House Publications

    It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Access to Information Act, the Information Commissioner's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑37, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Confronting Antifeminist Ideologies in Canada”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Challenges Regarding Special Ballot Voting”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee.

    The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provide proof of their last place of residence prior to the issuance of a ballot. Currently, there is no requirement of proof of residence. Additionally, the Conservatives oppose the recommendation for earlier candidate nomination deadlines, which was not supported by evidence. We also caution against the use of hybrid ballot delivery systems, including using Canadian diplomatic missions as polling stations, out of concern for ballot integrity and ballot secrecy.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “The Effects of Influencers and Social Media Content on Children and Adolescents”.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    While I have the floor, I move:

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

     Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to introduce my private member's bill.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-286, An act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Food and Drugs Act.

    He said: Mr. Speaker, today, I am honoured to introduce Thomas's bill. Thomas was a constituent of mine. He was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and given months to live. His anxiety was all over the place. His doctor prescribed psilocybin with counselling, and it worked. It calmed his anxiety so that his mind was put at ease and his body could fight the cancer. He accessed it through the special access programs we have in Health Canada. It was working, for three years, until they cut him off.

     My private member's bill would allow physicians to prescribe psilocybin counselling to their patients and not have the bureaucrats in Health Canada override them, which is the case currently.

    I am excited to introduce this bill. I look forward to it going to committee and hopefully passing this, because we face an epidemic of mental health and addiction issues. We have crises in our streets, and there is a solution that could include psilocybin counselling.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon—University for presenting his private member's bill. I will certainly support it.

    I wonder if there is unanimous consent so that I could present a private member's bill at this moment.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

    Mr. Speaker, given that there has been some inconsistency, I would like to request unanimous consent to be able to present my private member's bill, which has been waiting for weeks on the Order Paper.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to return to petitions under Routine Proceedings.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Burlington.

    Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the finance committee, it is my honour to inform the House that after 25 hours of clause-by-clause consideration, I have deposited with the clerks the report for the House's consideration.

    That is not a point of order, but it is noted.

     Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the big-hearted constituents in the caring riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke to speak to Bill C‑9, the Liberal bill to ban symbols of hate.

     The bill is back here because the other place has amended the legislation to include a new symbol to the Liberal hit list. The Senate used to be called the chamber of sober second thought. Unfortunately, under the democratic reforms by Justin Trudeau, that chamber has come to resemble a critical studies faculty lounge. It is less sober second thought and more quick hot takes. While the Senate had sufficient sobriety to reject one amendment on so‑called denialism, the decision to include the symbol of a noose highlights a broader problem with the Liberal approach to combatting hate.

     As I said during the debate at second reading, the rise in hate is real under the Liberals. The measures in this bill to protect places of worship and cultural centres and add penalties for obstructing or intimidating people from entering those places are a step forward. The removal of the safeguards around religious expression is vile. The criminalization of specific symbols would be less alarming if the Liberals were not the ones pursuing it. They have a long track record of engaging in bad‑faith attacks and outright fabrications when they see a chance to smear their political opponents.

     I would encourage the Canadians watching this debate at home to listen to the powerful speeches given by the member for Terrebonne and the member for Hull—Aylmer. Both spoke of the legacy of lynching in the United States and how the noose became a symbol of terror and violence. They both cited specific, well‑documented historical facts about the history of the noose in the American context, yet when it came time to speak about Canada, the specificity stopped and they moved to speak in generalities.

    I am in no way suggesting the members were engaged in a repeat of the outlandish claims made by the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre when she claimed crosses were burning on the lawns of Prince George residents. There have been at least three documented cases of nooses being left at workplaces since the summer of 2020 and the death of George Floyd. Prior to the summer of 2020, there had been only one documented case. All four incidents generated considerable media attention and widespread condemnation. In one of the three cases, a person was arrested and charged.

    Hanging a noose on someone's workplace locker is unambiguously a death threat, regardless of ethnicity. If the intent was to foment hate, then the act is already a criminal offence. If this bill becomes law, the police and the Crown prosecutors will still need to prove that the display was intended to promote hate to lay a charge under this act, yet to hear the Liberals speak, one could easily be misinformed into believing that the simple act of displaying a noose is now a hate crime. Given the Liberals' own recent history of bad‑faith claims of noose sightings, this should concern Canadians.

    During Justin Trudeau's 2021 superspreader election campaign, the Liberal war room found a pliable journalist to publish the Liberals' pathetic lie that I had depicted the prime minister being lynched. University professors wrote op-eds condemning the so‑called depiction of political violence, except it was a fake noose news story. There was no noose. It was a picture of Trudeau pulling on a thin red lanyard while mugging for the camera. Having had the recent experience of the Liberal Party of Canada lying about a noose and then having it reported by the Liberal‑funded media, I can speak from my own experience about how troubling it is for the Trudeau Senate to add something as vague as the word “noose” to the list of prohibited terror symbols.

    This example of the Liberals seeking to ban the symbol of the noose so soon after engaging in a bad-faith attack on a political opponent by claiming a lanyard was actually a noose does not stand in isolation. During the “freedom convoy” and the protests, we saw the Liberals deploy this exact same technique. Some protesters had likened the public health restrictions to Nazi‑era policies. Some had even desecrated the Canadian flag with the Nazi hooked cross as a way of illustrating their point that the Liberals were acting like Nazis. When one of those protesters walked behind a Conservative MP doing an interview with the CBC, the Liberals pounced. They accused us of supporting Nazis. Trudeau literally accused a Jewish MP of standing with people who wave swastikas. The Liberals were more than happy to deploy misinformation and disinformation around the use of a hate symbol to score cheap political points. The CBC worked hand in glove with the government to push this fake narrative.

     No one needs to agree with protesters' views comparing the Liberals to the Nazis, but if we want to keep our democracy, we have to protect the right to express those views. Instead, the Liberal‑funded media, in close coordination with the Liberal government, sought to discredit the protesters as hate‑mongers before a single truck had arrived in the city. Before my Liberal colleagues reach for their favourite talking point, I just want to remind them that the Liberal staffer emails to the media are all available online on the evidence page of the Public Order Emergency Commission website.

     These two recent examples, the fake noose and the protesters who were labelled as Nazis for calling the Liberals authoritarian, are precisely why we cannot trust the government with this much power over expression. Even last night during debate, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas engaged in a bad-faith attack on my colleague for highlighting the different history between Canada and the U.S. That member provides an example of a type of affliction common to Liberals, what we might call the progressive man's burden. They see it as their moral duty to defend those they view as weak while educating the uncivilized among us.

    If this bill was a one‑off viewed in isolation, a reasonable case could be made to support it. However, when placed in the broader context of decades of Liberal political strategy that sought to paint all Conservative opposition as motivated by hate and the Liberals' continued desire to construct an entirely new bureaucracy to monitor Canadians' digital expression, this bill looks like a dangerous expansion of authority. Layer that atop the Liberals' decision to support the separatist motion to eliminate the religious defence, and the expansion of state powers starts to look threatening to many Canadians.

    I agree with my Liberal colleagues when they say hate has grown under the Liberal government. Before the Liberals were elected, there had not been a documented case of a noose in a workplace in decades. Now the Liberals claim it is so common the symbol must be banned. Between 2021 and 2023, there were 238 recorded arson attacks on churches. There are regular hate marches through Jewish neighbourhoods. Liberals even claim their own communities are hotbeds of hatred, where white supremacist rallies are held on a regular basis.

     Ever since the Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights and restored voting rights to indigenous Canadians, which the Liberals had removed, this country had been on a steady march toward greater inclusion. That all changed in 2015. The decision by the Liberal government to abandon Canada's multicultural approach in favour of an imported American ideology of racial essentialism is at the root of the problem. When combined with out-of-control immigration and soft-on-bail policies, we see the inevitable result. We see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents hiring contract killers to shoot up synagogues. We see hate marches in our streets. We see places of worship burned to the ground.

     Stubbornly, the Liberals still refuse to admit their mistakes on this file. They have admitted they were wrong about carbon taxes. They have admitted they were wrong about the need for tougher bail. They have admitted they were wrong about the need for adult supervision of our immigration system. What will it take for them to realize their approach to combatting hate has only created more hate?

    The positive elements in this bill that would protect people attending religious places are completely undone by the decision to remove the religious speech defence. We have recent examples of Liberals spreading disinformation about fake nooses and Nazi supporters. They have cut off debate on this censorship bill. Now they want to create a new bureaucracy to monitor harmful content, yet they tell Canadians to trust the cabinet to determine what is and is not harmful. If Canadians did not even trust the Liberals with a majority, we definitely do not trust them with the power to decide what is and is not hate.

    Madam Speaker, the way the Conservative Party of Canada is marginalizing something that has touched the lives of thousands over the years, in regard to the whole noose debate, is somewhat sad.

     Let me give a specific example that the member might not be aware of but is the reality of the situation. Senator Bernard, out for a walk, was confronted in her home community by a group, particularly an individual, that was using the physical noose. Now, she is of Black heritage and someone who is very proud to be a Canadian.

    I wonder what the member thinks about that sort of an incident. Does she believe that the noose is in fact used as a tool, at times, of extreme racist actions like what Senator Bernard had to physically go through? I would suggest the senator is not alone.

