House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

     Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago our country was irrevocably shaken by a horrific act of gender-based violence. On December 6, 1989, a gunman entered École Polytechnique in Montreal, forced women and men apart, and then launched a violent shooting, murdering 14 young women and injuring 13 others, solely because they were women.

    As we mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, we recognize and mourn the young women whose lives were stolen at École Polytechnique by an act of misogynistic hate that changed us all forever. We remember Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

     These brilliant women were daughters, sisters and friends, and they were students with bright futures, potential and dreams that were never given the chance to be realized. Thirty-six years later, their impact endures. Their stories continue to be felt in every corner of Canada, reminding us not only of the devastating cost of gender-based violence but also of our collective responsibility to confront it.

    Of course, we honour the story and courage of our fellow colleague, the Secretary of State for Nature, who survived this horrific act and since then has dedicated herself to advocacy and public service. This is very personal to me as well, since I too was an engineering student.

    In Canada, a woman or girl is killed in an act of gender-based violence every 48 hours. That is 240 women and girls murdered in 2024. Most of these gender-related murders were committed by men they knew, an intimate partner or a family member. I too know what this is like, since I lost a cousin to gender-based violence. She was brutally murdered and stabbed 85 times with a kitchen knife and was found by another of my cousins.

    The toll of gender-based violence extends far beyond tragic deaths. Survivors face physical, emotional and financial harm that can last a lifetime. Families and communities are left to cope with trauma and loss, and society bears the costs of health care, social services and the justice system. Indigenous women, women of colour, women with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals face these dangers at disproportionately higher rates. All too often, when they do come forward, they are not believed and they continue to face barriers to justice.

    Gender-based violence is not just a personal tragedy. It is a social crisis that weakens the very fabric of our communities. That is why we must do more than just remember.

     We must act. We must create a Canada where every woman and girl can live free from fear, where their potential is never limited by violence and where justice is real and immediate. That is what we owe to every woman and girl in this country, like my cousin. To build a safe and prosperous society, we must continue to work together at all levels of government to end gender-based violence.

    This work includes implementing the national action plan to end gender-based violence, through which we have invested over half a billion dollars to prevent violence, support survivors and strengthen community-based organizations on the ground to ensure that they are responding to gender-based violence in a timely manner. The plan provides targeted funding and resources to address the unique needs of survivors, including indigenous women and girls, racialized communities, and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities as well. It supports programs that prevent violence before it occurs. It helps survivors access the services they need.

     Through these coordinated efforts, we are taking meaningful steps to create a Canada where every woman and girl can live free from fear and reach their full potential. Prevention is only part of the equation; survivors must also be able to rely on a justice system that is fair, accessible and trauma-informed. That is why we will take steps to further protect victims of intimate partner violence, ensuring that survivors are supported and not revictimized when they seek justice.

    There is always more work to be done. We will continue to support survivors, remove barriers in the justice system and build a Canada where safety, dignity and justice are not privileges but guaranteed rights for all women and girls.

    By working hand in hand with survivors, advocates and communities, we, and that is all members of the chamber, can build a future where every woman and girl can live free from fear. Ending gender-based violence requires all of us, united in a belief that every woman deserves safety, dignity and the ability to thrive. I think about my daughter Cassidy, who is 10 years old, every single day while I stand here in the chamber.

    Therefore, as we reflect on that shared responsibility, let us carry the names of these 14 women forward as a reminder of what we must never give up and why our commitment to ending gender-based violence must remain unchanging.

    We honour the women who came before us whose courage, stories and lived experience created the space for these conversations to exist, survivors whose voices shifted public attitudes and broke barriers. We remember the lives that were cut short, the stories that were never told and the survivors who, out of fear, have not yet spoken, as well as those who are still waiting for a safe moment to do so.

     Gender-based violence is not a chapter of our past; it is a persistent and pervasive reality in Canada. It remains woven into the story of our country, and it demands urgent action.

    Therefore, today we recommit ourselves to this work. We stand with survivors. We honour their strength and ensure that their voices and stories are never forgotten, but championed, as we continue to fight for change, equality and justice.

     Like all members of the House, I am very sorry and shocked to hear that. I was not personally aware of the tragedy the hon. member's family has suffered. The trauma, I am sure, continues to haunt the family.

    The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

    Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit difficult to rise to speak after listening to such a heartbreaking and personal account. What we heard from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality this morning was a cry from the heart. It is essentially an appeal to us to work together, to make sure that we live in a society, a country, a city, a town where every person is respected for who he or she is, with his or her own unique strengths, weaknesses, values and beliefs, regardless of sex. That is in part what we heard from the minister this morning.

    She also spoke to us about our shared responsibility. That is absolutely true. We will get there only if we work hand in hand, whether we are in government in Ottawa, in Quebec City, in Alberta or somewhere else. This morning, I hope that Canadians were able to see how connected we can be. We may sit on opposite sides of the House, but beyond that, we are men and women. Women stand up for each other and must support one another because, as I was saying at committee this week, right now is a terrible time for women.

    It is not easy. Violence against women is on the rise. The rate of violence is not slowing down or stopping. It is going up, and I see this clearly as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, along with my Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues. We have conducted nine studies in four years and have issued recommendations to strengthen women's safety. Why? It is because the situation is not improving.

    Today is the day we set aside to commemorate a past event that is difficult to revisit. It is difficult for me to speak about it here today. It is difficult for the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. It is difficult for our colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who was at École Polytechnique in Montreal on the evening of December 6, 1989, when a young man walked in, armed to the teeth. He separated the men from the women. The men were spared.

     This was a shocking femicide: Fourteen women lost their lives that night, and for what? It was primarily because they were women. The young man in question was angry because these women were studying for a career in engineering which, at the time, was viewed predominantly as a career for men. In this House, we are fortunate to have among our colleagues the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who is, I believe, the first female engineer to be elected to Parliament.

    That act of violence took place 36 years ago, and we are still talking about it today. Unfortunately, I think we will be talking about it next year and the one after that, since the situation is not currently improving. I remember that event, because I was the same age as those women. I was at university when it happened. At that age, namely, 21, 22 or 23 years old, we were thinking about the future. Life was good. We were studying; the holidays were approaching; the excitement was palpable; studies were drawing to a close, and we had our lives ahead of us. For me, life continued. For those 14 women, life was brutally stopped that night. Other women were also injured that night, and families were broken forever. As I said last week when we were commemorating the start of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, what happened on December 6, 1989, is deeply painful for Quebeckers and Canadians to remember.

    I will say the names of the women who were murdered that day so we never forget who they were: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Their future was cut short because one day, a man decided they were unwanted, especially in a field like engineering.

     In Canada, a woman is murdered every 48 hours. Last year, 240 women and girls lost their lives just because they were women and girls. The numbers keep going up. According to a statement by the Minister of Justice in a recent press release, violent crime in Canada is up 41% since 2015. Canadian police forces report a 39% increase in domestic violence and a 76% increase in sexual assaults. How can we accept that?

    Quebec has recorded around 15 cases of femicide since the beginning of the year. This figure varies depending on definitions. Why do my sisters and I have to be afraid when we go out at night? It is not normal for us to live in a constant state of hypervigilance. On top of that, if we cannot go to work or go to school without wondering whether something is going to happen to us, that means we are living in a very sick society. We must do something about that.

    However, there is some good news. There was a great show of solidarity on Parliament Hill yesterday when parliamentarians from all parties stood together. In the past few weeks, our colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which seeks to strengthen safety for women who are caught in situations of intimate partner violence. The bill was supported by all members of the House. We should be proud of the wonderful moments of humanity we shared this morning, with heartfelt testimonies, including from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality, and of the vote on a private member's bill that took place yesterday. This is not a government bill. It is a private member's bill. I think we can be extremely proud of that.

    In fact, this law that was passed yesterday is going to be called Bailey's law. Everyone remembers the story of this woman who was murdered by an ex-partner who had previously been convicted. There were warning signs that this was coming. We will also remember Ms. Renaud, who recently suffered a similar fate in Quebec.

    I want to acknowledge the families of our sisters who were gunned down on December 6, 1989. I want us all to remember that we are greatly responsible for each other's safety and, given the circumstances, for the safety of women in particular. Many of us have daughters, wives and mothers. We must make sure women are protected.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to the minister on her cousin's death, her cousin's femicide, if I understood correctly.

    We will never forget these women: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of us carry their names with us. We accept the responsibility that comes with remembering them.

    I see before us their friend and colleague, who is now an MP. Although she and I do not always agree, she knows that we share the same aspirations for women. She knows that we are allies in the fight that she has been waging for over 30 years. After all these years, the women who were taken from us on December 6, 1989, continue to unite Quebeckers who want to see an end to misogyny and violence against women. They have become our guiding light when we no longer know which way to turn.

    We have made some progress on their behalf. Despite their memory, we have suffered some setbacks and bitter defeats, but we are staying the course. We think of them when we see women in Quebec succeed. We think about the path that these pioneers chose to take, and we see other young women taking that same path. We are so proud, as we know they would have been. We can only be grateful to them.

    However, they need to know that things are far from perfect. They need to know that their memory also instills in us a duty to be outraged, perhaps too often. We are outraged, and we still rise up in anger today on their behalf.

    When the firearms registry is abolished; when the assault-style weapon buyback program is met with ire; when one, ten, a thousand women are murdered because they are women; when our sisters are beaten, raped, assaulted, bruised and broken because they are women; when some give up and stop fighting; when some remain impassive in the face of violence against women; when the word “feminist” is rejected as though it has a pejorative connotation; when people move on to other matters and grow tired of hearing about these women; when their names are eroded by time and indifference, then, yes, of course we rise up, indignant.

    Their names are forever etched on our hearts, and those same hearts are filled with anger. However, it is not the kind of anger that immobilizes us; it has been driving us to action for 36 years. It awakens our senses and pushes us to act.

    These women, like me, understand human nature, and they know, as I do, that we will never be able to completely eradicate violence.

    We are striving to contain limit it. We can restrict it, constrain it, condemn it. We can all work together to make women's lives safer, more pleasant, more beautiful. A woman who knows she is in danger is not a free woman. The fight we are waging for them and on their behalf is the fight for women's liberation.

    This fight is not over. We are keeping up the fight for them too: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

    We will not forget these girls. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of us carry their names with us. Thousands of us continue the fight.

     I see the member for Winnipeg Centre rising. I believe it is to seek unanimous consent to reply to today's statement.

    All those opposed to the hon. member speaking will please say nay.

    It is agreed.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to start by offering my condolences to the minister and noting her courage for sharing her story, her family story of violence. No family is free from gender-based violence. I honour her today, as well as all the women in the chamber. This is a sombre day, but it is a day of solidarity. As my Conservative colleague and my Bloc colleague said, we are united against violence.

    Today I rise with a heart that carries many stories of loss. I rise first to honour the 14 young women murdered at École Polytechnique simply because they were women: Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

    They were 14 lives full of promise, 14 dreams interrupted by hatred. Their brilliance, their courage, and their futures were stolen in a single violent act that shook our country to its core. We say their names because their lives mattered. We say their names because their work mattered. We say their names because their presence mattered. The world they were building deserved to continue. Their family members, who I wish to honour today, live with a grief that does not fade. Their classmates, including our colleague, and community still carry the memory of that day.

    Across the country, women still carry the knowledge that they were targeted because of who they were, because they were women. The tragedy at École Polytechnique was not an isolated event. It was an expression of misogyny that continues to shape the lives of women everywhere. It reminds us that gender-based violence is not an old wound healed by time. It is a living wound that demands action, compassion, real investment and truth.

     Gender-based violence does not come in degrees. It does not rank itself. It does not make one group more worthy of mourning than another. Every woman harmed, every girl targeted, every gender-diverse person threatened and every life stolen by hatred is a profound loss for the people, for their family, for their community and for this country. The sorrow of one does not diminish the sorrow of another. These tragedies stand beside one another, each deserving our full attention and our full commitment to change, yet we must speak honestly.

     While gender-based violence harms women everywhere, it does not harm all women equally. Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people live with a level of violence that is not only severe but also systemic. Their families endure disappearances that are met with silence. Our lives are threatened by conditions created through generations of colonial policy. Our safety is undermined by poverty and racism, by the lack of services, and by failures of institutions meant to protect them. We are in a constant state of grief. It is constant, unrelenting and violent.

    This is not a parallel issue. It is not a separate crisis. It is part of the same violent web that took the lives of those young women at École Polytechnique. It is part of the same misogyny intensified and sharpened by the deep roots of colonialism. We must tell the truth.

    The targeting of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people is part of an ongoing genocide in this country. It is something that was acknowledged by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau as an ongoing genocide, not a metaphor. It is also something for which, even in this year's budget, there was zero budgetary allocation to deal with this crisis. That hurts. That is systemic violence that continues to wound us because we are valuable, we are precious, we are sacred and we are worthy of safety and dignity.

    It is the lived realities of families who search for loved ones without the support they deserve. It is the lived reality of mothers who hold vigils year after year. It is the lived reality of communities who bury daughters and aunties far too young, the women who go missing outside of my front door, the very front door that is a block and a half away from where women were taken by a serial killer and left in a landfill, and people are refusing to search for us. We are valuable. We are worthy. We are precious. Our humanity, and seeing our humanity, matters.

    To honour the women of École Polytechnique is to honour all women who face violence, and to honour all women is to confront the specific violence faced by indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people. These truths do not compete. They reinforce one another. One teaches us the cost of misogyny; the other shows us what happens when misogyny is multiplied by racism, colonial history and state neglect. Both demand that we act with urgency and courage. The response must be as full and determined as the sorrow we carry.

    We honour the 14 women murdered at École Polytechnique by refusing to accept violence as inevitable. We honour indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by refusing to allow their names to fade into silence. We honour all survivors by creating a world where equality is not an aspiration but a guarantee. That means real investments in safety for everyone. That means implementing the calls for justice. That means culturally grounded healing programs, safe housing, mental health supports, protection for two-spirit identity and accountability for institutions that have failed communities again and again. That means recognizing that no woman's life is disposable, no child's future is negotiable and no family's grief should be ignored.

    Let us build a country where the names of the 14 women who were taken at École Polytechnique are held with love; a country where indigenous families no longer stand in the snow and rain holding candles, time and time again, for their loved ones, particularly their daughters who never come home; a country where justice is not symbolic but lived; and a country where safety is an expectation, not a privilege. For those taken too early, for those still missing, for those carrying wounds, both visible and invisible, for those yet to be born, let this be the moment we choose action over sorrow, truth over silence, justice over delay. We owe it to all of them.

    I believe the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is seeking unanimous consent to reply to today's statement.

    All those opposed to the hon. member speaking will please say nay.

    It is agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues in the House this morning. Unfortunately, I had to stay in my riding. I love my riding, but today I would have preferred to be with my colleagues in the House. We heard some very important speeches this morning. We are united, as my colleagues have already said.

    December 6, 1989, will forever be a tragic day. I remember it. I think everyone remembers it. We will never forget the events that took place at École Polytechnique.

    I want to begin by saying a big thank you to our Minister of Women and Gender Equality.

     I also want to express, as others have, condolences and sympathies for her family's loss.

    I would also like to thank our Conservative Party colleague; our Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Shefford; and our NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. The message really is that it is senseless for such a thing to happen in our country.

    We are a country that wants to reject violence. I know that my male colleagues in this place do not harbour a hatred of women, and I could not imagine what would unleash such hatred to kill women because they are women. We know that it happened in one specific location that we remember today, but it happens every day. As our colleague for Winnipeg Centre said, it particularly happens to indigenous women and girls.

