“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.”

“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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 21 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member for Winnipeg North made an unfair accusation against the member for Calgary Skyview. The member for Calgary Skyview is speaking for his community and his faith. I want him to share more of what his faith leaders told him before we vote on this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg North would accuse this member of the things that he has put on the record today. I think that is a pretty disturbing accusation to put on the record. I think the member for Calgary Skyview is accurately representing the concerns that he has heard from his own constituents as well as his own ethnic community. I wonder if the member could put on the record a bit more of the things that he has heard from leaders of his faith, which the member for Winnipeg North should probably take heed of before we take a final vote on the bill.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 37 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 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.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“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.”

“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.”

“I do not support this bill. It removes a long-standing legal protection for religious speech, and it could lead to people being charged with crimes just for sharing their religious beliefs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Skyview for splitting his time with me. I know how difficult it is to take any speaking time away from a former gurdwara president. Along with a rise in violent crime in this country, we also see a rise in hate crimes right across Canada. Canadians are looking to the government for leadership and action. Laws that already exist need to be enforced, and new legislation needs to be brought in to help keep communities safe. Unfortunately, Liberal Bill C‑9 would take away protections and create uncertainty and fear among many communities and people of faith. At the heart of the debate today on Bill C‑9 is the proposed removal of a long-standing religious freedom protection that has been part of Canada’s Criminal Code for more than 50 years. When Parliament first enacted hate propaganda laws in the 1970s, it deliberately included safeguards for truth, public interest, lack of intent and good-faith religious expression based on sincerely held religious beliefs and religious texts. These protections were designed to ensure that Canada could combat genuine hate crimes while preserving the fundamental freedoms that are essential in a free, democratic country. Let me be clear: This defence has never protected calls for violence, threats, genocide or any other criminal act. Those actions were already illegal and remain illegal. The issue before us today is not whether anyone should be free to spread hatred. The issue is whether Canadians acting in good faith should lose a long-standing protection for lawful religious expression. Bill C‑9 would remove that protection, and the Senate amendment would do nothing to restore it. The Liberal government has proposed changes to the Criminal Code through Bill C‑9 that could have serious consequences for freedom of expression and for religious liberty in our country. The bill would repeal long‑standing provisions that protect individuals speaking on a religious subject or quoting their sacred texts. These protections have existed for over five decades to ensure that good‑faith expression or belief is not misinterpreted as criminal conduct. With these changes, individuals acting in good faith, meaning reasonably and without malicious intent, could face the risk that preaching, sharing beliefs or expressing political views may be treated as hate speech under an expanded interpretation of the bill. It is no surprise that many people of faith, and different religious organizations, have been sounding the alarms, warning that the legislation would create uncertainty for faith communities, where sincere religious expression could potentially be subject to criminal investigation or prosecution. In fact, the same religious minority groups that are often victims of hate crimes have raised concern about parts of Bill C‑9 that could backfire and be used against them, potentially undermining the civil liberties that have historically protected them from persecution. The legal counsel for the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association acknowledged that Islamophobia is a serious issue affecting her community. She explained that Muslims, along with other racialized and marginalized groups, often face hatred, not only because of their religion but also because of race, ethnicity, language and even clothing. Despite these concerns, she urged the committee and the Senate to reject Bill C‑9 in its current form because of its impact on civil liberties. She warned that the bill would not improve public safety. Instead, she said, it could lead to overcriminalization of marginalized communities, limit political expression and reduce constitutional freedoms. She also cautioned that it could discourage people from participating in democratic debate and civic engagement, which would ultimately not make anyone safer. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has also raised significant concerns regarding the proposed removal of religious exemption in Bill C‑9. In an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, the bishops stated that the proposed amendment could have unintended consequences for religious freedom in Canada and that the current defence provides a crucial and vital safeguard for Canadians who express sincerely held religious beliefs in good faith. They noted that the provision has long protected individuals from criminal prosecution for discussing or teaching beliefs grounded in religious traditions and sacred texts. They also warned that removing the exemption could create uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators and religious organizations. According to the bishops, some may fear that traditional religious teachings on moral or doctrinal matters could be misinterpreted as hate speech, potentially exposing individuals to criminal proceedings. They express their serious concern that people would be put in a position where they must refrain from teaching their sincerely held religious beliefs. In other words, the fear of the state’s cracking down on ideas with which it disagrees would lead to priests and faith leaders being silenced. Balpreet Singh, legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada, testified that his organization’s recent study found that 65% of respondents across Canada have expressed anti-Sikh hate. At the same time, he raised concerns that parts of Bill C-9 could undermine lawful political expression, peaceful protests and religious freedom. He also warned that Bill C-9 has already become the target of a disinformation campaign, particularly in foreign media and online, which has falsely claimed that the bill is aimed at the Sikh communities in Canada. According to Mr. Singh, these claims are misleading and are intended to create fear and suspicion within the Sikh community. Mr. Singh emphasized that this combination of unclear legislation and misinformation has created unnecessary fear within the community even before the bill has been fully enacted. Just recently, the Senate proposed an amendment to Bill C-9 that would do nothing to address the real issues with the piece of legislation. While the amendment would add the noose to the list of prohibited hate symbols, it would do nothing to restore the protections for freedom of religion and freedom of expression that Bill C-9 would remove. The Senate amendment would not restore the religious defence. It would not address concerns about freedom of expression. It would not address concerns about freedom of religion, nor would it respond to the warnings raised by many of the communities the legislation is supposed to protect. At its core, the debate remains about fundamental freedoms. On this side of the House, we support stronger protections for churches, synagogues, gurdwaras, mosques, temples and cultural centres, and for the Canadians who gather inside them. No one should face—”