for the fuel they need in order to get to work.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all struggling families not just in my hometown of Calgary, but across the entire country. Every month, the Liberals manage to set new records. Unfortunately, these records are for food bank visits. Food Banks Canada recorded 2.35 million food bank visits in a single month, the highest number ever recorded in our history. This crisis is being made even worse by high fuel prices, which make it more expensive for farmers to grow crops and harder for truckers to deliver food to Canadians. That is why Conservatives will continue to fight to make life more affordable for all Canadians, so that no family has to choose between putting food on the table and paying for the fuel they need in order to get to work.
“We want to pause the fuel tax until July 1, 2027. The Liberals copied our idea to lower costs, but they did it poorly. Canadians need a break on fuel prices.”
“Madam Speaker, Conservatives are pretty clear that we want temporary relief until July 1, 2027, Canada Day. As I said in my speech, Conservatives are happy to see the Liberals steal more of our ideas on affordability, but we are disappointed to see that they are poorly implementing them. Our humble request is to please give Canadians a break so they can live their life.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, Conservatives are pretty clear that we want temporary relief until July 1, 2027, Canada Day. As I said in my speech, Conservatives are happy to see the Liberals steal more of our ideas on affordability, but we are disappointed to see that they are poorly implementing them. Our humble request is to please give Canadians a break so they can live their life.
“I support this temporary tax cut on fuel, but it does not go far enough. The government should also get rid of the carbon tax to lower diesel prices. Canadians pay 25 cents more per litre for diesel than Americans do. Cheaper diesel means cheaper food and goods for everyone.”
“Madam Speaker, it is common sense. Canadians are going through tough times. Even with this temporary relief, the government would not be giving them what Conservatives have asked for. For the long term, if the government gets rid of the carbon tax, then the diesel price could be pretty low. We are paying 25¢ per litre more than U.S. consumers are paying across the border for diesel. Everything depends on the price of diesel, because everything from groceries to construction goods has to be trucked or otherwise transported. If we can lower the cost of diesel, we can bring costs down.”
Madam Speaker, it is common sense. Canadians are going through tough times. Even with this temporary relief, the government would not be giving them what Conservatives have asked for. For the long term, if the government gets rid of the carbon tax, then the diesel price could be pretty low. We are paying 25¢ per litre more than U.S. consumers are paying across the border for diesel. Everything depends on the price of diesel, because everything from groceries to construction goods has to be trucked or otherwise transported. If we can lower the cost of diesel, we can bring costs down.
“Truckers deliver our food, but the government is making their work harder and more expensive. We want to cut the tax on diesel fuel for truckers and farmers until Canada Day. I want the government to work with us to do this.”
“Madam Speaker, do people know who delivers food? It is truckers. As I said in my speech, truckers are the lifeblood of our vast country, yet the government is making it harder for them to deliver the food we all need. Conservatives are fighting to give them a tax break on diesel until Canada Day, and we hope the government will work with us to give this break to Canadians, truckers, the whole trucking industry and farmers.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, do people know who delivers food? It is truckers. As I said in my speech, truckers are the lifeblood of our vast country, yet the government is making it harder for them to deliver the food we all need. Conservatives are fighting to give them a tax break on diesel until Canada Day, and we hope the government will work with us to give this break to Canadians, truckers, the whole trucking industry and farmers.
“This bill does not do enough to help Canadians. Pausing the fuel tax for only a few months just delays higher costs for drivers, truckers, and farmers. I want the government to change this bill to cut fuel taxes until at least Canada Day 2027, remove the GST on fuel, and permanently cancel the industrial carbon tax.”
“Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the obvious: Suspending the federal fuel excise tax for a few more months will provide some relief, but this bill fails to provide any real long-term solutions for Canadians and the challenges they face today. Conservatives have been pushing this for a long time, but once again, we see the Liberal government take our idea, then fail to properly execute it. Bill C-38 would extend the temporary suspension only until January 31, 2027, meaning Canadians would eventually face the return of the full tax. The government is presenting a temporary pause followed by a scheduled tax increase and calling it an affordability plan. That is not a plan. It is just delaying what comes next, just like all the inflation they caused. Canadians are still skipping meals because of it. Fuel is not a luxury in Canada. Our country is massive and our cities continue to expand, meaning many residents must travel a considerable distance between their homes and workplaces. Transit is not an option for every shift worker, tradesperson, health care worker or parent. Many families need two vehicles simply to manage work, school, appointments and their children’s activities. When the government taxes fuel, it is increasing the cost of everything transported in this country. Groceries, building materials and medical supplies arrive by truck. The equipment used by contractors and energy workers runs on fuel. Higher transportation costs move through the supply chain until they appear on the receipt paid by the consumer. Canada’s truck drivers are essential to our economy. They transport our food, fuel, building materials, agricultural products and countless other goods that Canadians depend on every single day. Without truckers, grocery store shelves would empty, construction projects would stall and businesses across this country would struggle to operate. How can a trucking company plan its expenses, negotiate contracts, hire employees or invest in new equipment when the government provides no lasting certainty about fuel taxation? I have had the pleasure to meet with representatives of multiple trucking companies operating in my home of Calgary, such as Kuldip Sandhu from Syndicate Transport, Inderjit Sangha from Rig Logistics Inc. and Randhir Brar from New Way Trucking. Each of these companies employs over 400 truckers who do the vital service of delivering the food all Canadians need. We all rely on their hard work and it is time for the government to show them the appreciation they deserve with a real long-term tax break on diesel. We need it now. The trucking industry does not operate on a short-term schedule. Businesses make investments that last years. Owners take out loans, maintain expensive equipment, pay insurance premiums and compete for contracts in an increasingly challenging market. These are not expenses that disappear when a government tax holiday expires. I know for a fact that even large trucking companies are struggling to stay in business under these conditions and they are facing increasing operating costs. Let us think of the small owner-operators who are hard-working and are working long hours just to cover the cost of diesel, maintenance, insurance and financing. What does that leave them to take home to their families? Nothing. Owner-operators are vital to this industry, such as Harjinder Grewal, a hard-working Calgary father being punished by high diesel prices and who deserves real action to address this crisis. When diesel prices rise, the impact is immediate. When freight rates fail to keep pace with those expenses, the trucker is left absorbing the differences. When a trucker can no longer afford to operate, it is not just one business that suffers but also a family, a local employer and potentially an entire supply chain. Bill C-38 is nowhere near enough. The government wants Canadians to believe that extending the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is a meaningful solution to the affordability crisis. While any reductions in fuel costs are welcome and we support them, we must ask a simple question: What happens when the temporary relief ends? This is why Bill C-38 falls short. It treats fuel affordability as a temporary political inconvenience instead of as one part of the growing, broader cost of living crisis. People in Canada have endured rising mortgage payments, higher rents, expensive groceries and growing utility bills. If suspending the tax would help families in October, it would also help them in February. The timing of this would also cut out relief for some of the hardest-working Canadians: our farmers. The tax would go up right when they need diesel the most, for spring seeding and the hard work they will put in all summer to grow the food we desperately need. The government cannot argue that the tax is harmful enough to suspend now but harmless enough to restore a few months later. Conservatives would take a different approach. We would amend the legislation so relief would last longer and give Canadians meaningful certainty. Conservatives call for the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until Canada Day 2027 at the earliest. Doing this would save all Canadians up to 25¢ per litre. This may not sound like much, but it adds up. In the end, this would bring as much as $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family. That amount of money can help feed many struggling families. The tax cut must also include the seven-cent-per-litre clean fuel regulations, the GST and a permanent cancellation of the industrial carbon tax, so Canadians are not forced to pay more for food and fuel. Bill C-38 would not fix any of these issues for the long term. Conservatives are criticizing the bill not because it would lower the tax but because the relief would be too limited and too short-lived. I call on the government to work with the opposition to improve this legislation, extend the relief, remove all scheduled tax increases, stop taxing tax through the GST on fuel, and give families and businesses a certainty that lasts beyond the next political deadline. If the government refuses, then it should at least be honest about what Bill C-38 is. It is not about fixing the affordability crisis facing Canadians. It is about giving the illusion of addressing the crisis.