    I am blessed to have so many friends across the country, but it is only my women friends who are indigenous who always have a story. They tell me, “My mother died on the lower east side,” or “My sister went missing,” or “My auntie went missing.” One of my close friends in the indigenous community here in Saanich—Gulf Islands said to me once, “I was left for dead in a dumpster.” She then continued the conversation as if I would not be shattered by hearing that, because it is the common experience of our indigenous women and girls, our friends, the aunties, mommies and sisters. This is a common life experience, and we act as a country as if it is not an emergency that requires immediate attention.

    Yes, today we remember the horrors of a killer walking into a classroom, sending the men outside. I must say, for those surviving men, what a horror. We know one took his own life afterward because how does someone get over that? They would be constantly struggling, thinking about what they should have done. They did not know what the killer intended; they were sent outside.

    On this day particularly, I want to speak to and send love and support to our hon. Secretary of State for Nature. We had an earlier recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I spoke to her afterwards, gave her a hug and said that this must be such a tough day for her. She said, “No, December 6 is the tough day.”

    For what she will experience and for everyone who remembers, the anniversary dates are always searing. Two days from now, please remember to send love and prayers to all those who are the surviving family members.

    The Secretary of State for Nature suffered. She was wounded. She now serves Canada's public interest in another way, but we will never forget.

    We can take up the cause again, as other women have said in this place.

    As an activist and a feminist, our colleague, the member for Shefford, has never stopped fighting violence. Every one of us needs to do more. This is a sad and sombre moment, but it is something else, too.

     This is an opportunity to say aloud the names of the women engineering students who were killed and whom we honour this day. It is important, as the member for Shefford has said, that their names are engraved on our hearts.

    We know, as our colleague from Winnipeg Centre has said, that these are not competing issues. They are all from one and the same fabric of hatred and violence. We do not have solutions today. I do not think any of us know why this persists. There is a patriarchy. There is an assumption that men are in charge. There are all kinds of assumptions, but it does not account for violent misogyny, intimate partner violence and our failure to end them.

    Today, we remember and we hold in our hearts Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

    I would like to say one thing to the women who were murdered in the Polytechnique massacre.

    We will never, ever forget them. We will not rest until the violence ends. We will do whatever it takes in this country.

     God help us figure out how to end the hatred of women in the hearts of some men, find an end to violence and ensure the safety of those in marginalized communities in particular, such as the LGBTQIA+ community, the trans women who are increasingly at risk, indigenous women and girls, and women who are at risk simply because we are women.

     There is no room for hatred or violence in a civilized society, and we must embrace the compassion and forgiveness that help us help those who are consumed by hatred. It is not easy to figure out how to solve misogyny. It is horrific, but if we keep our hearts open, we make a commitment to act and we thank each other when we are unified, as we are today, we will find our way.

     Each one of us today must be committed, regardless of our party, to say we will not rest until violence against women ends.

    I want to thank the members for sharing such profound, wise and moving messages.

    I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 46 minutes.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2025-26: Votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Department of Fisheries and Oceans”. The committee has considered the votes referred and reports the same.

     Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-26”.

     moved:

    He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

     We are moving this motion because we believe it is critical that the justice committee give Bill C-9 proper scrutiny, given the alarming details we have learned in the last few days that the Liberal government has reached a secret deal with the Bloc Québécois to have a full-out assault on the religious freedom of Canadians. There was a story in the National Post on the weekend, revealing that the Bloc Québécois desire to remove fundamental safeguards for religious freedom from the Criminal Code was going to be supported by the Liberals in exchange for Bloc Québécois support for Bill C-9.

     In the days since this, the Conservatives have tried to do proper legislative scrutiny of Bill C-9. The Liberals dared to accuse the Conservatives of filibustering and obstructing, but I want to explain two critical things that have just happened.

     The interesting thing here is that we had the resources to do our committee's work on Tuesday from 3.30 p.m., when the justice committee meeting started, until midnight. Conservative members were prepared to go line by line and clause by clause through Bill C-9, but the Liberals adjourned the meeting at 5:30, after we had agreed on and adopted only one clause as a committee.

     Yesterday, in question period, one of my colleagues, who is a Liberal member on the justice committee, got up and demanded that we continue our work on Thursday, which is today. This morning, I looked at my email and I saw that the Liberal committee chair had cancelled today's committee meeting. The clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9, which the Liberal government said the Conservatives were obstructing, has been obstructed by the Liberals.

     I do not ever make the mistake of accusing the Liberals of competence, but they are filibustering themselves. They are obstructing their own agenda. The Conservatives are ready to do the work.

    What I suspect may have happened is that the Liberal government has been receiving similar calls and emails to the ones that have been coming in to my office from Canadians who are very alarmed by this amendment and, in general, by what Bill C-9 would mean for freedom of expression and religious freedom. People are alarmed by this. I have received calls from members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community and the Christian community and from Hindus and Sikhs. All of them are saying they do not trust that their religious freedom would be preserved if the Liberal government proceeded with this secret deal it has with the Bloc Québécois to remove fundamental religious safeguards from the Criminal Code.

    The Liberal government could clear this up very easily. It could come out and say it is backing away from this and no longer proceeding with its plans to take aim at religious freedom. I would love to hear one of my Liberal colleagues over there say that. In fact, I hear a great deal of chatter from my Liberal colleagues now. If one of them could get up and say they will not be proceeding with these assaults on religious expression and freedom of religion, it would make this country a better place.

     We need to do the proper work as a committee. We need to be able to speak to the Canadians who would be affected by this and who are alarmed by this. We need to be able to speak directly to the groups of people who have been excluded from the Bill C-9 study because of the Liberal government's desire to obstruct and filibuster its own agenda.

    The reason I am rising with this motion is that we need to proceed with a proper study. We need to go into all of these communities in Canada and speak directly to those people who are so often excluded from the process. I am thinking specifically of people in ethnic communities, who do not necessarily consume mainstream media, and are likely better for it. I am speaking, of course, of people in remote communities, for whom accessing committee proceedings in Ottawa is a great challenge. In doing this, we would be able to have a full accounting of exactly what Pandora's box the Liberal government would unleash on Canadians with its proposed Bill C-9 and the amendments that would remove religious safeguards.

     There are going to be, I suspect, some interventions from my Liberal colleagues, who will say, “No, we are not talking about freedom of religion in general. We are just talking about people who conceal hateful, criminal and violent rhetoric in religious language.” I have some news for those members: That is already illegal. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite genocide. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who threaten violence. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite hatred. These religious defences in the Criminal Code exist for only two particular charges: the wilful promotion of hatred—

     I am going to interrupt the hon. member.

     Can we have order while a member is making a speech? There are to be no conversations going on.

    The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    An hon. member: Did she really say that?

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): Order. I am not going to intervene on this. Can we let the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South conclude his speech?

    Madam Speaker, this is another example of Liberals trying to silence and censor people they do not agree with. This is exactly why we cannot let in what they are trying to sneak in through the back door with Bill C-9 passing. This is a Liberal government that has taken every opportunity to put religious freedom and freedom of expression in its crosshairs. This is a Liberal government that freezes the bank accounts of protesters. This is a Liberal government that, under the guise of protecting children, tries to expand the Canadian Human Rights Act to block what Canadian people can say on the Internet. Absolutely, I will take no lectures from any member opposite when we are trying to protect the freedoms of Canadians of all faiths.

    Incidentally, I will point out the fact that we cannot view any of this in isolation. These amendments to Bill C-9 must also be understood alongside the fact that the Liberal government would change the definition of hate in Bill C-9. In doing so, as civil liberties experts and advocates from the political left and political right have said, they are putting in a murky definition that would make it easier to prosecute people for their thoughts, their beliefs and, in particular, their religious expression.

    If members want to know what the Liberals think about this, I would refer them to what the former Liberal justice committee chair said: Religious scriptures, and he mentioned three entire books of the Bible and Torah, are “hateful” at times. He said that it should be criminal to quote certain scriptures.

    We have a pluralistic country. There are people in the House of Commons and the Liberal Party who have a range of views. It is possible that the committee chair was out of line and not speaking for the Liberal government. I am very grateful that, just a couple of weeks after the member chairing the justice committee said that people should be criminally prosecuted for quoting scripture, he was removed from his post. The Liberals removed him as the justice committee chair, but that was to promote him. He is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that prosecutors should be able to, in his words, “press charges” against people quoting scriptures that he finds offensive and that the Liberal government finds offensive.

    This is something the Liberal government has demanded Conservatives go along with in its agenda. When we said to let us review, line by line, exactly what they are trying to do, they cancelled the meeting, so we do not know when the Liberal government will decide to get around to this. Perhaps they are dealing with some tumult within their own ranks over how to deal with this.

     I have had a number of conversations with all members of the House, and I realize there are people representing a variety of faith backgrounds who are members of Parliament for different parties. Perhaps some Liberals who are members of religious communities, or who represent people who are, are starting to wonder why the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are trying to remove protections on expressing religious belief from the Criminal Code, opening faith leaders and individual people of faith to criminal prosecution if their religious beliefs do not conform to the Liberal government's.

     We need to be able to do real work as legislators. The justice committee must be able to do real work on Bill C-9. If the Liberals stopped obstructing their own agenda and stood by or rejected this amendment, doing so publicly and clearly, they could do it right now. Any member can get up in questions and comments and say that they have listened to Canadians and are backing away from this. I invite them to do it this very second.

    Madam Speaker, this is important, especially given the kind of day we have had: We just had the Minister of Women and Gender Equality, our Conservative colleagues from the opposite side, and the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green parties speak about the importance of the Polytechnique attack on women that happened. The member opposite called it a “feminazi” hoax.

     Can the member apologize in the House for saying that?

    Madam Speaker, when I was young, I said a great many things I regret, have paid the price for and apologized for.

    I was proud to stand in the House yesterday and support the bill of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to put in strict penalties for people who commit intimate partner violence. However, when the Liberals engage in this cancel culture game, they are proving why they cannot be trusted to hold the authority to put people away for what they say.

    Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am having a very hard time understanding the Conservatives' position on this issue. The Conservative Party is known as the party of law and order, but they are completely off track when it comes to the religious exemption in the Criminal Code.

    Last year, when we proposed repealing the religious exemption, a Conservative member came to tell me that his party was opposed to the idea. He said that his pastor wanted to be able to speak out against homosexuality because he objects to it based on his interpretation of the Bible. I told him that his pastor is welcome do so if that is how he interprets the Bible. However, I want to ask my colleague this. If the pastor who objects to homosexuality based on his reading of the Bible called on members of his congregation to cut the throats of homosexuals because they are gay and because that is how he interprets the Bible, would my colleague consider that a good idea?

    All this religious exemption does is protect incitement to hatred and violence under the guise of religion. That is all it does. This is in no way an attack on freedom of expression. I would like to know whether my colleague would agree with statements like that being supported under this exemption to the Criminal Code.

    Madam Speaker, that is a disgusting misrepresentation of what people of faith stand up for and do for this country every day. It is this rhetoric to which the Liberal government has decided to hitch its wagon in pushing forward with this amendment. Violent rhetoric, regardless of whether it is cloaked in religious belief or not, is inexcusable, already illegal and not subject to the religious defence here. When prosecutors do not charge people for inciting violence, it is a lack of political leadership.

    Madam Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to second this motion and the remarks the hon. member made this morning. Like my colleague, I have received a number of emails from faith leaders in my riding and would like the member to comment on this.

    One of the things that unite faith leaders across this country is the fact that their congregations are composed of people of all political stripes. One of the comments I received from more than one faith leader in my riding is this: The reason they are contacting me, in many cases for the first time, is that, while they would prefer to remain apolitical, the Liberal government, through its support for the amendments to this bill, has politicized their role here and in their congregations.

    I would like my colleague to respond to that.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all she has done to champion the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, and certainly those of faith.

    What is so important here is that this legislation was brought in under the guise of protecting religious communities from hate. That was how the Liberal government sold this legislation. However, the most vocal critics of it have been religious individuals and groups themselves, who now see the devil, pardon the pun, in the details that will be used to crack down on religious expression.

    The point I will make is that politics have no place governing legislators or what is said at the pulpit, whether we are talking about Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else. We need to stand up for all people of faith. It is not for us in the chamber to legislate, govern or regulate what Canadians with deeply held religious convictions say. Again, it is certainly not in the government's purview to define hate in a way that tramples down the liberties of Canadians.

     Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

    I, too, share many of the concerns of my colleague who just spoke. We have seen first-hand, in my respectful opinion, a master class of Liberal hypocrisy.

    On full display yesterday, during question period, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, who is a sitting Liberal member of the committee, said:

     Clearly, it was a question posed to the secretary of state, who responded, in turn, by saying:

    Much to my surprise, and to the surprise of all my colleagues, I got to the office this morning at 8.30 a.m., looked at my P9 inbox and saw a message from the clerk of the justice committee announcing that today's important meeting was cancelled by the Liberal chair. It is probably as a result of the absolute split in the Liberal caucus over how to properly deal with this particular religious exemption defence.

    At no time did the Liberal government ever project any intention of removing that religious exemption. Behind closed doors over the past weekend, they approached the Bloc Québécois member who has been steadfast in his position that this particular exemption needs to be removed. They worked out a deal that they would support this particular amendment, largely, if the Bloc Québécois would continue to support the eventual passage of Bill C-9. This is very dangerous, and hypocrisy at its finest.

     We have experienced, as my colleague indicated, abrupt cancellations of meetings. We have had abrupt endings of meetings. We had allocated resources to go to midnight this past Tuesday, but the meeting abruptly ended at 5:30 p.m. as a result of religious leaders following this not only locally but also right across Canada. I, too, am receiving a lot of feedback expressing concerns about what the Liberal government is prepared to do. They abruptly adjourned, so I can only surmise that there is a lot of internal conflict between the justice committee and direction from the PMO on this particular issue.

    At the heart of the Bloc Québécois amendment is something its members tried to pass through a couple of years ago that did not make it past first reading. They referred to an incident of a radical imam from Quebec, in October 2023, giving a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally.

    He said:

     That is what they are relying upon. As I will explain further in my speech, ultimately, the prosecution service in the province of Quebec declined to proceed.

    Today, in the National Post, I read a very interesting article from Christine Van Geyn, one of the top constitutional lawyers in this country, part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The title of the article is “Changes to Bill C-9 aren't combatting hate—they're criminalizing faith”.

    She wrote, “To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada's hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake...Throughout the justice committee's hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was” the example of the imam that I just referred to.

    She continued:

    That is a very important distinction that the Bloc never repeats and that the Liberal government has never cited. There was no indication for the prosecution service that the religious defence was an impediment to prosecute or that it was even considered.

    Logically speaking, it is also true that anyone who thinks Charkaoui was not charged because of the religious defence must also believe that his speech was given in good faith and, therefore, was reasonable and delivered without malicious intent.

    She wrote further that “even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.” That is what the Liberal government continues to do and has done, not only in this particular Parliament but in the 44th.

    She continued:

    This is all the more reason for everyone in the House to support our motion to ensure that every major stakeholder who wishes to express an opinion to defend the religious expression that we have in the charter needs to be heard. If the Liberals will not do it on their own, we are asking collectively for the House to do it.

    Madam Speaker, I just want to reassure my Conservative colleagues. The Bloc Québécois is not on a mission against people of faith or people who preach. The Bloc Québécois is on a mission—

    I will ask the member to wait a moment while the member puts on his earpiece.

    The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

    Madam Speaker, I just want to reassure my colleagues: The Bloc Québécois is not on a mission against people of faith, believers or those who represent different religions. That is not the case at all. The Bloc Québécois wants to remove a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it possible to incite hatred under the guise of religion.