     Yes, Madam Speaker, under the Liberals, and this hatred that they are promoting, I can believe that this incident happened, and it is unacceptable. However, given how the Liberals expand laws and try to encompass innocent people into law–breaking, they cannot be trusted with adding these symbols to the bill.

    Madam Speaker, the bill would basically strip away the right of a person to quote from their holy text. It would open the door to criminalizing people for uttering words that they are reading from their holy text. I wonder if the member can share with us why the Liberal government did not consult with faith communities across the country to see what the impact would be of taking away these statutory rules that have been in place for so long now, that protect people and allow people to have freedom of speech and freedom of faith. There is a difference between state and faith. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

     Madam Speaker, I can say that since the bill has been introduced, I have received more mail with reference to the bill and that particular amendment and the removal of religious freedom than for any other bill.

     In fact, it almost comes to the level of the firearms registry back in the late 1990s, Bill C-68. There was such upheaval that it changed the course of the election in my riding, where lawful firearms owners felt that the legislation the Liberals were bringing in was unjust. They feel the same way about this.

    Madam Speaker, in the drafting of Bill C‑9, some interpretive clauses were added that, in my opinion, address the concerns of my Conservative colleagues. I am going to read them, and I want my Conservative colleagues to tell me what is missing from these clauses so I can reassure them. The goal is not to prevent individuals from worshipping in accordance with the religions they wish to follow.

    There are two interpretive clauses that say pretty much the same thing. Here is the first one:

     That includes people who make religious statements.

    The second clarification uses more or less the same wording, but states the following at the end:

    Why are my Conservative colleagues not reassured by these interpretive clauses?

    Madam Speaker, what is missing in the government is integrity. The Liberals have no integrity. We have seen in the past how they have misaligned—

    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence is rising on the point of order.

     Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 18, all members of this House are honourable. I would ask the member opposite to retract that statement, saying that the members on this side of the House have no integrity.

     It is a standing order.

    The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, on the point of order.

    Madam Speaker, I apologize. It is the public who feel that the Liberals do not have enough integrity to be trusted with this bill.

    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and to speak to the bill. I would like to start by providing a comment on both the question I posed to the member who just spoke and some of the discussion that was taking place late last night around midnight on the floor of the House. I will quote specifically Senator Bernard from comments she has made, because there has been a lot of talk on the floor about the issue of the noose. This is what she stated:

    This, in part, is why we need to bring in the legislation that is before us today. I find it disrespectful when individuals in essence mock or try to belittle something as serious as the noose, because we do know that racism hurts. It hurts a great deal at times, physically and mentally.

    For many years, from the beginning of my political career in 1988, I have had the opportunity to talk about a wide variety of issues. On one occasion when I was at a hotel, I was talking to a wonderful young lady from our Black heritage community, and an individual walked up to us and asked her how long she had been in Canada. The individual in question was somewhat offended, and understandably so, because if the person had understood Canadian heritage and our history, I am sure that person would have realized it was a silly question to ask. I suspect that if I had been standing beside someone from the European community, from a Caucasian community, who had just landed at the city of Winnipeg airport and walked into the hotel, it would not have been an issue. The question would not have been asked. I draw the contrast between Senator Bernard's account and an incident of this nature.

    I believe at my core that Canada's greatest asset is our diversity. We should be looking at a way in which we can champion that. Canada should be showing the world just how important diversity is and how valuable it is to our society.

     I believe that provincial Hansard from decades ago would show that I talked about how the best way to combat racism is to deal with it through education and that it needs to be incorporated into the curriculum of our schools. I have taken the issue very seriously virtually from day one, as Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the party, appointed me on the issues of tourism and ethnic diversity. I attended things such as Folklorama, where in my first year, I believe I went to 26 different pavilions, where I was able to be baptized in the many different cultures and heritages that make us who we are as a nation, at least in part. Our diversity is something we should all be very proud of.

    However, there is an ugly side that is real, that is tangible and that hurts Canadians every day of the year. Whether the Conservatives may want to turn a blind eye to it or not in certain areas, the government will not do that. That is the reason we have Bill C‑9 before us. The Prime Minister has recognized it and made it a priority issue. It is a part of the series of crime bills we have brought forward, and we are looking for the Conservative Party to recognize the harm that is caused by hatred here in Canada.

    The Conservative Party has an opportunity to get onside and support Canada's diversity, whether it is ethnic background, religious background or social behaviours. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe in the environment in which they live. We should all take pride in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and when we see racist action being taken, whether it is innocent or is intentionally done, we all have a responsibility to call it out. We are leaders of our community, and as such we need to take a stand on the issue, which is why I wanted to start my comments with that very important issue.

    I appeal to my Conservative friends to take a look at the consequences of voting no on Bill C‑9, and this is where I will get into the religious component. There is so much misinformation spread through social media and through false information that is being talked about here on the floor of the House of Commons, and it needs to be dealt with. Opposition members need to be held accountable for the things they are actually doing and saying.

     It is not very often that I take a quote from the Toronto Sun, but this is from Joseph Neuberger, who provided a story to the Toronto Sun that was published in January. He said, “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” The article continues, and it is perfectly clear: “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust.” He goes on to say, and I appeal to people to listen to this aspect very carefully, that “Bill C‑9 does not weaken it.” That is the truth. That is the reality.

    Unfortunately, the Conservative Party of Canada, the far right element within the Conservative Party, has used this issue to whip up all sorts of anxiety and concerns that cannot be justified. Whether it is mosques, gurdwaras, temples or Christian churches of all forms, our faith community is intentionally being misled by Conservative propaganda, and I would like to give members some specific examples of that.

     I have received a number of emails from the Conservative Party of Canada related to Bill C-9. This is from one: “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” That is shameful. It goes on: “These attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of religion are shocking and completely unacceptable. This must be STOPPED at once.” If we go to the bottom of the email, it says, “Donate now.”

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member from across the way asked, “What's wrong with that?” If he does not understand the challenge in terms of ethical behaviour that the current far right within the Conservative Party has today, it is a very serious issue to use to ask for, to raise, money.

    There are other emails I have received, such as this one: “Kevin, for 10 years the Liberals have been trying to control what you can see and say.... C-9 would punish Canadians for quoting scriptures the government considers politically incorrect.” What a bunch of crap that is. I withdraw the word “crap”, but it is true.

     Again, that came from the Conservatives. They pump out hundreds, if not thousands, of emails. Here is another one: “The Liberals and Bloc”, so the Bloc has been included on this one, “want to prosecute people for quoting Scripture. They are trying to push laws that could criminalize passages from the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and other sacred texts.” If we go a little further down, the email asks people to add their name, so the Conservatives are actually mining. They go out and promote hatred. At the end of the day, they are trying to cash in on their promotion and are mining to get additional support.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am honest. I am actually quoting Conservative emails, and I can say that there are a lot more emails with regard to Bill C-9.

    With respect to what Bill C-9 actually would do, I provided a quote providing those assurances. It would deal with hatred in Canada in different ways. It would protect our institutions, whether they are community centres, Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, temples, mosques and synagogues, from protests that are intimidating to people who want to be able to attend. It would protect us from hatred-driven or hatred-motivated offences, whether they are assaults or mentally related issues, if I can put it that way. Those are the types of things that are tangible and that the legislation would actually deal with.

    The Prime Minister has said that we want to include Bill C-9 in a series of bills dealing with crime. We made a commitment in the last federal election to deal with hatred, and that is what this legislation would do. It would be a fulfillment of an election platform that we made just last year when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. In fact, today, among the Liberal benches, there are 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament, not to mention a new Prime Minister.

    A series of actions has been taken to deal with crime. I will make quick reference to some of them, and I want to provide some additional thoughts on the hate file. I can say that every Liberal caucus member recognizes that, as a government, we want to do something to deal with hate, something of substance and a reflection of what members have been hearing from the constituents they represent. That is what is reflected in this bill. We also believe that it would meet any constitutional challenge and that it complements the Charter of Rights. These are the changes that we believe are in the best interests of the public.

    If we contrast that to those in opposition to the bill, I would suggest we need to look at the motivation behind it, as I have already articulated, issues such as data mining, fundraising and catering to a far-right element of society. That seems to be their motivation, not what is in the public good or the best interests of Canadians. There is a responsibility of all members to be straightforward on some of the things being said in this House because of the anxiety and concerns being raised in our faith communities. Whether they are leaders in faith facilities or members of a congregation, there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the types of things we are hearing talked about and preached about in synagogues, PAOC churches or other faith facilities.

    There is very little tolerance in Canada for hatred and terrorism by the constituents we represent. I would ask members to reflect on that and for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning. They do not have to vote against this legislation. I have heard a lot of arguments from the Conservatives, many hours of argument, and I have done a lot of reading. Not one argument that has been presented, I believe, has any legitimacy or justification for voting against this legislation. It seems to be more of a self-serving argument as opposed to what is in the public best interest.

    I referred to a series of legislation and I want to highlight them. We have Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, that we are debating today, Bill C-12, the new borders act and asylum issue, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform legislation, Bill C-16, which would reinstate mandatory minimums and highlights new legislation dealing with feminism and coercive action, and Bill C-22, which deals with lawful access. There is a suite of crime and hate legislation that is real, tangible and would make our communities safer. That is what our constituents want.

    My last appeal would be for members to look at those bills as a holistic package and get behind what the Government of Canada is doing to make our communities safer.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I mistakenly voted while paired this morning, so I would like to request unanimous consent to withdraw my vote on division 162, the motion to proceed to orders of the day, taken earlier this day.