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the obvious: Suspending the federal fuel excise tax for a few more months will provide some relief, but this bill fails to provide any real long-term solutions for Canadians and the challenges they face today. Conservatives have been pushing this for a long time, but once again, we see the Liberal government take our idea, then fail to properly execute it. Bill C-38 would extend the temporary suspension only until January 31, 2027, meaning Canadians would eventually face the return of the full tax. The government is presenting a temporary pause followed by a scheduled tax increase and calling it an affordability plan. That is not a plan. It is just delaying what comes next, just like all the inflation they caused. Canadians are still skipping meals because of it. Fuel is not a luxury in Canada. Our country is massive and our cities continue to expand, meaning many residents must travel a considerable distance between their homes and workplaces. Transit is not an option for every shift worker, tradesperson, health care worker or parent. Many families need two vehicles simply to manage work, school, appointments and their children’s activities. When the government taxes fuel, it is increasing the cost of everything transported in this country. Groceries, building materials and medical supplies arrive by truck. The equipment used by contractors and energy workers runs on fuel. Higher transportation costs move through the supply chain until they appear on the receipt paid by the consumer. Canada’s truck drivers are essential to our economy. They transport our food, fuel, building materials, agricultural products and countless other goods that Canadians depend on every single day. Without truckers, grocery store shelves would empty, construction projects would stall and businesses across this country would struggle to operate. How can a trucking company plan its expenses, negotiate contracts, hire employees or invest in new equipment when the government provides no lasting certainty about fuel taxation? I have had the pleasure to meet with representatives of multiple trucking companies operating in my home of Calgary, such as Kuldip Sandhu from Syndicate Transport, Inderjit Sangha from Rig Logistics Inc. and Randhir Brar from New Way Trucking. Each of these companies employs over 400 truckers who do the vital service of delivering the food all Canadians need. We all rely on their hard work and it is time for the government to show them the appreciation they deserve with a real long-term tax break on diesel. We need it now. The trucking industry does not operate on a short-term schedule. Businesses make investments that last years. Owners take out loans, maintain expensive equipment, pay insurance premiums and compete for contracts in an increasingly challenging market. These are not expenses that disappear when a government tax holiday expires. I know for a fact that even large trucking companies are struggling to stay in business under these conditions and they are facing increasing operating costs. Let us think of the small owner-operators who are hard-working and are working long hours just to cover the cost of diesel, maintenance, insurance and financing. What does that leave them to take home to their families? Nothing. Owner-operators are vital to this industry, such as Harjinder Grewal, a hard-working Calgary father being punished by high diesel prices and who deserves real action to address this crisis. When diesel prices rise, the impact is immediate. When freight rates fail to keep pace with those expenses, the trucker is left absorbing the differences. When a trucker can no longer afford to operate, it is not just one business that suffers but also a family, a local employer and potentially an entire supply chain. Bill C-38 is nowhere near enough. The government wants Canadians to believe that extending the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax is a meaningful solution to the affordability crisis. While any reductions in fuel costs are welcome and we support them, we must ask a simple question: What happens when the temporary relief ends? This is why Bill C-38 falls short. It treats fuel affordability as a temporary political inconvenience instead of as one part of the growing, broader cost of living crisis. People in Canada have endured rising mortgage payments, higher rents, expensive groceries and growing utility bills. If suspending the tax would help families in October, it would also help them in February. The timing of this would also cut out relief for some of the hardest-working Canadians: our farmers. The tax would go up right when they need diesel the most, for spring seeding and the hard work they will put in all summer to grow the food we desperately need. The government cannot argue that the tax is harmful enough to suspend now but harmless enough to restore a few months later. Conservatives would take a different approach. We would amend the legislation so relief would last longer and give Canadians meaningful certainty. Conservatives call for the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until Canada Day 2027 at the earliest. Doing this would save all Canadians up to 25¢ per litre. This may not sound like much, but it adds up. In the end, this would bring as much as $1,000 of savings for the average Canadian family. That amount of money can help feed many struggling families. The tax cut must also include the seven-cent-per-litre clean fuel regulations, the GST and a permanent cancellation of the industrial carbon tax, so Canadians are not forced to pay more for food and fuel. Bill C-38 would not fix any of these issues for the long term. Conservatives are criticizing the bill not because it would lower the tax but because the relief would be too limited and too short-lived. I call on the government to work with the opposition to improve this legislation, extend the relief, remove all scheduled tax increases, stop taxing tax through the GST on fuel, and give families and businesses a certainty that lasts beyond the next political deadline. If the government refuses, then it should at least be honest about what Bill C-38 is. It is not about fixing the affordability crisis facing Canadians. It is about giving the illusion of addressing the crisis.