    Take, for example, Mr. Charkaoui. Unless I am mistaken, the members who rise the most in the House to support the Jewish community are my Conservative colleagues. The Jewish community in Quebec was extremely concerned about what he did, but criminal charges have not even been brought against him. Many people are saying it is because of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Quebec's Jewish community supports the Bloc Québécois in its efforts. There is a general consensus in Quebec to support the Bloc Québécois's mission to remove this provision from the Criminal Code.

    What does my colleague have to say to the Quebec National Assembly, which unanimously supports the Bloc Québécois's position on this issue and is calling for the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code?

    Madam Speaker, the member clearly did not listen to my speech. The issue is not the religious exemption itself. It is the legal threshold that prosecutors must look at when presented with a case: Is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction? Is it in the public interest? As I indicated, the words of that radical Islamist were disgusting, absolutely abhorrent, but they do not meet the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They have absolutely nothing to do with section 319. That was the heart of my speech.

    If there is a lawyer within his caucus, perhaps that lawyer can do a little bit of research for the member, because the member needs to realize that for several decades that particular defence has been seldom used. It has had no success whatsoever, because of the existence of the current criminal provisions that deal with incitement to hatred.

     Madam Speaker, that was a great speech. I am part of the Christian community. Many Christians across Canada are concerned about threats posed to the very Bible itself.

    Do Christians need to be concerned about this legislation? Does it really threaten the Bible and free speech in Canada?

     Madam Speaker, they should be very afraid. Every faith leader should be very afraid about what the Liberal government, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, wishes to do. As I indicated, religious freedom is under attack at the hands of the Liberal government. They absolutely need to speak out loud and clear.

    Those members of religious organizations across this country in Liberal-held ridings, in Bloc ridings, need to reach out to their members to express very clearly that they do not support this attack on religious freedom.

    Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party, and in particular the member, who has been involved in the judicial system, for planting fear in the minds of Canadians. That is all the Conservative Party of Canada is doing today. It is shameful.

    The member knows full well that this is not an infringement on the freedom of religion. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would indicate very clearly that pastors, preachers and imams have nothing to fear—

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments made were clearly unparliamentary. I do not think I need to explain why.

    That was a question; it was not an accusation. The hon. member would perhaps wish to reword his question.

     Madam Speaker, I can appreciate why they are a little sensitive to the truth. At the end of the day, this has no infringement on the freedom of religion.

    The member knows that. Why will he not say that?

    Madam Speaker, that particular member just spews hatred and spews disgust. He impugns the integrity of every one of my Conservative colleagues. I am so disgusted in that particular framing of the question and the content of that question that I am not even going to respond. It is just not worthy of it.

     Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the individuals who are following this debate.

    People should be concerned about two different things. First is the subject matter itself. If I had enough time, I would go through some of the things provided to me. I usually do not like to reference things provided to me in written format, but I might end up doing that just to provide some assurances to people who are following the debate. This is in regard to the subject matter itself.

    I have another area of concern, which is the way the Conservative Party of Canada continues to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, because it does a great disservice to Canadians. Canadians should be aware of that.

    First, very briefly, I will deal with the subject matter. Back in the 1970s, Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the best of my knowledge, all members of the House support the charter. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who brought it in, and I remember witnessing, from my own home, the signing of that particular document. It is one of the reasons I took an interest in politics.

    Canadians are very proud of the Charter of Rights. I believe it has made Canada a leader throughout the world in terms of our fundamental principles, such as democracy and the rule of law. The Charter of Rights provides a high level of comfort on a wide variety of issues.

    The Charter of Rights, which any Canadian can acquire a copy of, reads, under “Fundamental Freedoms”:

    An hon. member: Hear, hear!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, even the Conservative member applauds it, and justifiably so. The Charter of Rights trumps all the legislation we might want to pass. That is why we often ask if the legislation is charter-proof or if someone has actually done their homework and found out if it is charter-compliant. Otherwise, the Supreme Court of Canada will say that we messed up and we need to make a change.

    The Harper regime was really good at that. It passed criminal laws that constantly were in contradiction of the Charter of Rights. As a direct result, the Supreme Court of Canada dictated that we needed to make changes. Look at even some of the private members' legislation.

    My first recommendation, for those individuals who are concerned about the propaganda and the misinformation that floods out of the Conservative caucus, is to take a look at the Charter of Rights. Any legislation that passes has to be in compliance with the Charter of Rights, and the critic is very much aware of that.

    The Conservatives try to give this false impression that if someone is a pastor, a priest or an imam and talks about something in the Bible or in the Quran, they will go to jail—

    An hon. member: That's exactly what they said.

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: No, that is not what it says.

    Madam Speaker, that just goes to show that the Conservatives are drinking too much of that blue kool-aid.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: They really need to get an understanding of the law—

     I will interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

    We heard a speech just before this, and people were listening. Now I would ask the hon. members to listen to the parliamentary secretary until it is time for questions and comments.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): Order.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, I can appreciate that members are really sensitive on this. After all, they just heard a speech of garbage, with all sorts of misinformation. I would suggest—

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Whoa, whoa, the prosecutor is getting a little aggressive, Madam Speaker.

    Members are getting very excited about this. Can we be respectful of one another?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I heard.

    I would ask that we be respectful of one another and stop calling each other names.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We sit in the House and listen to, a lot of times, pure nonsense from the member on a regular basis, but we have never called it “garbage”. We respect the member's right to speak his mind, even though he says a lot of words but does not say much.

     For him to say that the member's speech was “garbage” is absolute nonsense and unparliamentary. Every member—

    I understand what the hon. member is trying to say, and it will be seen as a point of order because it caused disruption. That is the rule.

     The hon. chief government whip.

    Madam Speaker, the Conservative shadow critic for justice yelled across the way to the member speaking, saying that he was garbage. You said you heard it. At the very least, the member needs to stand up, apologize and retract that—

    I am going to use an expression that I think fits the situation, which is “pot and kettle”. If one starts calling something garbage, they will get an answer of garbage.

    I ask that we be respectful of one another and stop using those terms, because it will cause disruption and the speeches will never be done properly.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

     Madam Speaker, may I start from the top?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the members across the way should be a little courteous.

     I started off by saying that there are two concerns. The first was in regard to what type of information the Conservative Party of Canada is using. I have not verified it yet, but no doubt it will appear on social media, because the Conservatives are trying to give a false impression, based on fear, to people who are faithful to the religions they believe in and the leadership of those religions. I find that very disturbing, because it is definitely misleading; there is no doubt about that. That is the primary concern I have about the content of the legislation.

     Now let us talk about the motivation of the legislation. Why is the Conservative Party choosing to do this on the floor of the House of Commons? They have options, but the Conservatives choose to use this as their motivation, in order to prevent government legislation from passing.

     An hon. member: Oh. oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, we are supposed to be debating the budget implementation legislation today, but what we hear from the Conservatives is a bunch of crying: “waah, waah, waah”, to quote the member opposite.

    The member opposite might not care, but every Canadian in every region of the country cares, because this is a budget to support Canadians. It is a part of a plan the Prime Minister has presented to Canada to build a country that is stronger and healthier and that works toward making Canada the strongest country in the G7. That is what the budget implementation act is all about.

     If we factor in the efforts of the Prime Minister and the government in pursuing trade opportunities that can even go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border, members will find that they complement each other. All the members of the House, have a responsibility to co-operate and to actually serve our constituents first and foremost.

    Time and time again, far too often, I witness the Conservatives' being more interested in serving the Conservative Party of Canada as opposed to serving Canadians, and we see that in their behaviour. Let me give a tangible example, dealing with Bill C-9. There is a committee that is supposed to be dealing with Bill C-9, but we have gone through hours of filibustering coming from the other side.

    We cannot deal with Bill C-14 until we are finished with Bill C-9. Bill C-14 is the bail reform legislation. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation. Provinces, law enforcement, other stakeholders, and Canadians as a whole want bail reform legislation. The biggest roadblock, the only roadblock, in Canada today to prevent that from happening is the Conservative Party of Canada.

     I say shame on each and every one of the members who continue to filibuster to prevent Canadians from getting substantial changes to our bail reform legislation. They should be ashamed of themselves, because that was in the election platform. Time and time again, Conservative member after Conservative member is preventing the passage of important legislation, whether it is at the committee stage or on the floor of the House of Commons.

     This is the type of thing we see from the Conservative Party far too often. That is the motivation for today. Conservatives do not want to debate the budget legislation, again. It is not like this is the first time they have brought in concurrence reports. They cry, and they say they want more time and more debate on legislation. The other day I stood up and I said, “Well, Canadians work overtime. Canadians work past six o'clock in the evening.” I asked if the Conservatives would be prepared to sit until midnight. They said, “No, we do not do that.”

    Conservatives do not like to work hard. They like to talk and complain. The next word I was going to use is a little unparliamentary, so I will not say it. At the end of the day, they do not like working for Canadians.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the member says, “Come on.” I will challenge any member on the other side to stand up and tell me that they are prepared to work until midnight for the next two weeks in order for us have more debate on the floor of the House of Commons.

    I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the House to sit until midnight for the rest of this session. Can they—

     I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

    The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith is rising on a point of order.

    Madam Speaker, I apologize if I do not have this right because I am a new member, but we are having this debate because the Liberals cancelled a meeting, and the member is actually—

     That is not a point of order. The members have a lot of latitude.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to enable the House to sit until midnight for the rest of the session.

    Some hon. members: No.

    There is no unanimous consent.

    Madam Speaker, wow, that is truly amazing. I just finished challenging them to sit until midnight, and they all jumped up to say that they would sit until midnight. I called their bluff and asked if there was unanimous consent to sit until midnight. What did we see? The people who were jumping up then said, “No, no.” This proves the point. Do we not see it? The Conservative line is, “Do not allow legislation to pass. Let us do whatever we can to prevent that from happening and continue to deny Canadians bail reform legislation.” This is what the Conservative Party's position is.

    We have Bill C-2, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, all of which would make our communities safer, and all of which the Conservative Party of Canada is preventing from passing. Then, when I say, “We should debate it”, they say they do not have enough time because they have more members who want to speak. They cry us a river. When they are provided with an opportunity to have more time to debate, what do they do? They sit on their hands and say nothing except, “No, no, we do not sit past six o'clock.” Do they know how many Canadians work past six o'clock across the country? It is a whole lot of Canadians. Let me leave it at that.

     I will tell the House something: The only thing here is a Conservative Party of Canada that does not see the merit. If they really want more debate, why would they not agree to unanimous consent? Seriously, why would they not do it? It is not as if all of them have to be present for it. It just means they have to debate it. After all, that is kind of what they wanted, but they avoid it.

    An hon. member: Their single speechwriter is going to have to write more speeches.

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, but now they have AI. They have ChatGPT. Those will help them with their speeches if they are running out of speeches to give.

    Madam Speaker, when it comes to the interests of Canadians, what we hear from the Conservative Party is something purely focused on one thing: what is in the best interest of the Conservative Party, not what is in the interest of Canadians. This is what we find unfortunate. We see it during question period. During question period, it is all about personal attacks. It is about character assassination. It is not about substantive questions. They attack the Prime Minister with personal attacks whenever they get the opportunity and prevent anything from passing in the House of Commons. Then they will say that the government is unable to pass anything. Well, duh. If they gave me 12 students from Sisler, Maples or any high school in Canada, I would be able to filibuster a bill indefinitely.

    This is the type of mischief we see day in and day out coming from the Conservatives. We tried to get a commitment. Weeks ago, I was standing here and saying to members opposite, “Bail reform legislation is before us today.” I was debating it that day and all I asked for were commitments to allow the legislation to pass before the end of the year. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

    One of the Conservatives brought forward a private member's bill. It has a substantive change. He is standing up saying that he wants unanimous consent to pass it all today. “It is out of second reading, so there is no need for a committee meeting. It is out of report stage and third reading, so let us send it over to the Senate. We do not need to debate the legislation.” This is what Conservative members talk about for their private member's bills.

    When it comes to government legislation, they say, “Oh, just hold on a second.” They want to give the false impression that the government does not know how to handle legislation, so they filibuster here on the floor of the House of Commons. They filibuster in the committee. They work on trying to come up with creative amendments in certain situations to prevent legislation from ultimately advancing. This is the behaviour we see from the Conservative Party. How productive is that?

    Let us remember that, in the last federal election, Canadians told all of us, not just the government, that this was going to be a minority government. The expectation was that all parties would work together. That does not mean they have to support everything the government does, nor does the government have to support everything the opposition wants. However, there was an expectation that, when things are good for Canadians and in their best interest, there would be a sense of co-operation.

    Do we see that today? We do not see an official opposition that is prepared to co-operate. How many times have we brought forward the budget implementation bill because Conservative after Conservative wanted to speak to it? They will not sit late so that more of them can speak to it, but they want to be able to speak to it. Why not allow the bill to pass to committee? If it goes to committee, it can be broken down, and several committees can go into it in great detail. They will not, though, because it is not in the Conservative Party's best interest. It might be in the interest of Canadians or Parliament as a whole, but it is not in the best interest of the Conservative Party. As a direct result, they are not going to deal with it. They have made the determination that they want to prevent the legislation from passing.

    I can already imagine it today. We see the wind-up as the fall session comes to an end. My recommendation is that we come back for Christmas. I am okay with doing that. My colleagues might feel a little uneasy about it, but I will put the interests of Canadians ahead of my personal interests and the interests of Parliament. If it means we need to put in extra days, we should do that. If the Conservatives really and truly want more debate and are concerned about debate time, I am prepared to advocate that we sit longer hours and more days. They will not get any opposition from me on that. I can tell members that, at the end of the day, chances are that I will probably be around more than most others in order to listen to and participate in that debate.

    Therefore, I look to my Conservative friends on the opposite side and appeal to them to look at the substantive legislation we have today, which has been filibustered. I ask them to work with the government, as the government will work with the opposition, so that we can in fact have substantive legislative changes, such as the bail reform legislation. That would be one for me personally, and it would also be an awesome thing to happen for Canadians. We could actually do it before Christmas, but everyone here knows it can only happen if the Conservative Party participates in it fully.

    In the spirit of being a parliamentarian who has a deep amount of respect for the process, I apologize to the member opposite for saying that his speech was garbage. I respect all speeches delivered inside the House.

    Madam Speaker, the election was at the end of April. We returned to Parliament at the end of May. We had approximately five to six weeks of sitting. We then broke for the summer. Approximately six months have passed since the election, and the very first piece of criminal justice legislation brought forward by the Attorney General is Bill C-9. The Liberals are prioritizing it. We had our debate. We got it to committee. Members heard, in my speech, about delays, cancelled meetings or meetings ending abruptly, which was all done by the Liberal chair at the time, who is now a minister. I listened to the member talk about obstruction and delays. He is a master of hypocrisy.

     We were prepared to sit until midnight this past Tuesday. We are prepared to sit until midnight today to get to the heart of Bill C-9. Why did your government cancel the meeting abruptly?

     The hon. member is supposed to be speaking through me.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    First of all, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work the standing committees do. I recognize that, as a government, we are a minority. If the Bloc and the Conservatives choose to take certain actions, at times that could cause some issues where the government might need to see some sort of adjournment.

     I think there is a practicality in what takes place at committee. I do not sit on that committee. I spend a lot of time inside the chamber. That is the reason I made the suggestion that we could, from my perspective, sit until midnight. That is why I asked for unanimous consent. I do not have a problem doing that. I will even go beyond that if it makes the member happy enough. I know we can get some legislation passed. It would be a wonderful thing for Canada and all Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the Criminal Code to stop protecting hate speech under the guise of religion. The law must apply equally to all. Religion must never justify hate.

