“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 →

“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 →

“The government did not talk to religious groups, legal experts, or ordinary Canadians before writing this bill. Many faith groups have concerns about it. Our laws already protect places of worship and ban intimidation.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was lack of consultation with this bill. We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada, and I would say individual Canadians as well. I will also note that stakeholders have publicly raised concerns about this, many of them, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. There have been many organizations, not just one particular faith group, that have brought forward the concerns of not being consulted or seeing issues with the bill. I will also note, though, that there are sections within the Criminal Code that address crimes against places of worship and obstruction. That would be section 176, for example. Acts of intimidation are in section 423.1. I could go on and on.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government should withdraw this bill. It hurts Canadians' religious freedom and freedom of speech.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we can kill this bill. This bill can be withdrawn. The government can do that and bring forward legislation that is uniting to Canadians, that immediately addresses the concerns that I mentioned in my speech. I will say that the government cannot be trusted. We know that a minister of the Crown said there are parts of scripture that should be criminalized. That is the intent and goal of this. We cannot just take what Liberals say at face value. In my speech, I gave multiple examples of where the government is limiting Canadians’ religious freedom and freedom of expression.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill because it could make quoting religious texts a crime. The Liberals also reject every fix we suggest in committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to criminalize anyone who dares to quote from scripture, a religious text, and that is crossing the line, as far as I am concerned and as far as a lot of Canadians are concerned. It is the difference between the state and religion, the state and faith. The more concerning thing is that when we bring these issues to committee, as we have in all other committees, the Liberal members have been tone-deaf. They have basically shot down every single amendment brought forth by members of the opposition. Can the member tell me how she feels about her participation when she voices an opinion of her constituents and recommends very reasonable amendments that get shot down time after time by this manufactured majority government on the other side?”

“The Liberals refuse to listen to good ideas or questions from other parties. They do not treat other members with respect or debate fairly.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is not something new under the Prime Minister. This was also a continued effort under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. If anybody not wearing Liberal red brought forward thoughtful, meaningful amendments or even questions to debate, there was no entertaining it, which does a disservice. I think this is one of the reasons we have seen members from other parties crossing the floor. They are being enticed by being told they will be heard and listened to, as opposed to the governing party of the day acting like grown-ups, being respectful and thoughtful and having conversations. It is unfortunate that this does not happen in this place under the Liberals.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 32 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. We already have laws against threats, violence, and hate crimes. The government should enforce those laws instead of creating new ones that threaten free speech and take away legal protections for religious discussions.”