“Conservatives condemn these attacks. The bill already has protections built into it, so we do not need more small fixes. I want the Bloc to support us.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect the member from the Bloc. Conservatives condemn those kinds of actions and those kinds of attacks. If the Bloc asks why safeguards do not give us insurance, the exemption clause provides the safeguard Canadians deserve instead of trying to add more small fixes in fine print. I would ask members of the Bloc to support us.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I respect the member from the Bloc. Conservatives condemn those kinds of actions and those kinds of attacks. If the Bloc asks why safeguards do not give us insurance, the exemption clause provides the safeguard Canadians deserve instead of trying to add more small fixes in fine print. I would ask members of the Bloc to support us.
“I want members to vote no on this bill. It goes too far and hurts religious freedom and the rights of Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives condemn those kind of actions. The bill would not stop at addressing incidents like this. The bill is an overreacting attack on the freedom of religious rights and an attack on all Canadians. I would like to request that the members from across support us and vote no on the bill, so Canadians can unite.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives condemn those kind of actions. The bill would not stop at addressing incidents like this. The bill is an overreacting attack on the freedom of religious rights and an attack on all Canadians. I would like to request that the members from across support us and vote no on the bill, so Canadians can unite.
“I support our rights and freedoms. That is why we are trying to change this bill. The government should accept our changes to bring the country together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, that is why we are raising these concerns and presenting amendments. We have the solution. The Liberals can adopt it, and the country would be more united.”
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, that is why we are raising these concerns and presenting amendments. We have the solution. The Liberals can adopt it, and the country would be more united.
“The Liberals have divided the country for the past ten years. Their policies cause violence and division between different groups of immigrants. This bill against hate crimes will only divide Canadians even more.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member’s accusations of misinformation are disappointing and do little to address any concerns being raised by Canadians. In the past decade of Liberal rule, the country has only become more divided. Ethnic violence between immigrants and the division we have seen in Alberta, the division we have seen between new Canadians, are just because of the Liberals’ policies. Even Bill C-9 would create more division than it would bring Canadians together.”
Mr. Speaker, the member’s accusations of misinformation are disappointing and do little to address any concerns being raised by Canadians. In the past decade of Liberal rule, the country has only become more divided. Ethnic violence between immigrants and the division we have seen in Alberta, the division we have seen between new Canadians, are just because of the Liberals’ policies. Even Bill C-9 would create more division than it would bring Canadians together.
“I do not want this bill to pass. It removes legal protections for people who share their religious beliefs. People of faith could be charged with crimes just for quoting their holy books.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Gateway, a former wrestler whom I respect a lot. I 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. Let me begin by stating something clearly. Conservatives condemn hatred, racism, religious unfairness and violence in all forms. Every 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. Unfortunately, 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. 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. 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. That 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. Bill C‑9 seeks to remove this safeguard. Bill C‑9 proposes new offences related to the promotion of hatred and the public display of certain symbols. 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. Canadians should never have to wonder whether legitimate expression could expose them to investigation, prosecution or legal uncertainty. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C‑9 is its proposed expansion of Criminal Code provisions related to hate speech and hate propaganda. The government claims that the bill would target only extreme forms of hatred, yet history teaches us that when governments are given broader power to regulate speech, those powers rarely remain limited to the most obvious offenders. Freedom 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. Canadians 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. As 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. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib is central to Sikh faith and identity. The 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. What 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. However, 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. Those who advocate violence are already subject to criminal penalties. Nothing in the current law prevents authorities from prosecuting individuals who engage in criminal conduct. Instead, Bill C‑9 would risk threatening lawful expression rather than unlawful actions. That is a dangerous path for any democracy. Freedom 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. These rights belong to all Canadians, regardless of political affiliation or religious background. Conservatives believe that Canada can fight hate while still protecting fundamental freedoms. These goals are not mutually exclusive. In 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. That 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. Conservatives will fight against this attack on our freedoms. We will defend the constitutional right that the government is attempting to take away. We will continue to stand with Canadians who believe that faith, freedom and democracy must always be protected.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Gateway, a former wrestler whom I respect a lot. I 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. Let me begin by stating something clearly. Conservatives condemn hatred, racism, religious unfairness and violence in all forms. Every 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. Unfortunately, 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. 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. 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. That 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. Bill C‑9 seeks to remove this safeguard. Bill C‑9 proposes new offences related to the promotion of hatred and the public display of certain symbols. 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. Canadians should never have to wonder whether legitimate expression could expose them to investigation, prosecution or legal uncertainty. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C‑9 is its proposed expansion of Criminal Code provisions related to hate speech and hate propaganda. The government claims that the bill would target only extreme forms of hatred, yet history teaches us that when governments are given broader power to regulate speech, those powers rarely remain limited to the most obvious offenders. Freedom 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. Canadians 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. As 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. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib is central to Sikh faith and identity. The 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. What 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. However, 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. Those who advocate violence are already subject to criminal penalties. Nothing in the current law prevents authorities from prosecuting individuals who engage in criminal conduct. Instead, Bill C‑9 would risk threatening lawful expression rather than unlawful actions. That is a dangerous path for any democracy. Freedom 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. These rights belong to all Canadians, regardless of political affiliation or religious background. Conservatives believe that Canada can fight hate while still protecting fundamental freedoms. These goals are not mutually exclusive. In 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. That 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. Conservatives will fight against this attack on our freedoms. We will defend the constitutional right that the government is attempting to take away. We will continue to stand with Canadians who believe that faith, freedom and democracy must always be protected.