    Once again, we see that, within Canada, Quebec is regressing or stagnating. The same thing happened with secularism, conversion therapy and medical assistance in dying. Quebec settled these debates a long time ago. This is proof that our values are not compatible with this country's values and that it does not understand us either. Quebec deserves to function in accordance with its values. There is only one solution for that: Quebec must be independent.

    Madam Speaker, one thing I love about Canada and about living in a federalist country is this: All areas have a high sense of uniqueness and a distinct character to them. I cherish, for example, the province of Quebec for the French language and the in-depth culture and arts programming it has. In many ways, it leads the country in different areas. Quebec and Manitoba share a lot in common. We both have hydro development. We both have a healthy aerospace industry. Manitoba has a growing francophone community.

    That is one of the reasons I suggest that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. We appreciate the differences and the contributions of all communities, which make our country the great country it is.

    Madam Speaker, the member's intervention today was extremely revealing. It revealed a lot about the Conservatives, especially in the way they acted in the House during the speech. We can look at what they were doing when he was talking versus the way they acted when it came to actually voting on the words they had just used moments before.

    What underpins all of this, and the member brought it up in his speech, is how, exactly, the Conservatives approach their role in the House. They believe their role here is to obstruct at every possible opportunity. In reality, in a Westminster parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to challenge the government to do better and be better, not to systematically, at every single opportunity, try to dismantle every piece of legislation and policy the government puts forward because the opposition could never imagine allowing it to have a win on something.

     Could the member please expand on the thoughts he brought up earlier about the genuine role of the opposition and how the Reform Party across the way has completely lost its way?

    Madam Speaker, I do not know if Preston Manning would have liked the member calling the Conservatives “the Reform Party”. They are probably a little farther to the right than the Reform Party ever was, in many ways.

     Having said that, it was interesting. I will put it this way: Coming out of the election, I thought there might be a chance to see a different type of Conservative Party, especially when the leader of the Conservative Party lost his seat in Carleton. I recall how, when the leader was not here, or when the Conservative leader's office was in fact not as strong as it is today, we passed Bill C-5. That was co-operative. We could not have done it without the support of the Conservative Party. I am grateful for that, because it helps us build one Canadian economy and build the national priority projects. We got billions of dollars of investment because of that legislation.

     Prior to the leader of the Conservative Party winning the by-election in August, there seemed to be more co-operation, but it seems we have gone back to where we were a year ago. The Conservative right once again dominates the party.

     Madam Speaker, the reason we are here this morning is that the justice committee is asking for the opportunity to hear from Canadians, and to travel to do so. A travel motion before the House of Commons is, in fact, very rare. At the heart of why we need this travel motion is section 319 of the Criminal Code.

     I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North if he could clarify, in good faith, the position of the government and whether it does in fact want to remove paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.

    As a person of faith, I never thought I would have this argument in this chamber, in this country. It is hard to stand here today, but this is why I am here. The Liberals challenged us on why we are here. I am here to stand up for people of all faiths in my nation, so they have freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights.

    Will the member clarify? Do the Liberals want to remove that section from the Criminal Code?

     Madam Speaker, I know we are not supposed to use props, so I am going to put my Canadian Charter of Rights down.

    I would say to the member that every member of the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to every member, supports the Charter of Rights. I highly recommend that the member read in the Charter of Rights where it guarantees the right of freedom of religion.

    I think of what a pastor, a priest or an imam says to their congregation, and there is no reason for people to be fearful. The only fear factor out there is the Conservative Party's trying to turn it into a wedge issue. If it is anything like their crime file, the reason they are doing it is fundraising purposes, and fundraising purposes alone.

    Madam Speaker, I wonder what is in the Kool-Aid that the religious right is giving to the Conservatives. It must be pretty strong, because it is effective. The Conservatives seem to really believe what they are saying. They are claiming that this measure is directed at freedom of religious expression or freedom of religion. It is unbelievable.

    My question is for the member for Winnipeg North, who seems to support removing the religious exemption in exchange for the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-9. In 2023, the Liberals did not support us on that issue. In 2024, I clearly remember that the minister at the time, Mr. Virani, proposed including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-63 to get the Bloc Québécois's support for the bill. We were already being pretty flexible. Now the same thing is being proposed once again, that is, including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-9. However, the Liberals are facing a bit of resistance, so now they are getting cold feet, so to speak, and have decided not to convene the committee so that they do not have to move forward on this.

    I would really like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me whether the Liberals are serious this time. Are they really going to move forward on this? If so, why is the committee not sitting in order to finally put an end to this religious exemption, which is truly a disgrace in the Canadian system?

    Madam Speaker, the best I can do is reinforce the Charter of Rights, which is something I believe in and every Liberal member of Parliament believes in.

    Madam Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

    That said, I too am having a hard time following my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North. He is saying that there is some sort of agreement between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to not sit. Well, wait a minute. I was here yesterday. I was prepared to work until midnight. I am prepared to do so again tonight. What we asked, and I personally asked both the minister and the Liberal representative on the committee, was for Bill C‑9 to be passed before Christmas. It could not be any clearer than that. When I hear the member say that the Bloc Québécois is against this, I say, “Wait a minute, that is not right”.

    Now, what is the Liberals' real position? As my colleague from Drummond said, we do not really know what to think of them anymore. I need someone to tell me whether the Liberals are actually afraid of religious lobbies. Is that why they are refusing to rid the Criminal Code of a provision that allows people to spread hate and incite hate as long as it is based on a religious text? That would be crazy. If that is really their position, they should say so clearly.

     I do not think that is their position. It is not what I heard from the Minister of Justice. It is not what I am hearing from the Liberals I speak to. However, it seems to me that, on this matter, we keep taking one step forward and two steps back, and it is not only this week; it has been like that for years.

    The Conservative motion we are debating today asks that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties. We are not against democracy, obviously. Listening to people tell us what they think of a bill is a good thing. However, travelling around is not the only way to get a viewpoint across. Committee travel is one thing, but having witnesses travel is another thing altogether.

    So far, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has received some 30 witnesses. They have come to give testimony and express their viewpoints on Bill C‑9. We have also received around 40 briefs on this bill from various groups, individuals and experts. I think the work has been done. Could we hear from more witnesses? Of course. We can hear from as many witnesses and read as many briefs as we like, but at some point, we are going to have to move forward. We cannot sit and listen to people endlessly without ever taking action. Our job in this House is to be parliamentarians and to make laws.

    The government tabled Bill C‑9. At the outset, I was not in agreement with it. I said as much to the minister. Amendments were put forward. He did not agree. We discussed it and we came to an agreement on a certain number of things that we brought forward at committee and that we hope will be finalized before the holidays. Instead, however, we are being told that we are starting over. We are going to go back to hearing from witnesses, and this time, we are going to go travelling around to make sure it takes as long as possible. Personally, I am not on board. I find all this rather disappointing.

    I have Conservative colleagues whom I respect greatly, and I am sure they want us to work and move forward. However, there is something childish about all this. We have to face up to the situation. There is pressure from religious groups, that is true. My assistant called me half an hour before I entered the House. My constituency office received over 100 calls this morning from organizations and individuals telling us that Bill C-9 is very frightening and that we must vote against it.

    I am not alone. I am sure that there are other parliamentarians in the House experiencing the same thing. This adds pressure. It is not fun to be under pressure. However, there is an expression that I often hear in English: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Our job is to make laws.

    We are being pressured by people who say one particular bill is great and another is not. That is normal. We have to stay the course despite that pressure or we are not worthy of captaining the ship. We represent people who expect us to take action. I like the idea of travelling around Canada, but I would be happy to do that next summer, during my time off.

    For the time being, we are here to work, and Bill C‑9 is an important bill that deserves to be voted on and passed as quickly as possible.

    Once again, religious pressure is the only explanation I have been given on that subject. As my esteemed Conservative colleague asked earlier, does this mean that we really want to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code? Yes, but contrary to what I have heard and what I often hear, this does not mean that people will no longer be able to read the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. People will still be able to read these texts. People will still be able to practise whatever faith they choose, where they choose and as they see fit, which is great. That is freedom, and we support that.

    Section 319 of the Criminal Code does not say that people are free to read the Quran, the Bible, the Torah or any other texts. Section 319 says spreading hate is prohibited. That is what section 319 is all about. The part we want to repeal states that spreading hate is allowed if it is based on a religious text someone believes in. We are saying that that is not okay.

    If a person's religion demands that they hate and spread hate, that will not work in Canada. I have a lot of respect for individuals, but that will not work. It will not work in Quebec, and from what I know, it will not work in Canada either. We do not condone that. Individuals are free to change their religion, practise it elsewhere or set aside certain beliefs, but no one in either Quebec or Canada has the right to spread hate or incite hatred. It is prohibited, irrespective of whether the person is relying on a religious text, a philosophical text or anything else, and this should not change. Allowing the spread of hate for any reason whatsoever is at odds with our legal system.

    That said, I still have the right to read the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. I still have the right to practise a faith and to take inspiration from those texts. The three texts I am referring to and many other similar texts are full of grand principles and wisdom that we could learn from. Religions are normally a good thing. We can take inspiration from them, both for making laws and for living in society. However, they should not be taken at face value.

    Life is very different today from what it was 3,000 years ago. I am sorry, but I do not approve of stoning women for adultery. If I was ever in favour of that in another life—if in fact I had another life—it is clear to me that this is totally wrong today in 2025. I have a lot of respect for Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son for God, but I would not sacrifice my own children for any religious belief. Religious wars were once fought by valiant soldiers and people who were fighting for their belief systems, points of view and religions. While that made a lot of sense at the time, it no longer makes sense today. I hope that neither I nor my children and grandchildren will ever live through religious wars.

    All that is history, but it is something we should draw on for inspiration. The general principles are good. Seeking peace and love and promoting them is a good thing. However, the words in those texts were written 3,000 years ago by an unknown individual who was laying out their view of religion. Today, some people are taking the message literally and using these words not to spread lofty principles of love, peace and togetherness, but to say that religious wars were acceptable and would be worth starting again. No, we do not approve of that. It makes no sense to us. It has no place in the Criminal Code. We are asking that it be purged from our laws. I am asking for it, the Bloc Québécois is asking for it and roughly 75% of Quebeckers are asking for it. I cannot remember the exact figures, but I believe that over 55% of the Canadian population is asking for it.

    I can confirm what was said earlier. The Bloc Québécois had reached an agreement with Liberal Party representatives, including the Minister of Justice, to have these provisions stricken from the Criminal Code. I hope that we will be able to do so. I hope that we can get that wrapped up before Christmas and shake hands in peace and love before leaving for the holiday break, safe in the knowledge that people will be able to continue living in peace in both Quebec and Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which included several points on which we agree. I would like him to comment on the second section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which relates to fundamental freedoms.

    What does the Bloc Québécois understand these fundamental freedoms to mean?

    Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that the Bloc Québécois understands these provisions as they are written, and as everyone should read and understand them, I think, although we do recognize that the courts interpret these provisions broadly and frequently.

    These are important provisions. We all agree on the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. However, we know that freedom of expression and all such freedoms have limits, without which there would be chaos. I am free to protest and say what I think, but if I tell someone to do something illegal, for example if I advise them to kill their wife because they learned that she has slept with the neighbour, that is incitement to violence and has no place in a society that claims to be peaceful.

    We agree with everything that is there. We have the same thing in Quebec. We have our legislative provisions, including our Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We agree on that, but it must be interpreted in a reasonable way based on the context.

    Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend, the Bloc member, and I enjoy working with him at committee. I would like to understand if he has any knowledge of what is actually happening at the justice committee. He just referred to the Bloc having an agreement in the past tense. The meeting was cancelled last Tuesday and tonight's meeting has been cancelled. We have major pieces of legislation between us, but it appears as though the Liberals do not want us to convene.

     I would like to follow up on something. My friend appears to suggest that the rationale for the amendment is the case of Adil Charkaoui in Montreal, who called for the extermination of the enemies of Allah. The Bloc seems to suggest that it is on the basis of this exception that charges were not instituted, but the prosecutorial service in Quebec said that is not the case; it is because it was not an identifiable group of people against whom he incited violence—

    Order, please.

    The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

    Mr. Speaker, Adil Charkaoui's comments last year are indeed a good example, and no, I obviously do not have any proof that he was not charged because of the Criminal Code or the content of the Criminal Code.

    What I am saying is that such provisions may not necessarily lead to acquittals, but they do lead Crown prosecutors to be more cautious in their approach. Let us say that I am a Crown prosecutor and I have to send the lawyers from my office to work on a case. When I read the indictment, I see that there is an easy defence for the person we want to prosecute, because the Criminal Code says that people have the right to engage in this type of speech if they do so based on a religious text. I am not going to have those lawyers argue in court for two or three years all the way up to the Supreme Court, just for them to be told something that we already know.

    That is the problem with the religious exemption. It is not the acquittals that we are worried about. It is the fact that prosecutors do not even want to try to bring charges when they should because they know they cannot win.

    Mr. Speaker, we obviously disagree with the Bloc Québécois in this regard, but I would like to ask a question about the Liberal Party's position and the discussions that have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party.

    We learned through the media on Monday, and this was confirmed by a Liberal spokesperson, that the government came to an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to move forward with this measure, which we believe is against religious freedom. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm the government's position?

    It is rather strange that the government does not have the courage to tell us today where it stands. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm that the government stated its position on this issue with the agreement in question?

    Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is indeed the case. We had an agreement regarding these provisions, regarding our amendment. I can also confirm that I, too, deplore this lack of courage that resulted in the cancellation of yesterday's meeting.

    I urge the Minister of Justice and our colleagues on the committee to come to their senses and convene the committee so that we can work on these provisions and pass Bill C-9 as early as next week.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his brilliant speech and for his thorough work on this file, which he has been adeptly looking after for years. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code to be repealed for quite some time, long before this year and long before this Parliament.

    Earlier, my colleague spoke about support for this measure that, as I stated before, the Bloc Québécois has proposed many times. According to a Leger poll conducted last year, 75% of Quebeckers support this measure. It also has strong support in the rest of Canada. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said the figure was at least 55%. Actually, 66% of Canadians support this provision. That 66% of Canadians are the 66% of Canadians who fully understand what this measure means, and they are not fooled by populist rhetoric aimed at making them fear for their freedom of religion, which I find appalling. I think it is appalling and I will say why. It is because, as politicians, as elected representatives, as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to be upfront with our constituents and to tell them the truth. We have a duty not to sway them into believing certain things that align with our personal views, our party's stance, or worse, the position that lobby groups are forcing on our parties.

     I take this responsibility very seriously, and that is why, when people call my constituency office, as many did this morning, asking us to vote against Bill C-9 because it will allegedly violate their freedom of religion, like my colleagues, I tell my team to ask the callers to provide examples. We do not simply thank them for calling and tell them that we have taken note of their views and will take them into consideration. We ask them for examples of cases where, in the practice of their religion or faith or the practice of the minister, pastor, imam or priest delivering sermons in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, there is something that could require protection under the religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code.

    No one is able to come up with an answer, and that is because any logical answer would be so awful, because this is so huge, because the people who call us in good faith, frightened by the Conservatives' narrative, think they are being told that their priest is no longer allowed to read the Bible or their imam is no longer allowed to quote the Quran or parts of the Quran because of this provision. That is not the case at all. Whatever reasons the director of criminal and penal prosecutions and the RCMP had for deciding that Adil Charkaoui's statements did not warrant charges being laid, I am going to repeat those words anyway, because they gave rise to much debate. They were widely discussed in Quebec and they are being discussed here as well, right now, in the House of Commons. At a pro-Palestine, pro-Gaza rally, Adil Charkaoui said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.”