    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to correct the record?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    I wish to inform the House that pursuant to order made on Monday, June 15, the Standing Committee on Finance deposited with the Clerk of the House the third report of the committee.

    The committee considered Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, and reported it with amendments.

    Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member mention frequently that there was an election in which we elected a Prime Minister. I know this may seem pedantic, but we do not elect prime ministers in this country. Under Westminster parliamentary democracy, each member in this place is equal to every other member. Every constituent has the choice to elect their member of Parliament. If their member of Parliament happens to be the leader of a party, and that party has the most seats in the House or can hold the confidence of the House, that person becomes prime minister, with no particular constitutional authority. We certainly do not directly elect them as is done in the United States.

     I know it may seem pedantic, but we did not elect the current Prime Minister; we elected our own MPs. Only the people in Nepean elected the Prime Minister. Beyond that, we did not elect a CEO. We did not elect a dictator. We elected a Parliament. Parliament needs to do its work. I find time allocation and programming motions offensive to those principles.

    I wonder if the parliamentary secretary wants to comment.

    Madam Speaker, absolutely. I wish I would be given the time to give a full answer on it.

    When people go to the voting booth, they exercise their vote, and the names of the local candidates are on the ballot. However, to deny the fact that people vote for the leader of political parties, the party itself and the local candidate is to deny reality.

    At the end of the day, people contrasted our Prime Minister to the leader of the official opposition and others. Ultimately, the support garnered for the leader helped a lot of Liberal candidates get elected in the last federal election.

    With respect to time allocation, I can say to my friend opposite that Peter Van Loan, who sat two desks ahead of me, would do the same sort of thing. He brought time allocation over 100 times in the last few years of the Harper government.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague has provided an accurate description of the turmoil and concerns that Bill C-9 has caused among the people.

    Does he not acknowledge that the government may have failed to explain Bill C‑9 properly, allowing the situation to escalate because of what appears to be incorrect information? What will the government do differently next time to explain its legislative initiatives more effectively?

    Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity, as has every member of Parliament I am sure, to address this issue, which has become fairly contentious because of the misinformation funnelled through the House of Commons by one political entity, the Conservative Party. However, I believe the majority of Canadians will become much more familiar with and see the benefits of the legislation as a whole. Therefore, I am expecting the legislation to, in fact, pass. We all have a job to do to alleviate the concerns that have been raised by the—

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

    Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made reference to one of the symbols noted in the amendment, which is the noose. As he knows, it is an issue of particular importance to Black Canadians. I wonder if he could discuss why it is important to list symbols such as the noose as hate symbols.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it allows me to highlight what Senator Bernard indicated. I made reference to it at the very beginning of my speech. It is a fairly long quote, but the essence of it is an individual who was sitting around a dinner table, then went out for an evening walk, where there was all sorts of language used by someone driving a truck toward her, telling her to go back to Africa, and on the truck was a noose. It would be exceptionally intimidating and life-threatening. Racism to that degree hurts in many different ways. To deny that reality, I think, does a great disservice.

    As parliamentarians, I think we need to recognize where Canadians are hurt by symbols, and take action. That is exactly what Bill C-9 would do.

     Madam Speaker, throughout the debate, I have heard the Conservatives make reference to, “Why do we need this bill at all? We already have existing laws.” It is really surprising to me, hearing that come from the Conservatives, considering they claim to be tough on crime and want longer sentences.

    In this bill, a simple assault committed due to hate would go from five years to 10 years in prison. Sexual assault with a weapon causing bodily harm would go from 14 years to life in prison. This bill would provide for longer, appropriate sentences and appropriate punishment for those who commit crimes involving hate.

    I want to know what the parliamentary secretary thinks about that. Are the Conservatives even tough on crime anymore?

    Madam Speaker, our secretary of state has highlighted Bill C-9, but it is not that alone. We also have Bill C-16, as the secretary of state knows full well, wherein we would be reinstating mandatory minimums and leading changes to criminal laws, dealing with femicide, as an example, by dealing with the issue of coercive behaviour from a partner. The Conservatives are opposing that legislation too. It really does make one wonder why it is that they like to talk tough and raise money on the issue of crime, but when it comes time to vote and get the legislation through, they are nothing more than a barrier. They go out of their way to prevent legislation from passing.

    I appreciate the question because it highlights the roadblock the Conservatives continue to put up on us making our communities safer.

    Madam Speaker, who here does not believe that all Canadians should live free of hate? I cannot fathom how the Conservatives cannot support this legislation, how they can position freedom of expression and freedom of religion against combatting hate, as if this bill would not defend and protect people's charter-protected rights to freely express themselves. Hate is the very thing that has people afraid to express themselves, to worship the way they choose to worship. It is unfathomable to me that the Conservatives have taken the position that they have, that they are somehow opposed to combatting hate. It is just deplorable

     I wonder if my colleague, who made a great intervention in the House, would speak to just how shocking and appalling it is.

     Madam Speaker, we have seen today's Conservative Party continue to move further and further to the right. It has become an extreme right that is dominating the House leadership within the Conservative Party. We see that more and more, and I do not say that lightly.

    If we take a look at it, not one Conservative has stood up and asked me a question about my comments. I suspect it is because they are a little reluctant, given the seriousness of the debate, and they recognize the weakness, and, in fact, that they are making a mistake, by not getting behind Bill C-9. Instead of getting behind it, they are allowing their House leadership team to continue to promote and get out misinformation on the issue.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to add to that because I do not believe that anyone is opposed to peace, which is the opposite of hatred. This bill will help us build a new Canada that is fundamentally committed to promoting peace.

    Could my colleague offer his comments and explain why the opposition continues to fight this bill?

     Madam Speaker, to pick up on the first part of the member's comments, Canada is a diverse country. Our diversity is one of the greatest strengths that we have, and we can demonstrate leadership throughout the world by passing legislation of this nature and cherishing our diversity.

     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.

    Madam Speaker, although I disagree with much of the speech of the member opposite, what I wanted to know from her is, since this bill proposes a stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code, which essentially doubles up on other offences, if someone in her community were to commit a theft, for example, of a convenience store, but they did it based on a hate motivation, does she believe that person should have a tougher sentence? This is what I want to know from the member.

    Is she tough on crime? Does she believe a hate-motivated crime should be a tougher offence?

     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.

    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.

     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.

    Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague the same question I asked earlier. I hope I get an answer by the end of the debate.

    Bill C-9 contains interpretive clauses specifically intended to ensure that under no circumstances are individuals prevented from practising the religion of their choice or communicating the contents of a biblical text. The following involves subsections 319(2) and 319(2.2):

    Why is my colleague not reassured by Bill C-9's interpretive clauses?

     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.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, I come from a community in the Durham region, which has Chabad, a Jewish community centre. It has active members of the Jewish community who exercise their faith, go to their synagogue and have their own community centres and places of worship. They have asked for this legislation. In fact, they have supported it from day one, because they have experienced acts of hate in our community throughout the Durham region.

     They have asked the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to offer more protections so that they can express themselves, worship the way they choose to worship in their community and feel protected and safe. We also have CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and B’nai Brith Canada, which have all supported this legislation. I can read the quotes.

    Does the member opposite not believe that anything those organizations—

    The hon. member for York Centre.

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

    You do not think they are useful.

    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—

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

    Mr. Speaker, it is—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     Order.

    The hon. member for Essex.

     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?

     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—

     The hon. member is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the relevance of the member's speaking to a completely different bill, which has nothing to do with Bill C‑9.

    That is not a point of order.

    The hon. member has about 10 seconds left.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, the member talks about underlying crimes that are in the code already, such as assault or mischief. This bill would take the penalties for those crimes and double them for people who would dare prevent somebody from going into their synagogue.

     I know the community is supportive of this bill, because it would give longer and more meaningful, substantial penalties for those who commit hate crimes in Canada.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

    In Canada, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, their religious practices, or where they gather. However, recently we have seen an increase in hate crimes. As members of Parliament, we cannot stand idly by. We must take action.

    Bill C-9 introduces a targeted set of reforms to the Criminal Code to protect safe access to community spaces, address hate crimes and clarify the legal definition of hate. Bill C-9 also expands the existing offence of wilful promotion of hatred by recognizing a modern expression of hate: the public display of hateful or terrorist symbols. We thereby recognize that when a person displays certain symbols with the intent to deliberately promote hatred, this constitutes a separate offence.

    Today, we are focusing specifically on the proposed Senate amendment to add the noose to the list of symbols of hate. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has heard from numerous witnesses and organizations who have stated that the noose is a recognized symbol of terror and intimidation against Black people and that it should be treated in the same manner under the new offence relating to hate symbols. I sincerely believe that when people targeted by these symbols courageously come forward to testify before a parliamentary committee, whether in the House of Commons or the Senate, to explain how a symbol is perceived as an instrument of violence, threat, and hatred directed at them, we have a duty to listen to them.