“Mr. Speaker, hatred is real. Jewish Canadians have faced ongoing intimidation, including gunfire, firebombings and repeated threats against synagogues, schools and community institutions. Muslim Canadians have seen the tragic consequences when hatred turns deadly. Just a week ago, I joined Londoners in remembering the Afzaal family, four members of which were murdered five years ago because they were Muslim. Churches across the country have been vandalized, desecrated and, in far too many cases, burned to the ground. Members of other communities have also faced hatred, threats and intimidation because of their identity, beliefs or background. No Canadian should be threatened because of who they are, what they believe or where they worship. No one should have to pass through a hostile crowd to enter a place of worship, or wonder whether that place will still be standing in the morning. Conservatives believe that the people responsible for threats, violence, intimidation, criminal harassment and vandalism must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. Canada already has laws to deal with this conduct. The government should make sure that they are enforced and that the people who terrorize communities are held fully accountable. Instead, the government is using the real fears of vulnerable communities to justify a bill that would blur the line between crime and lawful speech that may be unpopular or controversial. In a free country, the right to speak cannot depend on whether everyone agrees. Freedom of expression matters most when people strongly disagree. If the government can restrict lawful speech simply because someone finds it offensive, the line will keep moving. What is protected today may be questioned tomorrow, depending on who complains and who holds power. That is the dangerous path that Bill C-9 would put us on. The narrow Senate amendment now before us would do nothing to address the broader danger. It would simply add the noose to the bill’s list of prohibited symbols. The noose carries a horrifying history as an instrument of murder and terror, but adding one more symbol would not fix the bill. It would not restore the long-standing protection for good-faith religious expression or answer the concerns raised across the country. The Senate has changed the list but has not fixed the bill. Bill C-9 is presented as though Canada has no laws against threats, intimidation or hateful conduct. That is simply not true. Canada already has laws against threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, mischief, violence, public incitement and hate-motivated crime, so why does the government act as though Canada has no laws to deal with these offences? Why expand criminal law instead of enforcing the laws we have, while removing protections for lawful religious expression. What has been missing is political leadership, consistent enforcement and consequences that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. More laws do not make up for weak leadership, and unclear laws around speech do not make communities safer. The clearest example is the proposed removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code. For more than 50 years, Canadian law protected a person who, in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text. The protection was narrow. It did not protect threats, violence, advocating genocide or encouraging a crime. It applied to one hate speech offence and protected good-faith religious discussion while allowing the law to deal with real hatred. The government and the Bloc chose to remove that protection. They now tell Canadians not to worry. They tell faith leaders to trust prosecutors. They tell religious teachers to trust the courts, and they tell parents and clergy that lawful expression would probably remain lawful. However, if this protection were not needed, why was it kept in the Criminal Code for more than half a century? If the government still believes that good-faith religious expression should be protected, why remove the words that clearly protect it? This is the slippery slope. It rarely begins with the government’s openly saying it wants to criminalize ordinary religious teaching. It begins with promises that the law would be used only in extreme cases. The protection then disappears, and the line becomes less clear. A complaint is made against a faith leader, a teacher or a parent. An investigation and legal costs may follow. Even without a conviction, the process can become the punishment. Clergy and teachers would begin censoring themselves because the Liberal government has chosen to remove a clear protection and replace it with uncertainty. That is how the slippery slope works. First the protection is removed. Then the line becomes unclear. Finally, people stop saying lawful things because they fear what might happen. However, self-censorship is not the only danger. Driving hateful ideas underground does not make them disappear. It can allow resentment and hatred to grow where they are harder to challenge, until they emerge in more dangerous forms. In a free society, bad ideas should be exposed and defeated in the open. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant. Criminal law should deal firmly with threats, violence and genuine incitement, but it should not push lawful discussion into the shadows, otherwise peaceful Canadians become afraid to speak, while real hatred is pushed out of sight instead of confronted. Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They are weakened one step at a time, with every step described as small and reasonable. That is why the government must prove that these restrictions are needed, that existing law is not enough and that lawful speech will remain protected. The government has not done that. Worse, it did not allow the full debate needed to test its case. The government used a programming motion to push the bill through committee. Debate was cut short. New amendments and subamendments could not be properly considered. Even the reading of amendments being voted on was restricted. Conservative safeguards for freedom of religion and freedom of expression were rejected. A government confident in its bill should welcome questions. Instead, the government shortened the process and pushed ahead without answering them. Those concerns reach far beyond any one faith community. A joint statement opposing Bill C-9 brought together civil liberty organizations; Muslim, Jewish and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and other community organizations, from across Canada. They do not share one ideology, one faith or one political outlook. Their agreement cannot simply be dismissed. Nor is opposition to Bill C-9 limited to Conservatives. At third reading, every participating NDP member and the leader of the Green Party joined Conservatives in voting against it. This is not simply a left versus right debate. The warning comes from across civil society and the political spectrum. The government also rejected the Conservative proposal to separate the broadly supported parts of the bill from those raising serious civil liberties concerns. Now the bill has returned from the Senate with another symbol added to the list, while the main problems remain untouched. This is not a real fix. It is a distraction. The government would rather debate whether a noose is offensive than explain why it removed a 50-year-old protection for lawful religious expression. It would rather offer the appearance of action than provide the leadership and enforcement needed to make communities safer. Freedom of religion means very little if it protects only beliefs that no one finds objectionable. Freedom of expression means very little if it protects only speech the government approves of. That does not mean every religious statement is wise or beyond criticism. People are free to disagree, challenge it and answer it with better arguments. Conservatives support protecting Canadians from threats, violence and intimidation, but we reject false choice between safety and freedom. Canada can enforce its laws against criminal conduct without placing peaceful religious expression under a cloud of fear and uncertainty. The Senate amendment would not restore that balance. It would add a symbol, but it would not restore the religious defence. It would change a list but would not protect freedom of expression. It would do nothing to stop the slippery slope that begins when Parliament removes clear protections and tells Canadians simply to trust that government power would be used carefully. Canadians deserve clear laws, strong enforcement, and consequences that match the seriousness of the crime. They also deserve firm protection for the freedoms of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Bill C-9 fails that test. The Senate amendment would not fix it. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Bill C-9.”

“People in my riding worry this bill will hurt free speech and freedom of religion. They are afraid they could be accused of hate speech just for sharing religious texts.”

“Mr. Speaker, the real concern, which was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online. They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill divides people. Religious leaders strongly oppose parts of it because they worry about religious freedom. The government is refusing to listen to faith groups.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support. The leadership of the Abrahamic faiths, for example, has come out very strongly against parts of Bill C-9, especially around religious freedom. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the government’s unwillingness to listen to anything besides the narrow confines of its interests rather than to the larger faith community.”

“Many groups oppose this bill. Civil rights groups, religious groups, legal experts, and people from different political parties are all worried about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, to add to what I mentioned in my speech, yes, there are multiple organizations concerned about Bill C-9, and those opposed to Bill C-9 are from civil liberties organizations; Muslim, Jewish, and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and parties across the political spectrum that are concerned and oppose the passing of Bill C-9.”