    Anyone who utters words like that is not sharing a religion of love or a message of hope and peace. Such a person is propagating hate. The fact that a decision was made by the prosecution service in Quebec, on the recommendation and evaluation of the report provided by the RCMP at the time, not to lay charges against a preacher like Adil Charkaoui, who had already had more than one run-in with the law, does not mean that we can set this aside and just move on and say there is nothing to see here. This is serious.

    That is why we in the Bloc Québécois are here defending Quebec's values, and also the values of freedom of expression that are so precious to Quebeckers and Canadians alike, with measures like this one. It is a measure that simply says people do not have the right to say that, and additionally, they do not have the right to use religion as a shield to spread hate or call for violence or call for the extermination of anyone. The Conservatives are changing or redirecting or even embellishing the narrative in order to strike fear into their voters that their freedom of religion is under attack, and I find that to be irresponsible. I am going to stick with that word, although I could use other words that would not be as civil, and I do want to remain civil.

     I also have a problem with how my Liberal colleagues have handled this specific file. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague from Winnipeg North a question, during the last Parliament, we studied Bill C-63, which sought to combat hatred. However, it did not work. The Bloc Québécois made what I felt was a very reasonable request to split the bill in two. One part of the bill had quite a bit of consensus among all the parties in the House. That part of the bill sought to protect vulnerable people from hateful content, including online content. As the Conservatives said at the time, that part of the bill was a matter of common sense. The other part focused on the concept of hatred and issues that were perhaps more suitable for debate and dissent. It needed to be discussed, but the Liberals did not want that. The Liberals were offering to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code in exchange for our support for Bill C-63 as a whole. That did not work because there were genuine concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and we could not go that far.

    The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents. Yesterday, we heard from professor David Morin and professor Marie-Ève Carignan, two eminent scholars from the UNESCO chair in the prevention of violent radicalization and extremism. Their appearance helped us realize that had this part of Bill C-63 been adopted, we would already have made a big step forward in protecting vulnerable persons. This brings me to the point that sometimes we delay the implementation of necessary and urgent legislation for political games. The longer implementation is delayed, the longer vulnerable persons are put in vulnerable situations. These individuals, including children, adolescents and numerous other vulnerable groups whom I need not list are left in harm's way.

    In conclusion, I am disappointed with the discussion we are having today. I wish we could have risen above political partisanship or pressure from religious groups. I would have liked for us to stick to the facts and take this Bloc Québécois proposal for what it is: an extremely sensible measure that perhaps warrants discussion on the basis of personal convictions. However, we must stop anaesthetizing people with falsehoods and make sure we are bringing true facts to light so that we can have a frank and honest discussion.

    I have not set foot in a church in a very long time, and that is something I must confess, if I can be allowed a little play on words. It has been a long time since I last heard a priest give a sermon, but I was an altar boy as a teenager, and I do not recall a single statement from a priest, a single sermon in which violence was promoted based on what the Bible says. Never in a million years can I imagine a pastor, a priest, a preacher, a minister, engaging in hateful speech, propagating hate or calling for violence in a religious message.

    I would be very curious to find out more about the places of worship my Conservative friends attend and the ministers there. What is being said in those churches? A Conservative member once told me they are very afraid that removing this provision will put their ministers in danger for something they might say about homosexuals. What could they possibly say about homosexuals that would make them fear being prosecuted? Are they calling for their heads to be chopped off? What can they be saying? I fail to understand what speech they are trying to defend by opposing the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code.

    As a very important reminder, 75% of Quebeckers and 66% of Canadians are in favour of this measure. That is a pretty good consensus for at least having an honest discussion about the issue.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for speaking today on the important issue of online dangers for children. I also thank him for his work on the committee.

    What is the Bloc's position on improving the safety of online platforms and social media for young people in Canada? What measures should the federal government take to better protect minors online? What activities should be promoted to encourage positive social habits?

    Mr. Speaker, I made a passing reference to that in my speech, but it was not really the main point of my speech.

    That said, I will reserve my comments and response for later, once we have completed the study that is currently being conducted. With each new meeting during this study, we are learning some extremely interesting things.

    The report on this study will be published at some point. At that point, we will be able to discuss the conclusions we have drawn from the study in committee.

     Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, but does he understand that it is already illegal to make statements that incite violence?

    It is already illegal. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and will violate the rights and freedoms of 27 million Canadians.

    Does my colleague understand that?

    Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is not reading that right. That is not at all the case.

    I will take another approach. Hate speech and the propagation of hatred are indeed prohibited under section 319, but there is a religious exemption. If the religious exemption is not needed, then let us simply remove it. If it has not been used as a defence or has not been successfully used as a defence, then let us simply agree to remove it.

    If my Conservative colleagues think that the safeguards that are already in place are strong enough, then why are they opposed to removing these two provisions of section 319 that allow for the propagation of hatred and violence under the guise of religion?

    Let us simply remove those provisions if they serve no purpose.

    Mr. Speaker, we are having a strange debate today.

    From what I understand, the Liberals do not want to debate this in committee and the Conservatives are clearly against the provision. However, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord pointed out in his speech earlier, there was an agreement.

    As my colleague from Drummond said—and I thank him for his excellent speech, by the way—75% of Quebeckers are in favour of the Bloc Québécois's proposal. What is more, the Quebec National Assembly has made a unanimous request for this. The 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly, across party lines, have asked the government to support the Bloc Québécois's proposal.

    My question for my colleague is this: Does he know very many members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec who are saying that the Bloc Québécois's proposal is unacceptable?

    Mr. Speaker, I would say that when we ask the Conservative caucus from Quebec this question, we do not get an answer right away. I look forward to hearing a speech on this from a Quebec Conservative. We might hear a bit more about their position and their arguments.

    That was an excellent question from my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak forcefully against the motion—

    We are in questions and comments.

    The hon. member for Winnipeg North has time for a very brief question.

    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his assurance when he talked about telling the truth. I think it is important that we tell the truth because misleading information causes a great deal of fear.

    Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

    Mr. Speaker, earlier, in my speech, I spoke at length about how facts are being distorted and twisted in order to make people who are sincerely concerned accept the position of a political party. I find that unacceptable. I believe we have a duty to be honest. We have a duty to speak responsibly to voters and tell them the truth, the real facts.

    In this case, I get the impression that a message of fear has been spread to make people of faith, people who practise a religion, feel threatened. That is completely wrong, and I agree that we have a responsibility to hold debates that respect the truth and the facts.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak very forcefully against Motion No. 219, which was brought forward by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, that seeks to instruct the justice committee to drop its work on the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, and instead launch a taxpayer-funded, cross-country tour as a means of delaying the committee's work.

    Let us be clear from the start that this motion is not about hearing from Canadians. This motion is about delaying justice. It is about freezing the combatting hate act.

    After weeks of Conservative obstruction, after hours of procedural games, after filibusters, points of order and challenges to the chair, when clause-by-clause analysis of the combatting hate act finally began, Conservatives panicked and pulled the emergency brake on this study and the committees work. This motion is that emergency brake.

    Canadians deserve to know exactly what has been happening at the justice committee. For weeks, members opposite have used every trick in the procedural playbook to stall this bill, including points of order, challenges to the chair and attempts to reopen settled motions, which were efforts to drag the committee backward every time it tried to move forward. They were wasting time to block participation by witnesses, who wanted to testify to this bill. When the very first committee meeting on this bill was scheduled, when Canadians expected serious debate, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South shamelessly filibustered for hours, talking for two hours about dogs and cats, not about hate crimes, not about anti-Semitism, not about attacks on LGBTQ Canadians and not about threats against women.

    While Canadians are being targeted by hate, Conservatives are entertaining themselves in gumming up the work of this committee and stalling the progress of this bill. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now that this procedural stalling has finally failed, Conservatives are trying a new tactic. They want Parliament to authorize a nationwide tour with flights, hotels and staff entourages, with no timeline to return to the bill and full authority to shut down the clause-by-clause analysis.

     Let us call this what it is. It is not consultation. It is not accountability. This is instead a taxpayer-funded Conservative road show that is designed to kill the bill through delay. Canadians have asked us for protection from hate and intimidation. Conservatives have answered with a travel itinerary and an invoice.

    I think about the reasons behind Bill C-9 to combat hate, and why this was one of the first bills the government brought forward in this parliamentary session. It is because of the imperative of addressing hate in Canada.

    I have heard from people across my community about the importance of this issue and about how hate is on the rise. We have seen 5,000 hate crimes reported in 2024, almost double the number from 2018. Those numbers are probably under-reported compared with the number of Canadians who are actually facing hate crimes in this country. Why are these crimes going under-reported? It is because Canadians believe that the criminal justice system is not currently equipped to deal with the type of hate crimes we are seeing in this country. That is what the bill seeks to address. That is what the committee should be working on, ensuring that we get the bill back into Parliament to pass it so we can increase public safety for Canadians.

    Hate is not an issue that is felt by a single community. Jewish Canadians, Muslim Canadians, the LGBTQ community, women and many other communities have all been subject to this rising tide of hate and bigotry, but particularly over the last two years, the Jewish community has felt this acutely and disproportionately, especially in Toronto—St. Paul's and other major cities. Religiously motivated hate crimes are the most reported category of hate crime in Toronto. Of those, 81% were committed against Jewish Canadians last year. Taking action against this rise in hate was a central promise that I made to the people of Toronto—St. Paul's in the recent election.

     I firmly believe that the legislation we are debating, which we should be debating and moving forward, will be a critical first step in that direction. Where does that lead us? We are overdue for a conversation in this country about the legitimate boundaries of free expression.

    We have seen protests turn more violent and hateful in recent years. We have seen this in Sikh and Hindu temples. We have seen it on the streets with people protesting on Israel and Palestine. We have seen it during COVID with the trucker protests and protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. We are grappling with an explosion of hate online that is moving off-line onto our streets and into our communities. Our right to free expression as Canadians is never, nor should it ever be, a shield against accountability. Canadian law has long distinguished between protected speech and wilful harm.

    It was under the leadership of our 14th prime minister, Lester Pearson, my favourite, that the government of the day struck a special committee to review hate propaganda in Canada. That committee, which included a little known associate professor of law from the university of Montreal, subsequently our 15th prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, set out in its unanimous report a passage that our Supreme Court has cited:

    When harm is done and injury occurs or violence ensues, we have an obligation to act on behalf of all citizens. The bill in front of the House and in front of the Standing Committee on Justice is a blueprint for action.

    We have heard from communities, from law enforcement and from Crown corporations that first we need clarity in our law surrounding hate and speed with how it is enforced. To this end, our bill on combatting hate proposes to create new offences that would target exactly the sort of expression that is meant to terrorize a community rather than express policy or political disagreements, which are healthy in a democracy.

    First, the obstruction offence would specifically go after behaviour that harasses users of community spaces belonging to identifiable groups. Blocking access to places where communities gather, such as schools, houses of worship and community centres, is not a form of free expression; it is bullying with the intent of terrifying a community into agreeing with one's views.

    As I heard during a round table with community leaders that I hosted in my riding, hate is not limited to the steps outside a local school or synagogue. It can happen anywhere, as we learned in the hate-motivated stabbing of a Jewish woman in a grocery store right here in Ottawa.

    Second, the intimidation offence in this bill would criminalize conduct that is done with the intent to intimidate. Speech in a vacuum is often innocuous, but recently we have seen groups of protesters, who are masked, yelling violent insults and hate at members of a targeted community. This is not free expression in a civil society. This is intimidation, pure and simple. Our laws are intended to prevent this. It must be stopped. Police must be empowered to intervene and make arrests before this hateful rhetoric turns into violence.

    Third, this bill would create a new hate crime offence, one that could be applied against every offence in the Criminal Code or any other federal law. It would serve to explicitly denounce all criminal conduct motivated by hate.

    Fourth, a new hate propaganda offence would prohibit the display of certain symbols associated with the Nazi party, such as the hakenkreuz and the Nazi SS bolts, as well as any symbols associated with a listed terrorist group, such as the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Proud Boys. Importantly, this is an offence against the spreading of hate. It is not criminalizing symbols in an academic setting such as a text book. Our laws are sophisticated; they can distinguish between these things. For many communities, these symbols are deeply traumatic, and the public display of them is not only offensive, but also dehumanizing and terrorizing.

    When a terrorist entity in the country is listed by the government and by Parliament, Parliament should prohibit the spreading of hate through the display of its symbols. The public display of these symbols is often done with the explicit intent, more often than not, of scaring people and spreading hate, leading to violence. Criminalizing the wilful public use of these symbols should be an opinion on which there is consensus in the House.

    We introduced the combatting hate act alongside the bail and sentencing reform act to respond directly to what communities across Canada are demanding. They are demanding stronger protections against hate. They are demanding stronger consequences for intimidation. They are demanding stronger tools for law enforcement.

    From day one, the Minister of Justice has said clearly that we remain open to constructive improvements to the bill in good faith. What we will not accept is bad-faith sabotage and delay dressed up as consultation, which is what we are getting from the other side of the House.

    Canadians are not asking for a road show; they are demanding results. They are demanding that we not delay and that we pass the bill with expediency. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA, wrote publicly to the Conservative leader, urging him to work with the government to pass Bill C-9 in the spirit of collaboration. Police services, municipal leaders, religious communities and human rights organizations all want the bill passed now.

    Let us be honest about what is really going on here. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition has a divided caucus on the bill. It is clear that he does not want this to go to a vote before his leadership review next month. I ask the members opposite directly why they are more interested in saving the Leader of the Opposition's job than in saving the lives of Canadians who are being targeted by hate and intimidation. Why will they not move the bill forward?

    We are hearing something even more reckless from the opposition. They are calling the combatting hate bill a censorship bill. Let me ask them plainly. Do the members opposite think it is okay to see synagogues firebombed? Do the members opposite think it is okay to threaten and target LGBTQ people because of whom they love? Do the members opposite think it is okay to wave a terrorist flag in public and call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians? Of course not. That is why we need to get behind this bill. That is the type of egregious, hateful conduct that the bill targets. When the opposition screams about censorship, the real question is this: Which form of hate are they trying to protect?

    Only Conservatives would call the bill censorship, while all of the following groups stand behind it. We have the Edmonton Police Service, B’nai Brith Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Hindu alliance and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

    It is no surprise that this latest outrage comes from the same political wing that has previously minimized real-world violence and spread reckless rhetoric. Every single delay to the bill right now, including this motion for instruction before the House today, is a delay that belongs to the Conservative Party.

    Conservatives talked for two hours about cats and dogs instead of starting the clause-by-clause review of the bill. They challenged the chair. They tried repeatedly to pull the committee off the bill. When clause-by-clause finally started, they dropped this motion to try to shut it down. This motion has one purpose and one purpose only. It is to push the combatting hate act into the deep-freeze. It is not to improve it, not to strengthen it, not to protect Canadians and not to address the rising tide of hate and anti-Semitism we see in the country, but to stop it cold in its tracks and put it off, so that they do not have to face the division in their caucus, take a vote on it and get behind a bill that organizations and communities across this country support.

    We will not allow that. We will not stand behind that. Canadians want protection from hate. Conservatives want excuses to stall. Canadians want laws that keep them safe. Conservatives want a trip across the country with flights, hotels and theatrics that they will manufacture.