    The noose is closely associated with the history of racial lynchings that have left their mark on North America. It has been used to terrorize, humiliate and control Black communities for generations by making them feel that they were neither safe in their own communities nor fully accepted within society. Its use against Black people is a form of racial intimidation and a symbol associated with violence and white supremacy. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Displaying it in a workplace, in an educational institution, at a demonstration or elsewhere in the public sphere goes beyond the bounds of legitimate expression. When it is used to target or intimidate Black people, it then symbolizes real acts of persecution, violence and hatred. As a Canadian citizen, I believe that we should all be concerned when such symbols are used to promote hatred against colleagues, friends or members of our communities. Combatting hate is not just an issue for those who are directly affected by it. It is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Even when we are not personally targeted by hate symbols, we cannot remain silent. As members of Canadian society, we have a duty to strongly condemn behaviours that seek to intimidate, exclude or terrorize some of our fellow Canadians. This goes to the very nature of living together in harmony. Especially when members of our communities are being targeted, being there for one another is what defines us as Canadians. Our diversity is a strength, but it can only thrive in a climate of respect, dignity and security.

    Last night, I was appalled by the tone of the remarks made by certain Conservative colleagues, in particular those of the member for York—Durham. He downplayed the impact of the use of the noose in Canada, going so far as to say that it was odd to include it in the bill as a symbol of hate. I feel my colleague's remarks are inappropriate and deeply out of place. The MP's comments unfortunately demonstrate a lack of consideration for the experiences of many members of the Black community. Questioning the need to recognize the noose as a hate symbol is akin to downplaying the suffering, fear and trauma that this symbol evokes for those who have historically been targeted by racial violence. These remarks also show disregard for the testimony of many individuals and organizations who have come before parliamentarians to explain the historical and contemporary significance of this symbol. In this context, downplaying its significance sends a worrying message. It gives the impression that the concerns being expressed by the Black community are not being taken seriously. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to listen, understand and acknowledge the realities experienced by communities affected by racism in order to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Brushing aside their concerns, as my colleague did last night, or questioning the legitimacy of their experiences does nothing to help build a more inclusive society. On the contrary, it risks trivializing behaviours that have no place in a democracy that respects the dignity of every individual.

    These comments from the Conservative member are all the more concerning because they ignore the reality experienced by many Black Canadians. Hate crime data that is reported by police shows that Black people remain among the most frequently targeted groups for hate crimes based on race or ethnicity. Behind these statistics are individuals, families and communities that experience the real consequences of racism and intimidation.

    In this context, it is difficult to understand why some people would choose to downplay the impact of a symbol that is widely recognized as a historical instrument of racial violence. Instead, we should be listening to affected communities and being serious about measures to protect them better. As legislators, we have a responsibility to act seriously, with sensitivity and respect, toward people who are the target of hate crimes. I sincerely hope that my colleague from York—Durham will retract his statement and reconsider what he said last night, because it was completely unacceptable. His statement has no place in the House or in society.

    In Canada, there is no place for hatred or intimidation based on race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. We have a collective duty to build a country in which everyone can live, work, learn and practise their religion safely and without fear of being targeted or intimidated. That is why I support the Senate amendment to recognize the noose as a symbol of hate. Adopting the amendment sends a clear message. We have heard the affected communities, we acknowledge their experiences and we refuse to turn a blind eye to hatred. This is how we strengthen our shared way of life and the truly Canadian values of respect, equality and dignity.

    I will use the last few minutes of my time to say that I am disappointed by the excessive partisanship we have seen in the debate on Bill C‑9. In a debate as serious as this one, a debate about fighting hatred, about the lived experiences of people in our communities, we should be able to set partisanship aside and truly reflect on how to make our communities safer for everyone. We must rise to the occasion. Canadians expect us to elevate the level of debate, to rise above partisan games. Unfortunately, that is not what we have seen from the Conservative side.

     I urge my colleagues to exercise caution and rigour in the tone and content of their remarks, particularly when it comes to issues as sensitive as combatting hate. Sensationalist slogans and simplistic statements designed to stir up people on social media have no place in such a serious debate. We are here to legislate responsibly, not to polarize public discourse.

    As lawmakers, we also have a duty to maintain a healthy social climate and to consider the consequences our words may have in the public sphere. Unfortunately, during the debate on Bill C‑9, we also saw a major disinformation campaign circulating, particularly on social media. This campaign was fuelled in part by the remarks made by Conservative members of Parliament. As my colleague mentioned earlier, certain aspects of Bill C‑9 have been completely distorted from reality and have even been used in the Conservative Party's political fundraising activities. I do not believe this is commensurate with the issues before us, and I find it deplorable.

    Lastly, beyond the issue of hate symbols, Bill C‑9 is an important step forward in a number of ways. For one thing, it includes a new obstruction offence that prohibits obstructing or interfering with lawful access to a building or structure used primarily for religious worship or by an identifiable group. This is indeed a problem. People must be able to enter the place they use for religious worship or gatherings in complete safety. This is fundamental. The bill also proposes a new intimidation offence that would prohibit behaviour meant to intimidate, threaten or frighten persons trying to access a building used primarily by an identifiable group or for religious worship.

    These measures will make our communities safer for everyone. I am calling on all of my colleagues to support Bill C‑9, now in the final stages of the legislative process, so that it can be implemented and address the very real concerns of our communities.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. My colleague represents a riding on the other side of our beautiful Chaleur Bay.

    I want to ask him a question. He brought up remarks made yesterday in the House. I was there. It was about 11:50 p.m. He spoke on the importance of not repeating remarks that might be hurtful to others, yet by taking a few minutes of his speech to go over these remarks again, is he not contradicting himself?

    Mr. Speaker, I was also in the House yesterday at that late hour. I actually do think that condemning it is entirely legitimate. We cannot remain silent when people make comments that minimize the repercussions that certain symbols can have on targeted communities.

    I was not planning on speaking to Bill C-9 today, but after listening to my colleague, I wrote my speech this morning to call out those kinds of remarks. I also wanted to point out that witnesses appearing before the Senate explained why the noose should be included as a hate symbol in the bill. Minimizing these repercussions within the Parliament of Canada could have an impact on people listening to us. I found that—

     Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's support of this bill. I know that all members on this side of the House take this bill very seriously.

    In my community of Whitby, we have seen acts of hate, including a swastika burned into the playground lawn in a local park behind a school. We saw a woman wearing a hijab almost get set on fire in a local library. These acts of hate are things that our government is seeking to address through this important legislation. Definitely, we had requests from the Jewish community at the outset, but also from many other communities that are impacted by hate.

     Could the member opposite speak to how important it is to get this legislation done?

    Mr. Speaker, in Canada, no one should feel threatened or unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise, or where they gather. This is essential.

    Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia have no place in Canada. For the sake of people who are victims of hateful behaviour, we have a duty to ensure that communities are safe for everyone. Bill C-9 includes several proposals that represent a significant step forward in ensuring that everyone, no matter who they are, can live in safe communities in Canada.

    I urge all my colleagues to support this bill because it is essential.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois ask my colleague a question. To respond respectfully, I would like to ask my colleague a question that will help broaden the discussion a bit.

    Does my colleague agree that elected officials have a responsibility to speak out against hate when it comes from people who support their own side?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I think that, as Canadian citizens, we all need to take notice when symbols are used to promote hate. We do not need to be personally affected. As members of Canadian society, we are all affected when our colleagues, friends or community members are the target of hateful behaviour.

    Last night, we heard a Conservative member downplay the symbolic impact of the noose in Canada. He even said that it was odd to include it as a hate symbol in the bill. I think those remarks are completely out of place. That is why I rose in the House this morning to speak out against these remarks and to remind members about the importance of Bill C‑9.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, I would rather hear my colleague tell me whether she supports the remarks made by her colleague from York—Durham. Yesterday, he made comments that downplayed the impact of the noose in Canada. He said it was odd to include it as a hate symbol. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

    I would be very interested in hearing from more Conservative members and finding out what their positions are with respect to what their colleague said last night.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member opposite for his years of dedication and service. My father was a police officer for Peel Regional Police for 30 years, and I deeply respect our members of all police forces.

    The law enforcement leaders in our communities on the front lines have been asking us for additional tools. The tough-on-crime agenda the Conservatives purport to support every single day in this House is all predicated on this idea that if only we had tougher laws and tougher penalties for serious crimes, everything would get better.

    The member opposite seems to lay blame at the feet of the forces that he was once a part of. It sounds to me like he does not care about changing the law and thinks that having tougher penalties does not matter. Can he speak to whether he thinks—

    The hon. member for Windsor West.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the laws already exist and that they need to be enforced. At least one area does require a legislative amendment, specifically the religious exemption for incitement to hatred. Under that exemption, anyone who quotes a passage from the Bible or the Quran to incite hatred will be protected and cannot be prosecuted.

    Does my colleague agree that a legislative amendment is needed in that regard?

     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.

    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?

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I do not understand. If the member opposite is suggesting that we simply need the courage to enforce the law, and the laws already exist, why is it that the blame comes on the government to enforce those laws, when in fact it would be up to law enforcement, in accordance with the way our justice system works, to do that? I wonder if he could explain that a bit.

     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.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of legal experts who say this bill would not do what the member opposite claims, such as chipping away at religious freedoms or others. In fact, this bill would step up, and the government is acting to enhance the Criminal Code to ensure that communities are safe, to ensure that people can express, can worship the way they choose to in their communities. This is exactly what I have heard in my community.

    I understand that we may disagree on this fundamentally, but what I want to know is, can the member cite an example of the religious defence being used in a case where an individual was accused or charged with a hate-motivated crime?

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservatives are reluctant to engage in any real debate on a number of points.

    My colleague said she would like to see this debated further. What solutions would she propose to ensure that we finally reach an agreement?