“Canada's economy is shrinking, and businesses are not investing here. I want the Prime Minister to admit that we are in a recession.”
“Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in the G20 in a recession. Businesses are no longer investing in Canada. Even the banks have lost faith. Scotiabank and BMO are projecting growth at less than half of that of the United States. The first step to fixing any problem is admitting that there is one. Will the Liberal Prime Minister admit to Canadians that we are in a recession, or will he continue to tell them they are only technically suffering after a decade of Liberal rule?”
A repeated line
“The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging that there is one.”
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in the G20 in a recession. Businesses are no longer investing in Canada. Even the banks have lost faith. Scotiabank and BMO are projecting growth at less than half of that of the United States. The first step to fixing any problem is admitting that there is one. Will the Liberal Prime Minister admit to Canadians that we are in a recession, or will he continue to tell them they are only technically suffering after a decade of Liberal rule?
“Many people are gathering in Calgary for a major Sikh celebration. I am celebrating this event and thanking the Dashmesh Culture Centre for feeding people in need.”
“Mr. Speaker, with over 100,000 people expected to gather in Calgary this week, the Nagar Kirtan, organized by the Dashmesh Culture Centre gurdwara, stands as one of the most anticipated Sikh celebrations in our country. It is a powerful public expression of faith, humility and the principle of seva, which is selfless service to all of humanity. Led by President Harpal Singh Grewal, the DCC has built a legacy of service that extends far beyond celebration. Through their no hungry tummy initiative and food bank operations, they feed thousands of Calgarians facing food insecurity, regardless of background, belief or faith. The DCC reminds us that true faith is expressed not only in prayers, but in action by showing up for neighbours in need. I invite all members to join me in congratulating the director of operations Raj Sidhu, the entire DCC committee, all volunteers and the Sikh community of Calgary on this joyous occasion. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, with over 100,000 people expected to gather in Calgary this week, the Nagar Kirtan, organized by the Dashmesh Culture Centre gurdwara, stands as one of the most anticipated Sikh celebrations in our country. It is a powerful public expression of faith, humility and the principle of seva, which is selfless service to all of humanity. Led by President Harpal Singh Grewal, the DCC has built a legacy of service that extends far beyond celebration. Through their no hungry tummy initiative and food bank operations, they feed thousands of Calgarians facing food insecurity, regardless of background, belief or faith. The DCC reminds us that true faith is expressed not only in prayers, but in action by showing up for neighbours in need. I invite all members to join me in congratulating the director of operations Raj Sidhu, the entire DCC committee, all volunteers and the Sikh community of Calgary on this joyous occasion. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.
“Life has become too expensive under this government. Food, gas, and rent cost much more, and high government spending is making it worse. I want the government to stop spending so much money.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims affordability has never been better, but Canadians know the truth: Food bank use has skyrocketed, rent has nearly doubled, and families are paying more for groceries, gas and housing. After 10 years of Liberal inflation, everything costs us more, yet the Prime Minister is adding billions of dollars in reckless spending, driving up debt and the cost of living. Canadians are paying $3,000 each year just to cover that debt. When will the Liberals get spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims affordability has never been better, but Canadians know the truth: Food bank use has skyrocketed, rent has nearly doubled, and families are paying more for groceries, gas and housing. After 10 years of Liberal inflation, everything costs us more, yet the Prime Minister is adding billions of dollars in reckless spending, driving up debt and the cost of living. Canadians are paying $3,000 each year just to cover that debt. When will the Liberals get spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again?