    We will defeat this motion and this stunt, and we will do everything in our power to pass the combatting hate act despite this stunt. It is noise on that side of the House. It cannot distract us from the important issues that have plagued this country. This bill is an important, overdue step forward in combatting hate in the country. This will be a proud part of our Canadian history and the lawful boundaries on freedom of expression when it crosses into a territory that is intimidating and causes Canadians to be fearful in their streets and their neighbourhoods. That is the scourge of hate.

     Let us put an end to this. Let us vote down this motion. I encourage the members opposite to put their money where their mouth is, get behind their principles and support a bill that combats hate in Canada.

     Mr. Speaker, many faith leaders and individuals in my community have reached out to me with concerns about Bill C-9 and the infringement on freedom of speech, and, in particular, the amendment that was brought forward that would remove the religious exemption and potentially target pastors while reading passages out of the Bible. The chair of that committee, who has since been promoted to Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, said that passages like those in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans would be considered hateful.

    Does the member agree with the past committee chair's representation of those passages?

     Mr. Speaker, with many issues like this, it behooves the members opposite to stand up and actually read the Criminal Code and its definition of hate. Their approach to these issues is to fearmonger and to shed light on situations that are unlikely to see the light of day in a court of law.

     The Criminal Code defines hate as:

     We also have Criminal Code provisions preventing the “wilful promotion of hatred”. This bill would give clarity to the definition of hate.

     In this country, we should not stand up and permit hate. Those who spread hate need to be accountable for it, and law enforcement needs a tool to police it.

    Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite clear today. Religious lobbies are influencing both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The Conservatives are spreading disinformation to mobilize their religious base, while the Liberals have capitulated and withdrawn their support for removing the religious exemption for hate speech.

    The Quebec National Assembly has stated clearly and unanimously that this loophole in the Criminal Code, which still allows hate speech on religious grounds, must be closed.

    Will the Liberals stop dancing around the issue today? Will they clearly explain why they are turning their backs on Quebeckers at a time when hatred is on the rise in public places?

     Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the Minister of Justice is open to considering good faith amendments to this bill.

     The government does not hold a monopoly on great legislation. Let us move that legislation forward. Let us have those debates in good faith. Let us talk critically about the state of the law and what it actually is, not what the Conservatives want people online to believe it is. Let us look at what the Supreme Court has said about hate and how the law is intended to protect freedoms in our democracy.

     When we recognize the scourge of hate, we allow people to live freer lives because they are free of hate, fear and intimidation. That is the purpose of the hate laws that we have had in this country for decades.

    Mr. Speaker, I really and truly appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary.

     The unfortunate reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour around this legislation is affecting two pieces of legislation. One deals with hate crimes, and Canadians are not going to be able to see the hate crime legislation before the end of the year. The other deals with bail reform, which is at the same committee. This is something the Prime Minister made a commitment on as part of our election platform.

     Liberals want to see both bills passed before the end of the year. The victims here are Canadians and the safety of our communities. Could the member reflect on how selfish the Conservative Party is being by not allowing Canadians to have this legislation passed?

    Mr. Speaker, it is selfish, and the Conservatives should be ashamed of their behaviour in stalling this bill.

     I have to tell members that I speak to constituents in my riding all the time who are affected by the hate on their streets and in their communities. They are scared of dropping their children off at day care or their young students going to university, going on campus or going to downtown Toronto to work, and having to walk through a protest. This is more than words; this is violence.

     Our laws are intended to prevent this and protect Canadians from experiencing that fear and intimidation in their day-to-day lives. This is what the combatting hate act seeks to address, and the Conservatives need to stand up and get behind this bill.

    Mr. Speaker, this is a short question. The member opposite listed a number of groups that supported Bill C-9. Does that same list she recited in her speech support the amendment that was just proposed?

    Mr. Speaker, it would have been great if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had been able to hear more witnesses, but because of the Conservatives' filibustering, those on the witness list were not able to appear in front of the committee. The Conservatives were too busy talking about their family pets and filibustering the work that needed to be done.

    Mr. Speaker, the issue of religious freedom is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom, yet we have members of the Conservative Party providing, I would suggest, misleading information that is ultimately causing a great deal of concern for those who practise a faith. Unfortunately, as a result, people might receive misinformation and then bring it to their attention. In fact, the Conservatives know they are doing this, and it is causing fear in the minds of many.

    I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Christian. I am a proud Canadian. I believe in the tenets of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe deeply in our freedom of expression, but I am also a lawyer, and I understand that there is a boundary. When speech crosses a high threshold into hate, inciting fear, inciting violence and calling for the death or extermination of our fellow citizens, it is simply wrong.

    Nothing should keep people from being accountable for that type of interpretation and those types of hurtful statements. Everyone is a contributing part of Canadian democracy. We need to uphold it. This is what these laws seek to protect.

     Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, and I will not take any lessons from the Liberals on safeguarding the Jewish community.

     I am also tired of the other side accusing the Conservatives of slowing this down.

     I would like to ask the member a very clear question. Last Tuesday, the justice committee was ready to sit and listen with respect to bail or to Bill C-9, and the Liberals cancelled the meeting. This morning, after I woke up, I was sipping on my cup of coffee and getting ready for Bill C-9 tonight, when I learned that the justice committee meeting tonight had been cancelled by the Liberal chair.

    If the Liberals are so determined to move forward with this terrible piece of legislation, why did they cancel tonight's justice committee meeting? I would like an answer, please.

    Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Conservative bench to stand up and vote in favour of this bill, because I have yet to see evidence that they would support this bill and protect Canadians from hate and intimidation. In the two years since October 7, I have yet to hear a Conservative stand up in favour of safe access zones, for example, in municipalities across this country.

     We know exactly where the Conservatives stand. We have heard their debates on this bill in Parliament and at committee. Canadians should know they are all talk when it comes to supporting communities and protecting them from hate. They will not put their votes behind supporting this legislation because they are divided as a caucus on the very measures this bill seeks to promote: protecting Canadians from hate and placing legitimate, lawful boundaries on hate speech.

     Mr. Speaker, I do want to pick up on the issue of hate speech, which is very real. The member made reference to several examples of it. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the legislation is not going to be able to pass, because of Conservative obstruction. I am wondering if she could once again provide her thoughts in regard to the sadness surrounding the legislation's not being—

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

     Mr. Speaker, I too have had the experience of working during COVID, when there were protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. As a government, we took the same steps. We protected doctors and nurses doing their jobs. We protected Canadians wanting to get vaccines. The same things are happening in Canada today; we need to protect places of worship, community centres and other places where communities gather, because the same fear and intimidation are—

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North.

    Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of my constituents of Bowmanville—Oshawa North to oppose Bill C-9 and to support efforts to further scrutinize and study the legislation.

    I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

    There are many problems with Bill C-9 and the Liberal attempt to amend Bill C-9 to criminalize the reading and sharing of Bible verses in this country. We oppose this for many reasons, but I do want to draw attention to an area that has not gotten enough attention: the efforts of the Liberal Party to enact a form of cultural imperialism on Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country.

    I want to share an academic definition of “cultural imperialism” because I am sure many members of the House probably are not used to hearing that term to describe what the Liberal Party is attempting to do to citizens of our country. This definition comes from EBSCO, a research database. Published in 2024, the definition reads:

    I share this definition to provide some context for what I believe the Liberal Party is doing right now. It has been in power for over a decade and has tried its very best to exercise influence over every institution in this country. It has abused the power of the federal government to impose its values, beliefs and practices on as many institutions in our country as it possibly can. Today we see evidence of that through Bill C-9 and the Liberal effort to amend Bill C-9, an effort to exercise that cultural imperialism over churches, mosques and synagogues.

    I have provided an academic definition of cultural imperialism, but I would also like to provide a pop culture reference. In the hit song from last year, Kendrick Lamar's Not Like Us, Lamar uses some language to describe colonial thinking, in his diss track to Drake. He says:

    

     That is precisely what the Liberal Party is attempting to do to Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country. Liberals are not treating the diverse communities of our country with any degree of respect. They are not treating them like colleagues, listening to them, working with them and respecting their traditions and faiths. Instead they are behaving like colonizers, attempting to abuse state power to exercise undue influence by attempting to criminalize things that families in this country have believed in since the very founding of this nation by the English and the French.

    The Liberals will make, of course, as they have made throughout this morning and afternoon, efforts to characterize our concerns over the legislation as theatrics, but I bring it back to the actual language used by the now Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who was promoted by the Prime Minister after he made the following comments. As chair of the justice committee, on October 30, he said that three books of the Bible, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, are hateful.

    The minister used the language of hate to describe verses in the Bible that people have prayed over, read to their children and shared in communities all across this country for a very long time. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal Party pretends, and I emphasize “pretends”, to care about, enshrines the right to religious freedom precisely as a sign of respect for the fact that there are things the government should not have its fingerprints on.

    The government should not make its way into churches, mosques and synagogues in an effort to bring Liberal values, nor use the criminal justice system to enforce Liberal values on the private religious lives of Canadian citizens, but that is precisely what a colonizer would do. That is precisely what a cultural imperialist would do. They would look at churches, mosques and synagogues and ask how the federal government can make its way in there. It is wrong, it is unethical and it is against the traditions of this country. It is an insult to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    One thing I have observed in the relatively short time I have been a member of Parliament is that the Liberal Party does something that I do not know what to name; perhaps it is mind games or false presentation. It is making an effort to convince Christians, Muslims and Jews of various cultural backgrounds that they respect them. The Liberals make an effort to show they want to hear them and welcome them into Canadian politics.

    I have seen with my own eyes Liberals in the Toronto area running around at cultural events and holidays, eating samosas and jerk chicken and pretending they respect people from diverse community backgrounds. They run around offering people DEI slogans like “Diversity is our strength.” They say all kinds of funny things, like “diversity, vote for me”. I know the kind of attitude they bring around our communities.

     What do they do when they come to Ottawa? They want to culturally imperialize the people of this country and their children. They actually have no respect for diversity at all, and any Christians, Muslims, or Jews whose ancestors come from any part of the world must be able to unite in recognizing that the Liberal Party has no respect for our religions, our traditions or our values. The Liberals believe that the federal government is superior to us, and they believe they have the right to impose their values on our churches, mosques and synagogues.

    When we talk about the language of colonizers and cultural imperialists, we have to recognize that when they attack scripture, when they attack the Bible, when they attack our religions and when they try to justify bringing the criminal justice system into our places of worship, they are trying to strip away the things that make us well-rounded people. To them we are simply economic inputs. We should have no culture. They believe we should have no meaning in our lives.

    They offer us nihilism. They offer us the chance to be a column on a spreadsheet used to calculate GDP. That is all they think of us and of the efforts we make to be well-rounded people, to be part of a community, to believe in something, to have conviction and to be connected to the traditions of our fathers, our mothers, our grandfathers and our grandmothers. They ridicule and they insult. They call it hateful to believe that we come from something.

    However, we stand on the shoulders of giants who sacrificed for us to be here. They sacrificed for us to have the life we have today, and we will not denounce the very people who have made our lives possible. We will not denounce the cultures and traditions they come from. We will not sit here quietly and idly while the Liberal Party seeks to call our ancestors hateful. We will not accept that. We will reject their cultural imperialism. We will call them colonizers when they behave like colonizers.

    In closing, I will suggest that one of the reasons the Liberals denigrate Canadian history, one of the reasons they keep the Canadian flag at half-mast for a year, and one of the reasons they support teaching our children in this country that our country should be ashamed of its own history, is that they are embarrassed by what they see in the mirror. They have not learned the lessons from history, and they repeat the mistakes made in history of colonizing and imperializing over other people.

    Mr. Speaker, where does the member get off thinking he knows the first thing about me? How does he believe he knows what church I was baptized in, what church I visit every Sunday morning, what church my wife and I got married in or what faith my wife and I both practise? The member has no clue, yet he stands up in the House and decides to preach to us about who we are, when he has absolutely no clue.

     Is it even possible, in the member's mind, that perhaps I am deeply faithful to my own religion? I just do not see the need to show that in the House of Commons to everybody else.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know anything about the member for Kingston and the Islands other than what he shows me when I show up to work. What I see when I show up to work is a man with no respect for Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country and a man who supports efforts by the Liberal Party to colonize and imperialize people—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands is a Christian himself and to make the type of allegation that the member just made, I believe he owes—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I will ask the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North to please quiet down.

     Could the member for Winnipeg North quickly get to the point of his intervention, please?

     Mr. Speaker, I know the government House whip as a Christian, and it is distasteful for the member to say what he just put on the record. We would ask that he withdraw the comments and apologize.

    An hon. member: Zero chance.

    Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Then he should leave the chamber.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     Order. I will stand here all day until the House comes back to order.

    I will review what was said on the tapes. I will take a look at the blues and come back to the House if necessary.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    An hon. member: He should not have the right to speak.

    An hon. member: Censorship, it is Liberal censorship.

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. I will invite the member to please not take the floor when he has not been recognized by the Chair.

     The hon. chief government whip is rising on the same point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what was said about me, because I will leave it to the member to do the respectful thing and apologize, the member just yelled out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are participating in Liberal censorship. He owes an apology to the House, to you personally and to the seat that you occupy.

    I did not hear that comment, but I do appreciate—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): The hon. member for Drummond is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, much has been said about decorum in the House. How many warnings do you have to give, how many times do you have to yell “order” before you dish out consequences? It is starting to get embarrassing, quite frankly.

    Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing some order and for enforcing your authority in the House.

    I thank the hon. member for his comment.

    We are now on questions and comments, and I am hoping we can get through the next three and a half minutes without further interruptions and interjections. I will just ask all members to please have some respect. This is a place of debate. This is a place where we should have vigorous debates, but when comments go beyond the debate and get into the questioning of the motivations or the character of individual members, that is where things go too far. I am going to ask members to have some respect for the offices that we hold on behalf of the Canadians who sent us here from coast to coast.

    Mr. Speaker, I think Quebeckers who are watching what is happening here must be finding it a bit surreal. Everyone is missing the point.

    Let us take a good look at the Bloc Québécois's proposal concerning the religious exemption. The Criminal Code says that it is against the law to promote hatred, to incite hatred. Unfortunately, there is a small paragraph that provides an exemption when a religious text is involved. The bill simply removes this religious exemption. Nobody is attacking any religion.

    My colleague says that this proposal is steeped in imperialism and colonialism. I would say that 75% of Quebeckers are in favour of this proposal. Moreover, all 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion in favour of this proposal.

    Is my colleague saying that 75% of Quebeckers and 100% of the members of the Quebec National Assembly are imperialists and colonialists?

    Mr. Speaker, I talked about Liberal colonizers and Liberal imperialists, just to clarify the record.

    To my colleague from Quebec, what I would say is that the Bloc Québécois has represented their efforts here in this chamber as pushing back on the encroachment of the federal government. In this situation, with Bill C-9 and the amendment, the Bloc Québécois is actually asking the federal government to have more power over the lives of Quebeckers and all Canadian citizens.

    I would think that would be an area where the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives would agree: no abuse of federal state power.

    Mr. Speaker, on the Bill of Rights, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker said, “I am...free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I [believe is] right, free to oppose what I believe wrong”. Those are the foundations our country was built on, which are the same values the Liberal government is attacking. It is attacking faith all across the spectrum: Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and Christians. Why is the government prioritizing putting away pastors for preaching the Bible as opposed to putting away repeat violent offenders?

    The member travels quite a bit across the country, meeting with folks from all walks of life. What is he hearing from different faith leaders across our country?

    Mr. Speaker, what is uniting faith leaders and faith communities across Canada is concern that we have a Liberal federal government right now that does not understand the boundaries over its own power.