    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.

    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?

     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.

     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.

     Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's speech, although I fundamentally disagree with some of his arguments.

    The previous Conservative member who spoke in the House could not cite an example of the religious defence's being used. I wonder if this member could.

    What I do not understand is that the Conservatives talk a lot about wanting to protect communities and protect people's rights, but here they are with an opportunity to step up and support a bill that would amend the Criminal Code and would allow new tools to be given to law enforcement and to our criminal justice system to really protect people's rights to be able to worship and to express themselves in the way they see fit. Is that not fundamental enough? Does the member not believe that harsher penalties should come with hate-motivated crimes?

    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.

     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.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague had previously asked the member if he could cite an example of the use of the religious exemption. The reason he cannot do that is that there are no examples, because it has never been used. Does the member genuinely believe that a pastor or a priest in a gurdwara would really be in difficult times by just quoting from the Guru Granth Sahib or a holy book? Does he really believe that?

    Mr. Speaker, the concern with Bill C-9 is this: If it is passed, what would define hate speech? There are many people from many religions who are concerned that what they used to say in person or online, which is now protected with the current laws, if Bill C-9 is passed would be deemed hate speech. With regard to their questions, they are asking about a scenario that could potentially happen with the passage of Bill C-9.

    Mr. Speaker, the member across the way stated that the religious exemption has never been used so they cannot cite a case. I am sure the member realizes that there was an exemption that did not have to be proven, and now Bill C-9 would remove that: genuine belief.

     Is my friend hearing concerns from pastors about things such as that if they say that people should wait to be intimate, to have intercourse, until their marriage, that biblical principle could get them in trouble? Is my friend hearing questions of that nature?

    Mr. Speaker, the key thing is that it is not just from clergy leaders that I am hearing concerns about Bill C-9. It is constituents, everyday Canadians in London—Fanshawe, and also outside London—Fanshawe, who are drawing concerns with regard to Bill C-9. If Bill C-9 is passed, they are concerned that what they preach or what they practise would be deemed hate speech.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

    I rise to speak to Bill C‑9, the combatting hate act, at a time when Canadians are looking to us for clear, serious and determined action to better protect them from hate and intimidation.

    I will begin by clearly describing the context we are currently in. Across Canada, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ, indigenous and other communities are feeling extremely vulnerable. The rise of hate is far from theoretical. It is a palpable, painful and disturbing reality that we are seeing in schools, on the street and even in places of worship.

    I cannot give this speech without mentioning the events that recently took place in Montreal. We live in a country of rights and freedoms. What we are experiencing right now illustrates the whole reason for this bill. It may be a combination of circumstances or an unfortunate coincidence, but this happened here, in Canada. We have to discuss it and address the problem immediately.

    It is not okay for people in positions of authority—regardless of their discretionary power—to incite any kind of targeted intent toward a particular community. In Canada, diversity is our strength. In Canada, our differences unite us. As an elected official, I cannot believe that a member of Parliament would say something with such serious implications. I am referring to the member for York—Durham. He said things that are hard to imagine, things that are beyond the pale. People may assert their parliamentary privilege, but they cannot say whatever they want just because they have that privilege.

    Growing up, I was always taught that not every truth should be uttered. Yesterday, an elected official said something unacceptable. He outright dismissed the pain and stress that the mere thought of a noose can cause my community. He argued that we are importing an American problem into Canada. That is shocking.

    In Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia, where the first Black communities were established, this symbol evokes a past marred by racism and intimidation toward Black people. In the North American context, the noose remains one of the most powerful and universally recognized symbols of racial hatred directed at Black communities.

    Today, that member will have an opportunity to retract his remarks, now that he has had a chance to sleep on it. Hopefully he woke up this morning, drank his water and his coffee, and came to realize the implications of what he said. Hopefully he recognizes the importance of exercising his parliamentary privilege responsibly and of not simply saying whatever comes to mind while fulfilling the duties of this fine office. We must respect the House of Commons. It is the House of Canadians from all backgrounds, from east to west.

    The noose has long been recognized as a symbol of virulent hatred directed at Black communities. It is deeply rooted in the history of anti‑Black racism. The violence associated with the noose is not merely a historical phenomenon; it is a symbol that forms part of the hatred and violence to which Black Canadians are regularly subjected and which are rooted in a white supremacist ideology. This ideology is associated with the noose.

    Now is the moment we have been waiting for. Canadians across the country have made it clear that they want to be able to live openly, safely and freely as themselves, regardless of their background, faith, ethnicity, gender, identity or community.

    We all share the same goal: to protect Canadians from all forms of violence, particularly those that target the most fundamental aspects of being human. Canadians asked us to take action and keep them safe, and that is exactly what this bill does.

    Bill C-9 has been carefully examined by both chambers. It is now time for Canadians to get the protection they deserve from the government and the elected officials they have chosen.

    For the first time, the Criminal Code will include a definition of hatred, which will describe the conduct that falls under the new stand-alone hate crime offence. This is an extremely important change that must not be overlooked.

    This new offence and the new definition of hatred will address the particularly reprehensible nature of this crime, which undermines the very foundations of the Canadian values of equality and respect for our citizens.

    By passing this bill swiftly, we will not just be strengthening the Criminal Code; we will also be sending a clear message to Canadians that their safety matters, their dignity matters, and their right to fully and freely belong in this country will be defended.

    I urge all members of the House to support this bill and ensure that Canada continues to be a country where no one, and I mean no one, is made to feel unsafe simply because they are Canadian and have chosen to live in accordance with their identity while respecting their culture and heritage.

    Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell my colleague how deeply moved I am by what he just said. I also want to go back to the comments that a Conservative member made yesterday about the noose, which I think were shameful.

    Here in Canada, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise, or where they gather. Recent incidents of Islamophobia have left too many people feeling vulnerable.

    Could my colleague tell us how Bill C-9 will help our constituents feel safer?

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 seeks to guarantee Canadians the safety and security to which they are entitled. It also establishes a clear and precise definition of hatred.

    Today, the member for York—Durham has the opportunity to rise in the House and withdraw his remarks.

    Mr. Speaker, I have to note that in the Senate, the Senate committee studied Bill C-9 extensively, and I noted that there were witnesses from every background, whether they were from the LGBT community or from a faith community. I saw a Black pastor also. Every single one of these witnesses said that removing the good-faith exemption would be a big mistake. Every witness concurred, and this has nothing to do with race, racism or discrimination.

    Is my friend across the way saying that all of these witnesses from these diverse backgrounds were false in this conclusion?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with my colleague. What she says is not true. This bill does not restrict the use of religious texts. People may use them as they see fit, provided that their freedom does not infringe upon the freedom of their neighbours or fellow human beings.

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment that has been adopted. It seeks to abolish the religious exemption in the Criminal Code regarding incitement to hatred.

    I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this. How will this help to foster a more civilized debate and promote respect between different religions and people of all backgrounds?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives Canadians the freedom to express themselves, to move about the country and to do as they please, provided that they do so in accordance with the law and, above all, with respect for the freedoms of each and every one of us.

    Bill C-9 provides clear protection for Canadians. It defines hatred so that those found guilty can be properly punished in accordance with the law.

     Mr. Speaker, the member across the way makes reference to the Charter of Rights, but it is not clear that for the charter to be invoked, a person has to be charged first? The removal of the good-faith clause means that people who are citing religious texts in good faith could be charged, and then they would have to go through financial expense and public shame before they could defend their rights and before the charter would be imposed.

    Is that not the process, and is that not the way it would work? People would be guilty before proven innocent in this case.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is playing a very dangerous game, namely, sowing confusion in the minds of Canadians. What she said is not true. This bill is designed to protect Canadians. It provides a definition of hatred.

    Let us stick to the bill, because it is important and protects Canadians from east to west.

     Mr. Speaker, I might take an opportunity to just pick up on something that happened a moment ago with a question from my colleague opposite. I think it is very important that she understands the following: It is a defence.

    That means that a person has to be in court before they can use it. That means that a person has to have been investigated by police for having spewed hate in this country before they can have the ability to use the defence. To suggest that there would a change in anything regarding that law, that it would be amended by Bill C-9 in a way that would remove something that already exists prior to the legal proceedings in court, is simply false. I would gladly welcome a question from my colleague on this at the end of my remarks.

    As a Jewish Canadian, I often have the opportunity to attend events in my riding that the community is a part of, not only as their representative but also as an individual who was raised as a member of the Jewish faith. It has been made very clear to me, from members of the Jewish community, both in Winnipeg and across the country, over the course of the past number of years, that they want what Bill C-9 would accomplish to take place as a meaningful step forward for their protection in this country.

    All of the major Jewish advocacy groups in the country have spoken in support of the bill, whether that be B'nai Brith, CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center or a variety of grassroots members. I know because they have put pressure on me and my colleagues in the Jewish caucus on this side of the aisle, and on Jewish leadership across the country, to take action.

    The question is, of course, why? Well, the reason for this is that we have seen a significant increase in hate in this country. It is not just targeted at the Jewish community, but we know that those in the Jewish community, representing less than 1% of the Canadian population, are the victims of more than three-quarters of reported religiously motivated hate crimes in this country.

    I am going to, in a moment, speak to the amendment that the Senate put forward vis-à-vis a particular hate symbol, but there are a couple of arguments I have heard, put forward by my colleagues in the opposition, that I just do not quite understand. I welcome the opportunity for them to perhaps add some clarity in the questions that they will be permitted to ask when I am done my remarks.