    Instead of being humble enough to recognize that people who are sick or struggling in communities across our nation rely on churches, mosques and synagogues as a source of support and strength, the Liberal government instead looks at these institutions and wonders how it can exercise more state power over every function of our lives and communities. It is wrong, and it must be opposed.

     Mr. Speaker, what are the Liberals doing? To those at home who still do not understand what is happening vis-à-vis this bill, let me provide them with a quick summary. It is going to be a professional summary.

    The first thing the Liberals are doing is lowering the threshold for the definition of hatred. The Supreme Court has articulated the test for hatred in a case called Keegstra, 35 years ago. It was a good working definition. Now they are lowering the threshold to make it easier to convict for hate speech.

    Second, the Liberals are eliminating the requirement prescribed in the Criminal Code for the Attorney General's consent in order to commence hate-related prosecutions. Of course, we have articulated a number of concerns with that. We could have private prosecutions that would be instituted by vexatious litigants potentially putting free speech at risk, especially with a lower threshold.

     Further, the Liberals are creating a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence. What is interesting about that offence is that it does not just pertain solely to criminal conduct. Specifically, the language in the section provides that the stand-alone hatred offence can be predicated on any offence contrary to any federal statute. Therefore, one may have an offence under the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Elections Act, and if a prosecutor, perhaps a politically motivated prosecutor, believes it may have been motivated by hatred, then one could be subject to criminal prosecution for what is otherwise civil behaviour.

    The Liberals take credit for and suggest that the new intimidation and access to facilities offence changes things. At the justice committee, we had an unbiased professional witness, Mark Sandler, one of the most celebrated criminal defence attorneys in this country, who was invited both by me and the Liberals. He said that the new access and intimidation offence does not do anything that is not already criminal under the Criminal Code. It is criminal to intimidate folks trying to enter their place of worship or school. It is criminal, certainly, to behave in a threatening fashion.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Roman Baber: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind their heckles. I welcome their heckles.

     The Liberals did not have the courage to show up at the justice committee today. They cancelled the committee that was to consider the bill clause by clause. They are afraid because they know the bill is going nowhere and that it is a terrible bill. Therefore, we should be travelling across the country, from coast to coast to coast, so that Canadians can learn what a terrible piece of legislation this is.

    Almost every witness we heard from at the justice committee said that the Liberals missed the point and that what they should have done is criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. That is what we are seeing on Canada's streets. During the previous Conservative government, we had a law that criminalized the glorification of terrorism, but Justin Trudeau and his minions, in 2017, repealed Bill C-51. Instead, what we have going on right now is folks in my riding dressing like Yahya Sinwar, the worst murderer of Jews since the Holocaust, who is being glorified and celebrated.

    This is why I am proud that just a few weeks ago, I brought my first private member's bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity, terrorist groups or any activity of a terrorist group, and I challenge the Liberals. If they actually want to do something about this, if they want to do something about what is happening on Canada's streets, what is happening in my riding, which is one of the most Jewish ridings in the country, they should pass my PMB, Bill C-257, and criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity or terrorist groups.

     I would like to take a pause for a minute and speak a bit from the heart. I am joined here by my friend from Saskatchewan. I had a couple of friends over for refreshments at my home last week. My friend asked me if I could talk to him about what it was like in the U.S.S.R. I was born and lived in the Soviet Union until I was almost nine. If I could capture it in one word, it would be fear. As an eight-year-old, one has enough intellectual presence to understand when one's family is afraid.

    I first realized that I was of the Jewish faith when I was four or five. It was on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. I walked into my grandparents' bedroom, as I was raised by my grandparents, and I saw my grandpa reading a Siddur, a Jewish prayer book. This would have been in 1984 or 1985. Even then, despite Gorbachev's glasnost and, arguably, perestroika, if a Soviet resident was found with a Jewish prayer book, they could potentially be looking at a labour camp for three to five years. That was one of my first memories. I have asked my dad about it subsequently. He said it was unbelievable that my grandpa had that book.

    I cannot believe that I am sitting in the House right now after hearing the member, who is the Canadian identity and culture minister, essentially suggest that reciting parts of the Bible could somehow be criminalized, almost like a strict liability offence. I cannot fathom that. It is as if we were back in the U.S.S.R., just like the Beatles song.

    One of the worst things this bill would do, in addition to now supposedly looking to eliminate the religious defence, is that it would lower the threshold for what is hate speech.

    I had a considerable discussion with my friend about it the other week, about how we were taught that we should avoid certain topics. Certain topics were taboo. We were not allowed to discuss the west. We were not allowed to use the word “America”. We were not allowed to use the word “Israel”. We were not allowed to point out that there is no bread, jeans or eggs in the store. That was because the only religion allowed was Communism.

    When my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North talks about Liberal colonialism, that is exactly what it is. It is Liberal dictatorship of our freedom of thought. There are no other thoughts allowed, other than Liberal thought. Someone should be ashamed. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues. There should be shame no more.

    We know that we are on the right side of this one and so do the Liberals. That is why, this morning, contrary to the suggestion that they wanted to move this bill forward, they cancelled today's justice committee meeting. I was prepared to show up tonight. We were all prepared to show up at 3:30 to discuss, clause by clause, this bill, but they locked us out.

     Why are the Liberals saying they are bringing this religious exemption? This is very important. Supposedly, according to the Bloc, it was because of a guy named Adil Charkaoui, who, on October 28, 2024, in an Arabic speech to protesters in Montreal, denounced Zionist aggressors and called on Allah to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza, to spare none of them. The Bloc is suggesting that it is because of a religious exemption that Adil Charkaoui was not charged. That is not true at all.

     First of all, we are talking about incitement to violence. If members read paragraph 319(3)(b), it only applies to the government. As to the second section, which is the wilful promotion of hatred in 319, it does not apply to 319(1), so I reject that argument just on legal grounds, to begin with.

    Second of all, the section is very clear. In order for a person to avail themself of the defence, the religious speech has to be in good faith. That means that a person cannot wish for the extermination of peoples. If they are wishing for the extermination of peoples, it is no longer in good faith and the defence does not apply.

    Finally, as if we do not read the news, the Quebec prosecutorial service came out on this in May of 2025 and explained what transpired. The reason they did not proceed against Charkaoui is not because of a religious defence, but because they said that he did not call for violence against an identifiable group of people. The enemies of Allah, according to the Quebec prosecutors, was not a defined group they could latch onto the incitement to violence provision and charge.

     This is a farce. I do not know why we are here. We could be debating bail right now. We have Bill C-14, a very weak attempt to reform bail and sentencing that is presently before the justice committee. Last Tuesday, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of a filibuster. Tonight, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of somehow sabotaging this.

    Let us get together tonight. Let us reopen the committee and hear about bail. Let us get some work done. Toronto is turning into Gotham City, yet these Liberals have no shame. Now reality has caught up to them.

     Canadians across the country understand that this is a terrible bill. I implore the government to withdraw it. Let us go back to the drawing board. Do not do me any favours. I represent one of the largest Jewish constituencies in the country. This bill does nothing to protect them.

    Mr. Speaker, the amount of misinformation and misleading information pumped out through social media and emails by the Conservative Party really does a disservice to all Canadians.

    The member spoke about the committee. Now, the Conservative Party wants to use tax dollars to tour the country to spread even more misinformation. It is truly amazing. As opposed to dealing with hate messaging and the hate being experienced by many Canadians, the Conservatives are obstructing the legislation and want taxpayers to pay for a tour of more misinformation.

    Instead of exploiting Canadians, why do the Conservatives not allow the legislation to pass?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has no regard for taxpayer money. The budget that was just passed proposed a $78-billion deficit, so they should not lecture me about taxpayer dollars.

    What these Liberals are now trying to do is shield this bill from clear sight by all Canadians who now understand that this is beyond Liberal platitudes. This is not about hate. This is not about defending the Jewish community. There are ample examples of how we can defend the Jewish community. They should set the right tone and have the Attorney General write to the provincial attorney generals and the police forces to say we have laws on the books called incitement to violence and to enforce them. The misinformation is coming from that side of the aisle, and—

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. At least he is clear, straightforward and honest, unlike the Liberals. He says what he thinks. He debates. The Bloc Québécois is the same. I think that the objective behind our proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code is straightforward, honest and clear.

    As we have seen, the Liberals do not want to work. They are making sure that there will be no committee meeting, and I think that their caucus is bickering a little. Once again, the Liberals are not being very clear. That being said, let us come back to what my colleague said.

    Quebeckers who are watching this debate in the House are having a hard time understanding why Conservative members are missing the point. We are not attacking any religion. I have met with people from the Jewish community. Some people from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs support the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Irwin Cotler does.

    All we want is to remove a religious exemption from the Criminal Code, nothing more. No religion is under attack. Does my colleague get that?

    Mr. Speaker, for my friend from the Bloc, the defence is this:

     The section itself arises out of section 2 of the charter. It is not only an extension of it; it is effectively part and parcel of it. I have not seen a situation where this has been used to defend against the type of speech our Bloc friends are concerned about. This simply has not happened. Adil called for the killing of people is incitement to violence. No one has ever suggested that he hid behind paragraph 319(3)(b). It just has not happened, so—

     Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thornhill.

    Mr. Speaker, for the better part of two years, in that member's riding, there has been a lawless mob that has functioned with complete impunity through the streets calling for the genocide of its own citizens. There have been gunshots into a school and firebombings into businesses. We do not have a law problem in this country. We have an enforcement problem and a government that stands at its pedestal to pour fuel on the fire of that enforcement problem.

    Rather than it focusing on enforcement, why does the member think the government is bringing in a bill that is going to be weaponized against the very community it purports to protect?

    Mr. Speaker, it is conformity of thought. It is like my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North. There is either Liberal think or no think.

    Like I said, in the Soviet Union, the only religion allowed was communism, which is why the holding of a religious text would have been punishable by labour camp.

    The Bais Chaya Mushka school for girls in my riding has been shot at three times. When we first came to Canada 30 years ago, we came to the intersection of Sheppard and Bathurst, and now, at that very intersection, every Sunday, a group of mass thugs come to incite violence against the Jews.

    We do not need this legislation. We need to enforce existing legislation on incitement to violence and assault.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate, which the Conservatives tossed onto the floor at the last minute. It is an attempt to do what I have become witness to the Conservatives doing for the better part of 10 years now, which is to obstruct and prevent government business from occurring. They look for opportunities to participate in preventing the government from doing anything. The member before me said he was going to speak professionally about everything and talk about the politics of this. I am just going to lay out what has occurred to this point, so the public can be the judge of whether what is going on is suspicious or not.

    Bill C-9 was formally passed by the House at second reading and went to committee. There were three meetings at committee. There was over eight hours of meetings with witnesses where all political parties, the government, the opposition and the Bloc, were able to ask questions. What happens after that, typically, is that we would go into clause by clause. This would have been an opportunity for members to start looking at the actual bill with the perspective of what they had learned through their deliberations with the witnesses over eight hours and three meetings.

    The chair of the committee said that he would like everybody to submit their amendments to the bill, and everybody had until November 24 to submit their amendments. The amendments, by nature of the way that our committees work, are submitted in confidence and kept in camera until the committee reports out. If I were to move an amendment at committee, nobody would know about it. If it were an amendment that did not make it through to the bill, in theory, nobody would ever find out about it because it all happens behind closed doors in camera. November 24 was the deadline.

    By November 24, when the amendments were distributed to all members on the committee, the Conservatives would have become aware of the amendment that was put forward by the Bloc. Three days later, on November 27, the committee met again. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South decided he needed to filibuster the whole committee. The only new information that member would have had between the preceding meeting and the meeting on November 27 would have been all of the amendments that had been put forward by the members of the committee.

    That is how we get to where we are now. The committee had this filibuster instead of clause by clause. The committee had listened to 23 witnesses, which would have been 33 witnesses if there had they had not filibustered. The minister even attended and answered questions directly. Then we get to this point. Now I hope the public understands.

    The bill went through second reading here. The bill went to committee. The bill was studied for over three meetings and had over eight hours' worth of witnesses. The minister appeared. The request went out for amendments. Everybody submitted their amendments to the committee.

    After all that happened, suddenly and out of nowhere, the Conservatives showed up today, during Routine Proceedings, to say they would like to ask the House for permission to tour the country to get feedback on this bill. The ship has long sailed on feedback. The committee, the pre-committee and the subcommittee would have met to determine what the goals were in studying this bill. The committee members would then have had opportunities, before the witnesses even showed up, to say that they thought the committee needed to take this on the road to go to visit various communities throughout the country.

    The committee members could have asked any of the witnesses, or the minister for that matter, if it would be helpful for the committee to tour the country to ask about this. Do members think any of that happened? It did not happen once. The only time the Conservatives suddenly demanded to now delay the committee and clause by clause to go tour the country came after they became aware of the amendment put forward by the Bloc.

    The question is why.

    What I said was all completely objective. It is all information that happened. It just occurred. Now I will share my opinion as to why the Conservatives are suddenly trying to put the brakes on this. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me brought this up too. She made a very good point. She said they are divided.

    Some hon. members: No, we are not.

    Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, now they are yelling that they are not. Maybe they will allow me to table some social media posts from their members that have contradicting views on that. I bet they will not do that. Just like earlier, when this started, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked if they wanted to work until midnight. They jumped up and they said that they did want to work until midnight. One of the members said, “Right on.” Then, within 20 seconds, the exact same parliamentary secretary stood up and asked for unanimous consent to move a motion that we stay until midnight for the rest of the session. All it takes to defeat unanimous consent is for one person to yell out no, and they all did.

    That is what happened in the House. It is theatre to them. They do not understand what their role is in the House. They think their role is to obstruct and to stop, at every possible opportunity, anything that the government does. That is not their role. Their role is to encourage people to make better legislation.

     I gave a speech on this once not that long ago. At the end of my speech, in the last three or four minutes, I talked about how these Conservatives are nothing like Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, and they are nothing like Brian Mulroney. I laid it out there and told them what I thought of them. What showed up in my constituency office two days later? It was a portrait of Brian Mulroney. It was signed, “Mark, keep giving those speeches—Brian.”

     This is not the Conservative Party that existed when our parents were heavily involved in politics. This is an extension that is much further right than the Reform Party, and Canadians do not need to look at much more than what we have heard in the House today to support that. This is the reality of what we are dealing with.

    We do not have a Progressive Conservative or even just a Conservative Party anymore that genuinely believes in Canadians and wants to make this place better. We have a bunch of MPs that have come here under the blue colour and the Conservative name and logo, and all they want to do is obstruct all day long. They want the government to accomplish absolutely nothing on behalf of Canadians. In reality, their job is to try to make the lives of Canadians better by challenging the government and by suggesting things that could be done differently to make the circumstances for Canadians better. They are not doing that.

     Moments ago, I talked about the divide between the Conservatives. I would like to point that out, and I will not even bother to try to table these because I know I will never get unanimous consent. However, the reality is that the member for York Centre, who spoke before me—

    An hon. member: It was a great speech.

    Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, that member should ask the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South if he thinks the same thing. The member for York Centre was basically saying that this bill does not go far enough. If we look at his private member's bill, we can see why. He is calling for even tougher penalties and restrictions in there. Then we have the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South calling this bill a censorship bill. That is the problem.

     The parliamentary secretary said it earlier. She said there is a divide, and there really is a divide. It is maybe not among the members who happen to be sitting in this room right now, but there is a divide within that party on this issue. It is the only thing that explains why Conservatives refuse to let this go to clause by clause and to play out like every other bill does. It is the only thing that explains it.