    One argument came from one of our colleagues during debate about an hour ago. My question was, if what the Conservatives are saying is true, that this is not needed because it is simply a matter of a lack of enforcement on the part of police across the country, then why do they hold the government accountable for police not enforcing the law? If they argue that the laws are already there, that the laws are already strong enough, and therefore there is no reason for Bill C-9, an argument I have heard many make throughout this debate, then what is it that they want the government to do?

    The member's answer was similar to what I have heard from others. They said it is very important for the government to show leadership. It is very important, they say, for the government to have legislation that makes it easier for the police to be able to enforce the law. Is that not exactly what Bill C-9 does?

    If we look at some of the other arguments that have been made, again from colleagues across the way, they will say things like Bill C-9 is not going to stop a shooting at a synagogue. It might be true that, unfortunately, the targeting of a synagogue will take place regardless of how good our laws are, but that argument is like saying that we have a law preventing murder, but people still get killed, so what is the point of having a law that prohibits murder? It does not make any sense to me.

    What I continue to hear from my colleagues across the way is rooted not in fact, but in fear. I cannot help but note how much fundraising my colleagues have done off of this piece of legislation in the last year. They are telling Jews, for example, that they will not be able to say they are Zionists. That is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

    It is important for us to have healthy debates in this chamber about how our public policy and laws will impact Canadians. What is not acceptable is to use those conversations to create divides and wedges in our country for political purposes.

    If we look at the Senate amendment that was put forward, the subject of our debate today, it is very important to note a couple of things. The first is that members opposite, including the member for York—Durham, yesterday suggested something that I am still struggling to understand, which is that the noose in Canada is not a hate symbol.

    Here is something I find interesting. Two weeks ago, when a noose was put around the neck of an effigy of a Jewish leader being burned on a street in Montreal, members across the way were, rightly so, up in arms, and they should have been, but now the member for York—Durham is saying that the very symbol placed around the neck of that Jewish leader, which he and his colleagues condemned, is not, in fact, a symbol of hate worthy of being included in this legislation. Again, I do not understand.

    We have heard the noose described by colleagues across the way as an American problem, as though it is a relic from somebody else's history. They have said that it is wrong for the Senate to have asked for that amendment. The request to have the noose included in Bill C‑9 was brought forward by many community organizations. The Black Opportunity Fund and, from my home province, the Black-Manitobans Chamber of Commerce testified at the human rights committee at the Senate. They were supported by Black Health Alliance, a co-author of Canada's Black justice strategy, researchers at McGill University, the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations and Black-led justice organizations in Nova Scotia and from across the country.

    When that many credible Canadian voices are saying the same thing, it is our responsibility to listen. When we listen, we have to hear the evidence, so here it is. Between 2020 and 2021, nooses were left at construction sites across Toronto, at a hospital, at transit stations on the Crosstown line, at a tower on Bay Street and at a housing development in Regent Park. They were so frequent and so frightening that Black workers in the construction trades formed their own association in response. What does the member for York—Durham say, which was not challenged by a single member in his own party, at least that I have heard? He says this is not a Canadian problem.

    In Nova Scotia, two teenagers were charged after waving a noose at a Black family. In Alberta, a surgeon taped a noose to an operating room door to terrorize a Black colleague, and the conduct was found to be a serious threat. In Ontario, a 13-year-old girl found a drawing of a noose in her backpack on the first day of school.

    This is not some other country's history. This is today in Canada, in our own time. Those are Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian children, and it reaches this very institution, where these stories have been shared. In testimony before the Senate human rights committee, Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard described being harassed in her own neighbourhood, being shouted at to go back to Africa by someone with a noose hanging from the back of their truck, yet the member for York—Durham says this is not a Canadian problem.

    I raise this because, when a member of Canada's Parliament has had a noose brandished at her on a Canadian street, we can no longer pretend this is a foreign problem. It happens here. It is happening here, and we need to take action. I would say, with respect, to any member who calls the noose an odd inclusion, that it is critical they listen to the testimony and experiences of our colleagues in Parliament, as well as those of Canadians from across the country, who are experiencing this form of hate. I do not understand why my colleagues opposite would not support the inclusion of this clearly problematic symbol of hate as an important amendment to the bill.

    It is a bill that I am proud to stand here, as a member of Parliament, as a Jewish member of Parliament and as a Canadian, in support of.

    Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying; it is understandable. Various faith groups have expressed concerns about Bill C‑9, such as the leadership for the Catholic bishops in Canada and others from the Abrahamic faiths.

    Can the member explain why those views and concerns on Bill C‑9 should be discounted?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not, in any way, believe that their views should be discounted. I simply do not believe that their views ought to be the determining factor for how we choose to protect Canadians through public policy and legal reform.

    I would suggest that part of the reason people are scared is that we have members of the opposition sending out emails on a weekly basis to Jewish leaders that say they are going to be put in jail for publicly saying that they are a Zionist. It is not true.

    It is not about diminishing the importance of hearing feedback from leaders in this country. It is about being honest and transparent with them about what this law would actually do.

     Mr. Speaker, this debate is difficult because the Liberals have put forward that there is no justification for being against Bill C‑9. I have a lot of difficulty with that, particularly from a civil liberties point of view, especially in its describing of the idea of there being certain places and certain symbols.

    However, we are grappling with the same problem we have been grappling with for a long time. I think the cosmic jury may still be out as to whether Homo sapiens were a good idea. We seem to be willing to take up arms against each other, hate each other and do foul things to each other. It just brings to mind what Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”

    I am torn about the bill in many ways, but I cannot vote for it, and I wish that there were more ways through which we could find common cause against hatred.

    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard a question, but I do appreciate the reflections shared by the member opposite, for whom I have a great deal of respect.

    Of course, we want to live in a society and in a world free from hate. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the world we find ourselves in today. It is incumbent upon elected officials in this country to take actions, on behalf of those they represent, to strengthen the protections that they deserve.

    Bill C‑9 is a reasonable and important step in making amendments to the Criminal Code that would keep people in this country safer than they would have been prior to the passage of the bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the repeal of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code for cases of incitement of hatred.

    It definitely does not mean that reading religious texts of any religion whatsoever is forbidden, but it does prohibit deliberately using religious texts to incite hatred against a group or another religion.

    Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of my colleague's question, but I think it is an extremely important conversation. We have a problem with hate in Canadian society, and in my opinion, Bill C‑9 is an extremely important step to ensuring that we have greater protection for Canadians across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, as legislators, we need to be mindful of the impact that our words can have in the public arena and we must also ensure that what we say does not contribute to disinformation and does not harm certain groups that we wish to protect.

    I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of being thorough and factual when debating a bill as important as Bill C‑9.

    Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, this is a very important moment for us here in Canada. We must take action that will truly protect children, families and communities across Canada because hate is an ongoing problem. Many members of various communities across Canada continue to face violence and intimidation.

    This bill is necessary to ensure better protection. I fully support passing this bill.

     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.

    Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate. We see the winding down of debate on Bill C‑9, an important piece of legislation that deals with hate. It is one of many pieces of legislation that this Prime Minister and this government have introduced since the last federal election, just over a year ago.

     Canadians will know, and realize, that the Government of Canada is serious about dealing with crime. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives, who like to talk about it, raise money on it and spread misinformation on it, but when it comes right down to supporting good policy, they are found wanting. They consistently vote against good crime-fighting legislation. Today we are talking hate. The question is why?

     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, 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.

     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, yesterday evening in the House, a Conservative member said something extremely serious. He said that the noose was not a hate symbol. I want to take this opportunity to ask all members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party to join us in condemning this member's remarks in the strongest possible terms.

    The question I want to ask my colleague is this: Does he condemn this member's remarks?

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that religious texts should never be deliberately used to incite hatred against a particular group?

    If so, why not abolish the existing religious exemption in the Criminal Code for this type of offence?

    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.

    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—

    The hon. member may resume after question period.

    Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, a man named Jack Layton won Quebec's heart and led the NDP into official opposition for the first time. I had the privilege of being part of that wave.

    The people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie continued to put their trust in me in four subsequent elections. I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart. Representing them has been an honour, a privilege and a true pleasure, not only in the toughest of struggles, but also in the collective and personal victories we secured.

    Of course, I want to thank my team. I cannot name everyone, but these supporters and dedicated individuals know who they are. Still, I would like to acknowledge my current team. I wish to thank Julien, François, Jean‑Christophe, Iseult and Carolina, who has been by my side from the very beginning of this adventure. I also thank my partner, Lisa, who has been incredibly patient and supportive.

    In this troubled and troubling world, we need progressive and humanist voices in this Parliament, in all parliaments and in all places where decisions are made. I hope that there will be many such voices in the future.

    Let us move forward. It is not too late to build a better world.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life and legacy of Rajpaul Singh Dhillon, known as Paul Dhillon, an award-winning journalist, screenwriter, producer and film director whose contributions enriched Canada's cultural landscape and amplified the voices of diverse communities. Through his work, he shared stories that fostered understanding, celebrated heritage and connected people across generations. His dedication to journalism, storytelling and the arts reflected a commitment to truth, creativity and community.

    I extend my sincere condolences to his spouse, Harsimrat, and his two children, Muskaan and Ishaan, as well as to all those whose lives he touched.

    May his memory and enduring legacy continue to inspire future generations.

    Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise in the House to honour an exceptional member of the Elmwood—Transcona community, Leilani Esteban-Villarba. Leilani is the hard-working executive director of the Chalmers Neighbourhood Renewal Corporation. Through their efforts, she and her team lead practical and ground-level neighbourhood work to help support and uplift our community. Leilani and the CNRC have created vital non-profit programs and started key neighbourhood initiatives.

    Leilani's work is not abstract. She and her team are a direct solution to growing problems facing Canadian society. Her work is squarely focused on addressing the needs of our community, whether they are affordable groceries, access to housing, safer streets, or cleaner neighbourhoods. Because of the CNRC, Elmwood is stronger, safer and a better place to live.

    I thank Leilani for everything she and the CNRC do for our community.

    Mr. Speaker, as we move closer to the House's rising for the summer, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of the riding of Peterborough for their continued trust and engagement.

    Canada's democracy is one of our nation's greatest strengths. It is the foundation of our freedoms, our rights and our ability to shape a better future together. At a time when democracies around the world face growing challenges, we must remain united in protecting and strengthening the country that generations of Canadians have protected and built. In the House, we bear both the responsibility and the privilege entrusted to us by the people we represent, to preserve this legacy and ensure its strength and vitality for generations to come.

    I am forever grateful for the honour to serve.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, Calgary's Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 1 hosted and was addressed by the leader of the Conservative Party on the importance of building a strong Alberta within a united Canada. It was exactly the right place for that message. Built in 1922 as Memorial Hall, it was Calgary's primary tribute to those Canadians who served and sacrificed in the First World War. For more than a century, Branch No. 1 has been a gathering hall, as well as a place of remembrance, welcoming generations of veterans, families and Calgarians through its doors.

    Today that historical building needs our help. After decades of service, it is in urgent need of repairs, starting with its roof. This Canada Day, Calgarians are coming together to restore it, because this building is more than a hall. It is a promise kept to those who answered the call to defend the ideals of Canada, and it belongs to all Calgary. I encourage everyone to support this effort, honour our veterans and ensure that this landmark stands for generations to come.

    Mr. Speaker, now that summer is here, I would like to invite everyone to come discover the wonders of the Lower Laurentians. Our region offers a unique one-day agri-tourism experience that gives visitors an opportunity to meet local producers, sample local flavours and support our local businesses.

     The Vieux-Saint-Eustache farmers' market is a must-visit destination for fresh produce, a friendly atmosphere and our artisans' expertise. It is open every Saturday morning through the end of September. I also encourage everyone to visit Vieux-Saint-Eustache. Known for its rich history, heritage and culture, it is the perfect place for a stroll with family or friends.

    This summer, I urge everyone, including all my colleagues, to come enjoy our delightful region, support our local businesses and experience the beauty of the Lower Laurentians.

    I wish everyone a wonderful summer.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and thank Young Voices Toronto on its 40th anniversary concert at Runnymede United Church.

     Founder Ann Cooper Gay grew up in Palacios, Texas, came to Canada during the height of the Vietnam War, started teaching music here and founded what was then called the High Park Choirs in 1986, yet another example of the contribution of immigrants to our country.

     Since then, this remarkable organization, now led by artistic director and conductor Carole Anderson, has helped young people find confidence, friendship and a sense of belonging in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and beyond through the timeless power of song.

    The anniversary concert last month was a celebration of Canada, featuring Canadian composers and featuring a stirring opening rendition of O Canada, one that sets a new bar for us as we plan to sing the same anthem here tomorrow.

    To all the voices at Young Voices Toronto, past and present, and their families, I thank them. In this era of doomscrolling, when we lift our voices together we are stronger. We are better.

    Mr. Speaker, from August 11 to August 15, the city of Medicine Hat is thrilled to host the 2026 Special Olympics Canada summer games, welcoming 1,700 participants from across the country.

    These games will showcase the incredible talents and inspiring stories of athletes with intellectual and developmental disabilities through competition, camaraderie, personal bests and unforgettable memories. Athletes will compete in 10 sports, each with their respective disciplines, celebrating inclusive sport excellence and highlighting achievement across this country.

    I thank the approximately 1,500 volunteers, strong community partnerships and everyone who has worked tirelessly to ensure these games are a success. I encourage the residents of Medicine Hat and area and all Canadians to come and experience this extraordinary event and cheer on these amazing athletes.

    Unforgettable moments of competition and connection will be created as Canada comes together in celebration of these Special Olympics Games. I wish good luck to all participants.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of long-time city councillor, regional district director and former chair Kevin Flynn.

    Kevin's leadership earned him the deep respect of the community he served so passionately, yet for all his dedication to public service, Kevin's greatest joy was his family. He leaves behind his beloved wife Cathy, his proud sons Chris and Curtis, daughters-in-law Katherine and Stephanie, and his three cherished grandsons, who affectionately called him “Grump-Pa.” The name may reflect Kevin's armchair coaching and reffing style.

    Following Kevin's social media during games, when there was a bad coaching decision or questionable referee or empire call, we could count on Kevin to say clearly what the call should have been. Kevin called it like he saw it. That is the way he went through life, and in his role as city councillor and regional district director and chair. His integrity, laughter and dedication will be clearly missed but not forgotten.

    Rest in peace, Kevin.

     Mr. Speaker, the Laurentians were developed thanks to the P'tit Train du Nord, the cherished dream of Father Labelle. It was a railway line that made it possible to open up the territory and build our communities.

    For the past 30 years, this iconic route has sustained another mode of transportation. Today, cyclists, trekkers, runners and cross-country skiers can enjoy this long trail winding like a ribbon through our mountains, along our lakes and rivers and between our villages.

    Stretching over more than 230 kilometres, the P'tit Train du Nord linear park has become a key piece of tourism infrastructure for the Laurentians. It raises our region's profile, supports local businesses and encourages active transportation and a healthy lifestyle.

    The P'tit Train du Nord has been part of our regional identity since the late 19th century. It is a tribute to our ability to transform our heritage into a collective resource and look ahead to a bright future.

    This summer, I encourage everyone to come visit the Laurentians.

     Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to recognize the recipient of the 2026 Foster Hewitt Memorial Award, Georgetown's own Chris Cuthbert.

    Chris has been a dedicated member of the sports broadcasting community since his time at Queen's University, now serving over 45 years as a sports broadcaster. People might recognize him as the lead play-by-play commentator during CBC and Sportsnet's Hockey Night in Canada, captivating those of us in the stands and watching at home, or from his iconic call of Sidney Crosby's golden goal at the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.

    The Foster Hewitt Memorial Award is given to those who have made outstanding contributions to the broadcast profession in the game of hockey, and Chris is the epitome. His persona reflects resilience, passion and positivity, marked by an overall strong engagement in the sport. He has been a wonderful link for hockey fans for many years, and his broadcasting is one of my favourite parts of game day.

    I congratulate Chris.

    Mr. Speaker, London has long been the canary in the coal mine for the hardships Canadians are feeling. When affordability worsens, unemployment rises and the Liberal recession deepens, Londoners are among the first to feel it, and our community is hit the hardest. The Canadian promise was simple: work hard, do one's part and build a stable life.

    This weekend, while I was going for a walk, a fellow Londoner, Diana, pulled me aside. She is 55, works in a factory and cares for a mother who is battling cancer. However, the cost of living has become so crushing that Diana now relies on her sick mother to help her buy basics like bread and milk. She asked me, “Why is this happening when I've done everything right?” She is grieving a Canadian promise that no longer feels real.

    It is not just happening in London. About 38% of Canadians face food insecurity, and 40% are losing sleep over stretching their paycheques. Diana's story is personal, but not unique. London has been the warning. Will the Liberal government finally listen?

    Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to a remarkable young Prince Edward Island athlete, Abby Hustler. Over the last number of years, Abby has excelled as a hockey player. She played with the PWHL Minnesota Frost, now drafted by the expansion Hamilton team. Abby is the first Islander drafted to the Professional Women's Hockey League.

    In my Egmont riding, the enthusiasm is enormous. In fact, there is a debate among several communities that all claim Abby as their own: St. Louis, Ebbsfleet and Miminegash. Everybody wants to say “we knew her when”, and I know Abby's parents, Paul and April, are absolutely thrilled with Abby's accomplishments and career.

    Beyond those great local rivalries, one fact remains: Abby is a wonderful example of everything a young person from a small community can accomplish. She is a great role model for thousands of Islanders. I am looking forward to attending Abby Day on July 4 in Miminegash, her hometown.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's luxurious travel around the world has racked up a nearly $1-million catering bill. That is enough to feed a family for 55 years. While the Prime Minister eats five-star meals, Canadians are struggling. A record 2.2 million Canadians use a food bank every single day, and today, 24,000 children will walk through the doors of a food bank hoping to find something to eat.

    Canadian families are spending more than 120% of their income on food and rent. Canadians are right to ask why they are paying sky-high taxes to cover the Prime Minister's luxurious catering budget, while they cannot afford their own groceries. The Prime Minister and his policies are completely out of touch with the reality in our communities.

    The Conservatives want to lower food prices by taking the tax off gas and diesel for the rest of the year, to cut red tape and carbon taxes driving up the cost of everything, to end wasteful spending and to replace Liberal excess with results for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, when Christine and I sent Katherine and Sarah off on school trips, we waved goodbye and could not wait to hear about their adventures when they returned home. That was the expectation for the parents of Minnekhada Middle School students in Port Coquitlam yesterday. Ten students and two adults on an end-of-year excursion to Cultus Lake Waterpark sustained serious electrical injuries. They were rushed to hospital by ground and air ambulance. They are now in stable condition.

    To the kids, I say get better soon. They have an entire community pulling for them. To the parents, I say I cannot imagine the fear and anxiety in those moments. No parent expects a call like the one they received yesterday. I want to assure the parents, the children and all those impacted that the whole Tri-Cities community stands with them.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are less safe today than they were a decade ago. Violent crime has risen by 55% since 2015. Liberal weak-on-crime policies have left Canadians feeling less secure. Police need effective tools to stop dangerous criminals. With proper judicial authorization, lawful access is key to investigating serious crimes. That is why Conservatives are prepared to support part 1 of Bill C-22. Part 2, though, raises serious questions. I have heard from many of my neighbours who fear elements of this legislation are overreaching. They likely infringe on the privacy rights of law-abiding Canadians. The Canadian Constitution Foundation has warned that part 2 risks creating a “surveillance state”.

    Canadians should not have to choose between public safety and protecting their fundamental freedoms. The Liberals promised to listen and make changes. Instead, they are ramming a contentious bill through Parliament. The Liberals are ignoring legitimate concerns raised by experts and Canadians. They should be embarrassed. The government should swiftly pass part 1, give police the tools they need and then go back to the drawing board with part 2.

    Mr. Speaker, the Marlene Jennings Service Award will be launched later today in Montreal.

    The Hon. Marlene Jennings, the former member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, is an incredible role model for anyone who aspires to serve their country, their community or their peers. I should know. She was my mentor when I was first elected and remains my sis friend to this day.

    This award establishes a new recognition model that directly reflects Marlene Jennings' leadership style: collaborative, community focused, rule-breaking when necessary and always centred on empowering others. By shining a light on these change-makers and providing unrestricted funding, the proponents are not just celebrating those who serve so generously; they are accelerating their work and signalling to others that this different way of leading matters.

    I do not have time to go into detail about all of the criteria for this award, which honours unsung Quebeckers, but I thought it would be a good idea for Canada to draw inspiration from this initiative to acknowledge everything that our fellow citizens do to make our communities so resilient.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said affordability is the best it has been in decades, but normal, hard-working, everyday Canadians know that is simply not true. Meat Loaf famously once sang Two Out of Three Ain't Bad, but, surely, three out of four is not good. That is certainly true when it comes to economic decline, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister has given us. He has given us three out of four quarters of negative economic growth, making us the only G20 nation in a recession.

     What is the Liberals' response? They are downplaying it as nothing more than just a technicality.

    Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that caused this crisis so that Canadians can afford to live again?

     Mr. Speaker, I can see on the Conservatives' faces today that they are not very happy, but let me bring them good news, because the country wants good news.

     In fact, in 2025, Canada received the highest level of foreign direct investment. That is Canada. We have the second-fastest growth in the G7. We have made generational investments in housing, infrastructure, productivity, innovation and defence. We are going to build Canada strong.

    Let them get on board. We are going to build this country.

    Mr. Speaker, we have a new top export out of this country. It is announcements and MOUs.

     Not that long ago, Canadians used to dream of buying a home. Now, under the Liberal Prime Minister, many are starting GoFundMe pages just to pay for essential items for life. In the last five months, 15,000 Canadians had to ask strangers online for help to pay for basic things. Food banks are overwhelmed and families are one emergency away from begging people for help.

     If the Prime Minister thinks his plan is working, he is badly out of touch with those paying the price. Will he finally admit that his affordability plan has failed, or does he now think GoFundMe—

    The hon. Minister of Finance.

     Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want another clip. They do not want just another question. They want action. That is exactly what we have done on this side of the House.

     Canadians are concerned about the cost of rent, the cost of food and the cost of gas. That is exactly what we have tackled. We have made record investments in affordable housing, we have just sent the groceries benefit to more than 12 million Canadians and we have suspended the excise fuel tax on gas.

    We understand what Canadians want, and we will deliver for Canadians. Every day is a good day to fight for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said here in the House that the cost of living is the best it has been in a decade, but that has not been Canadians' experience. According to a CBC article, some people have even resorted to starting GoFundMe campaigns to pay for basic necessities. Roughly 15,000 crowdfunding campaigns have been launched to help people pay for their groceries, rent and even some medical emergencies.

    After 11 years of reckless Liberal spending, Quebeckers now have to resort to asking for charity to survive. Will the Liberals finally admit that they greatly accelerated the current crisis?

    Mr. Speaker, what the people watching at home today are seeing is the Conservatives' hypocrisy.

    Where were the Conservatives when we launched the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada disability benefit and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit? Where were they when we launched the Canada-wide early learning and child care program? Where were they when we launched the Canada workers benefit?

    They were nowhere to be found, but we were there for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rise here to talk to us about programs when we are asking them to stop doing what is not working and to make decisions so that Canadians can finally make ends meet.

    Let us look at one of their programs. Their groceries program will pay out $16.50 twice a year to Canadians who earn $53,000, yet the cost of groceries has increased by $1,000 in one year for a family of four.

    Will the Prime Minister reconnect with ordinary people, review these policies and cancel all their spending over the past year that has plunged Canada into a recession?

    Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would say that what is not working is the Conservatives. They stand up and pretend to show empathy, but when it comes time to vote for concrete measures that help their constituents, they vote against them at every turn.

    I encourage my colleague to do some math. In his riding, the Canada child benefit, which he voted against, paid out $80 million to 13,245 families. He should do the math, and then we will see if he can stand up and tell me that this has no impact on the lives of his constituents.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that affordability is the best it has been in decades, but he should say that to the faces of the 1.5 million jobless Canadians, the 60% of people who are anxious about their finances and the 15,000 people who now use GoFundMe to pay for basics.

     Liberal taxes and inflationary spending hike the cost of living. Antidevelopment laws drive out jobs, innovation and $1 trillion in investment, like in the last five quarters. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.

     When will the self-identified European PM reverse his costly recession policies so that Canadians here at home can afford to thrive, not just survive?

     Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is not the only person who has good news today. I want to let members know that the 2,000 workers at Woodfibre LNG are working hard, and they will be producing new LNG in 2027. By the way, the 1,000 workers at Cedar LNG are also working hard, and they will be producing new LNG in 2028. More good news is that the sunrise project is going to start turning sod in a couple of weeks for another 1,000 workers.

    Maybe the Conservatives can get on board and start helping to build.

     Mr. Speaker, the fact is that more Canadians than ever before need food banks and have to choose between eating, heating and driving. In a year, the PM spent $1 million on inflight cushy caviar catering for him and his cronies. That is enough to feed a family of four for 55 years. On one trip, he spent 175,000 tax dollars, which is 92% more than most people make in a year, if they have jobs at all.

     While he makes families spend over 120% of their income on rent and food alone, when will the PM cut inflationary spending and his luxury, high-flying lifestyle so that Canadians can afford to live and young Canadians can hope for their futures?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching are somewhat confused, because every time we propose a measure to help vulnerable Canadians, like the groceries and essentials benefit, dental care or the Canada child benefit, the Conservatives vote against it. When we are attacked with an unjustified, illegal trade war, what do Conservatives say? They say we are throwing a hissy fit. When we put more measures in place and when the Prime Minister goes abroad to bring back jobs and investment, the Conservatives are against them.

     I ask again, what are the Conservatives for?

    Mr. Speaker, another day, another example of anti-democratic behaviour from this Prime Minister. Today, he is muzzling the opposition to pass Bill C-22, which contains serious privacy violations. Yesterday, he shut down the debate on Bill C-30, which allows him to approve pesticides that were previously banned by Health Canada.

    It is simple. Since June 1, the Prime Minister has moved time allocation on no fewer than nine bills. This Prime Minister is muzzling all the parliamentarians who want to do their jobs.

    Does he realize that his majority does not give him the right to subvert democracy?

    Mr. Speaker, I know the Bloc Québécois needs to change the subject, but unfortunately, we have to talk about the Bloc Québécois leader's decision to obey his political masters in Quebec City and oppose Alto, oppose its 51,000 jobs and oppose the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from a single infrastructure project in Canadian history.

    The Bloc Québécois is reneging on its election promise to support Alto, in obedience to the Parti Québécois.

    Mr. Speaker, bad projects do not deserve support.

    The Prime Minister has a majority. He spends the majority of his time travelling, but he also has a majority in the House. All of his bills are guaranteed to pass. All he is doing with these repeated time allocation motions is preventing MPs from doing their job. All he is doing is trying to push things through so quickly that civil society does not realize what is happening. The reason the Prime Minister is rushing so much is to keep people from noticing the deregulation and abuse of power hidden within his laws.

    Why is the Prime Minister incapable of respecting Parliament and democracy?

    Mr. Speaker, we make no apology for working tirelessly on Canadians' priorities, on affordability, on delivering major projects and, yes, on major, unifying projects of national interest such as high-speed rail, which the Bloc MPs oppose, despite having supported it prior to the last election.

    What are they telling their constituents? The Bloc members made a solemn promise to support high-speed rail, but after receiving instructions from Mr. Plamondon, they are now against it. They need to explain their about-face.