    To conclude, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North made a comment earlier about my faith. He made a comment about Liberals writ large. He made a comment about the Liberals' approach to religious freedom and those who practice that freedom. That member knows nothing about me. That member does not know where I was baptized, and he does not know what school I attended. He knows nothing about where I was married or the advice that I seek from time to time from my pastor. He knows nothing about that. He knows nothing about the school that my children go to and the religious teachings they receive there.

     Do members know why he knows nothing about that? It is because it is my choice. It is my faith. I keep my faith to myself, because it guides me personally. I do not bring it in here and weaponize it like Conservatives do and like that member does when he does his “Restore the North” tour, going around the country, trying to stoke fear and division amongst community members because he knows he will be successful at it and he can continue to grow that alt-right base that we see on the other side of the aisle. That is the reality.

    I have no interest in coming into this place and divulging to everybody here what my religious beliefs are or how I practice faith, because our system is designed to specifically not allow that to be part of the debate in here, regardless of the fact that the Conservatives routinely try to bring it up.

    Mr. Speaker, I found most of that member's speech totally unnecessary. I will explain it very succinctly. Conservatives are here to oppose bad laws. Bill C-9 has become a bad law because of this bad amendment that the Liberals have agreed to, clandestinely with the Bloc, as reported by the National Post.

    When the former chair of the justice committee said that he thinks some religious texts are hateful and should be banned, we found that appalling. We thought he was on his way out. He has since been elevated to cabinet, and apparently it is now the position of the government and the Prime Minister that some religious texts are hateful and need to be banned in Canada.

    I have a very simple question for this member: Who was the Prime Minister when the religious exemption was put into section 319?

    Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member found nothing in my speech to be of use to him, but I would be lying if I suggested that I thought anything otherwise when I was giving it. I was trying to inform the public to perhaps give people a better understanding and view of what is going on, what has happened and how we ended up here today.

     For that member to say that his job and the Conservatives' job is to oppose legislation, he does not have the benefit of those of us who have been here for many years and who have seen this over and over again, such as their getting up and calling people a “trust fund baby”, as the Conservatives did to refer to the previous prime minister, and giving out personal attacks over and over. The Conservatives have never actually offered anything of substance. They do not offer anything of substance, and as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader said earlier, one would think they would have learned something after the last election. Canadians actually want substance; they do not want what this party has been offering for 10 years.

    Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the government stepping up, telling us what it really thinks and taking action. I do not think that is too much to ask.

    The government is delaying meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that it can take action. It is procrastinating and bowing to pressure from religious lobbies. It does not know what to do; there is infighting within the caucus.

    What kind of mess is Canada in? Religions are controlling democracy. What kind of world are we living in? The matter has been settled in Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously agreed that hate speech must be regulated and cannot benefit from the exemption that currently exists in the Criminal Code. That is quite clear. In fact, 75% of Quebeckers agree on this point.

    What we want to know from the member for Kingston and the Islands and his government is whether they support the motion that they said they would support, or whether they are going to chicken out and back down.

    Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I take issue with there.

    If the member had listened to what I said, he would have heard me talk about the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South filibustering the committee to prevent it from going. We were in clause-by-clause. The Conservatives come in here and start this charade at the very last minute to try to delay the fact that they inevitably have to come to a conclusion on this, and they are going to have to vote on it. Some of them will be voting different ways, and they do not know how that is going to play out in their party. That is what they are afraid of.

    Also, for the member to say that religion is influencing our politics, I can tell him that my religion does not influence my politics. My religion is a faith that I practice with the guidance of my pastor and in the confidence of myself, my wife and my family. It has nothing to do with this place.

     Mr. Speaker, I wanted my colleague to expand upon an idea. If we have a flashback to the election just a number of months ago, the Prime Minister and Liberal candidates across the country made a commitment to bail reform, which was supported by provinces, law enforcement officers and Canadians as a whole. Today we have bail reform legislation. The only thing preventing it from becoming law is the Conservative Party of Canada, just like the hate legislation, which is supported by many.

    Can my colleague provide his thoughts on how Canadians are the victims of Conservative self-serving interests?

    Mr. Speaker, this is what I was talking about earlier. The Conservatives just obstruct. They are so afraid because a law being called for by so many throughout this country might actually get passed, and it might be a win for the government. That is all they are afraid of.

     We do not take the same approach. A perfect example is yesterday when the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola had a private member's bill. We thought it was a good bill. We stood up and voted for it. Our objective here is not to oppose everything that Conservatives bring forward. That is why that bill passed unanimously in the House yesterday, because we all stood up one by one for a Conservative bill. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola can take the win. I do not care. It makes better policy and better laws for this country, and we are a better Canada as a result of it.

    This all goes back to what I said earlier, which is that Conservatives are only here to obstruct. They do not care if the bill is called for by the police. They are mocking me now as I say this. All they care about is that we do not get anything done so they can say that the government could not do anything.

    Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we put forward a motion to travel and discuss Bill C-9. At the heart of the request to travel is the agreement between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois on paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which provides an exemption, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.

    My question to the member is very simple: Does he believe that Bill C-9 will be strengthened by the elimination of this clause from the Criminal Code, or will it be weakened, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, the member was going on a few minutes ago about how he wanted to stay here until midnight. When the parliamentary secretary said that he had an idea and asked if we should stay here every day until midnight to get work done for Canadians, the member jumped out of his seat and said, “yeah”—

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It was a very clear question. He is asking for a yes or no answer. Will the member simply answer the question?

    That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. We have lots of time for questions and comments. Let us stay on track.

    The hon. chief government whip.

    Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I got caught up in demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Conservatives, but I could not believe that the member stood up to ask me a question after what I witnessed earlier when he was so much in favour, while heckling, of staying until midnight to get this done, and then he—

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is indicating something I did, in fact, not do in the chamber. Let the record stand that I did not speak up when—

    A point of order has to be related to the Standing Orders or the usual practices of the House. We are into a matter—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. We are into a matter of debate here.

    The chief government whip has about 10 seconds if he wishes to finish his answer. He is finished.

    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Mr. Speaker, members of the Liberal caucus came here today in anticipation of debating the budget implementation bill. We are concerned about the issues that Canadians are concerned about. It deals with issues like, for example, the tax break for 22 million Canadians and the many ways in which the government is supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada.

    I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts as to why it is that we are not debating the budget today, but rather the Conservative agenda.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I invite members who do not have the floor to please not talk.

    The hon. chief government whip.

    I wish I had an answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, but, unfortunately I have spent 10 years here listening to Conservatives, day after day, just going on and on, trying to obstruct, and moving concurrence motions. We have not even gotten to the point in Routine Proceedings where a concurrence motion can be put forward. I am sure they will do that, too.

    I will go back to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I had only 10 seconds left. The reality is—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, do they want to hear my answer or not? Of course they do not. They are yelling “time”. Which is it?

    Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to overstate how disappointed people would feel if they heard what is being said here.

    Quebec has already had this debate. The National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. Seventy-five per cent of Quebeckers support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. People would be disheartened to see what is going on.

    Does my colleague agree that it is outrageous for the committee not to be sitting today, or for us not to be able to work on this issue to get this bill passed?

    Once and for all, we have to realize the importance and reasonableness of removing this exemption.

    Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree about the obstruction that is going on. I have seen it from Conservatives for 10 years.

    The reality is that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford asked why the issue cannot just come back and why we cannot travel on it. The reality is that it should have been brought up when they started discussing the bill, not when they were in the clause-by-clause phase. It leaves people to wonder why the Conservatives are doing this, and I will leave it to the Canadian public to figure that out.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the chamber today to address Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

    The bill matters; it is an important bill. Canadians deserve clarity, fairness and honesty from their government. Conservatives believe deeply in protecting every Canadian from hate, intimidation and violence. We stand against hate crimes in every form. We stand with the communities that feel threatened. We also stand for the fundamental freedoms that define this country.

    Canada is a plural society. People of every faith, every culture and every tradition live side by side. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and indigenous spiritual communities all contribute. Everyone belongs, and everyone deserves safety. We believe that every Canadian should feel safe walking into a temple, a gurdwara, a church, a mosque or any other cultural or religious centre. Canadians deserve the freedom to pray, celebrate and gather without fear.

    Religious freedom is essential; it is not secondary. It is a core Canadian value. It is protected by the charter, and it must never be undermined by vague or politically motivated legislation.

    However, protecting freedom requires responsible drafting, and responsible drafting requires clarity. Bill C-9 unfortunately does not provide that clarity. The bill would expand definitions of hate propaganda, without precise thresholds or constitutional safeguards. Experts raised concerns. Legal scholars raised concerns. Law enforcement raised concerns. The National Post reported extensively on these flaws, highlighting how language risks selective enforcement, how investigators lack operational guidance and how Canadians risk being silenced rather than protected.

    When the country's major newspapers and legal experts sound alarms, any responsible government would pause and fix the issues, but the government did not. Instead it pushed ahead, prioritizing political messaging over legislative quality. It rejected Conservative amendments. It ignored community advice. It disregarded charter warnings.

    When the government proposes amendments to the Criminal Code on something as sensitive as hate propaganda and hate crimes, the language must be exact. The law must be carefully crafted to target the people who promote violence and genuine hatred, while shielding Canadians from the risk of being criminalized for expressing opinions, beliefs, criticism, satire or religious teachings that are part of legitimate democratic discourse.

    Then the Liberals tried to block scrutiny where Canadians expect accountability most: at the justice committee. Liberals filibustered. They obstructed meaningful debate. They prevented witnesses from fully presenting concerns. They treated legitimate questions as inconveniences. Incredibly, they disrupted the committee process to such an extent that the committee clerk informed members that today's meeting has been cancelled because the government simply refused to let the work continue.

    Canadians deserve better than a government that filibusters its own bill and grinds committee work to a halt. What kind of confidence can Canadians have in the law when the government is afraid of its own committee hearings?

    Canada's strength is its pluralism, not in slogans but in real, lived experience in neighbours of different faiths supporting each other, in families practising different traditions under the same roof, and in communities celebrating their culture without fear. Pluralism requires trust, and trust requires laws that are fair, clear and constitutional. Bill C-9 would threaten that trust, because vague laws do not protect our society; they weaken it.

    When religious groups, cultural organizations or ordinary Canadians wonder if their speech or practices could be misinterpreted, fear begins to replace confidence, and when confidence erodes, the foundation of a pluralistic society cracks.

    Conservatives support protecting places of worship: temples, gurdwaras, churches, mosques, synagogues, and cultural centres, every sacred space. We support the right to worship freely and without intimidation. We support strong penalties for hate-motivated attacks, but we also support laws that work. Communities want real protection. They want scrutiny and resources, not flowery commitments. They want policing tools, not political theatre. They want faster responses, not confusing legislation.

     Instead of developing a precise, enforceable, community-informed framework that strengthens prevention, enhances police capabilities and sharply targets people who spread real hatred and violence, the government drafted a bill so broad, so unclear and so poorly defended that experts, communities and law enforcement alike cannot confidently explain how it would be applied. This is not good governance. This is not how we protect religious freedom. This is not how we protect or support a pluralistic society.

    Conservatives will always stand against hate, but we will also always stand up for the charter. We will defend due process, we will defend clear constitutional law and we will defend the right of every Canadian to worship freely, speak freely and live without fear.

     Bill C-9 would not meet these standards. It would fail to give police clear tools. It would fail to deliver confidence to religious communities. It would fail to reflect the society we are proud to be. It fails the test of transparency, especially when the government cancels committee meetings rather than face scrutiny. Canada deserves laws that work. Our society deserves what is real. Every Canadian who values both safety and freedom deserves better. Parliament deserves legislation that respects rights, freedom and common sense.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passion about Bill C-9.

    When we serve on committee, we are doing really important work for Canadians. That is currently where the legislation is: in committee, where we work on and review legislation. Conservatives are working in committee right now to protect the religious freedoms of Canadians. On this side of the House, that is what we are trying to do.

    Can my colleague please explain how the Liberals are blocking the work we are trying to complete in committee?

     Mr. Speaker, I too am a member of the justice committee, and I can tell the House that for days and weeks the Liberals have filibustered the committee. They are not letting us conclude what Canadian expects us to. Even in the last 24 hours, one of the Liberal members of Parliament stood in the House and claimed we are not moving justice forward but are blocking it, but today we received a message that the justice committee meeting had been cancelled.

    The Liberals are not working effectively. They are not working in collaboration. We have to put forward the policies that will help Canadians in the coming future.

    Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. We are always forgotten, but we are part of the House, unfortunately for the other two recognized parties.

    I just want to understand. I have been here since this morning, and there is something I really do not understand. Quebeckers are watching everything that is going on right now and finding it completely surreal. The Bloc Québécois's proposal is not complicated: take the Criminal Code and remove the exemption that allows hate to be promoted under the guise of religion, even if it is done in good faith.

    Since the beginning of the day, there have been big speeches about religious freedom. That is not what the Bloc Québécois is attacking. I would just like to understand. Is my colleague fighting to allow people to promote hatred under the guise of religion? Is that what the Conservatives have been fighting for in the House all day?

     Mr. Speaker, the fundamental, basic difference among the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc is that we want to work together but the Liberals are not willing to collaborate with us in making things happen in the country. They always politicize things when there are commitments on security, crime or any other issues that are important for Canadians.

    I would say that we have to enforce the law as it exists.

    Mr. Speaker, as we move into the holiday season, I rise today to honour one of the greatest women I know: my mother, Leslie Jean Anderson.

     Jean gave birth to and raised seven children. She made every meal from scratch and built our home on a foundation of devotion and generosity.

    Like so many women across the country, she is one of our country's unsung heroes. Women take care of their families without pay, often without rest. They invest almost everything—their time, their energy and their hearts—in their families and their communities.

    This holiday season, let us recognize these extraordinary women, our mothers, for what they truly are: nation builders.

    I wish everyone, especially mothers, in Prescott—Russell—Cumberland and across Canada a very happy holiday season.

    Happy holidays, everyone.

    Mr. Speaker,

    

    Mr. Speaker, I count it as a great honour to speak today.

    On December 1, we marked the 20th anniversary of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. This historic treaty among the Nunatsiavut Government, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stands as a powerful example of reconciliation. It formally recognizes that the Inuit have lived on and stewarded the lands of northern Labrador since time immemorial.

    This agreement did not come easily. I reflect today on the many Labrador Inuit who, over decades, fought tirelessly to have their rights recognized by the federal and provincial governments. I wish to acknowledge the trail-blazing leaders whose vision, resilience and determination made this treaty possible.

     We honour the enduring relationship between Canada and the Inuit of Labrador. Today and every day, we recognize our shared history and reaffirm our commitment to building a future together, one that respects Inuit rights.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank some people who mean a great deal to me. We know that our role as members of Parliament would not be the same without our teams, and mine is no exception. Annie Francoeur, who has worked with me for more than 12 years, is not just my right hand; she is both my hands. She is continuing to rest after our accident in October. We miss her very much and we wish her a speedy recovery.

    There is also Denise, who gives a warm welcome to residents in my riding when they visit my constituency office in Rivière-du-Loup. Annie Boutin in Montmagny is equally appreciated for the outstanding job she does. An skilfully manages our communications. We are also lucky to have Shane, our amazing intern, who always gives 110%, and last but not least, Lauriane, whose cheerfulness and efficiency help me to do an even more professional job here in Ottawa.

    I am spoiled to have such wonderful support. I wish to thank the members of my team for their passion and their dedication to the people of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my whole team and everyone across my riding a very happy holiday season.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate to live in a community that comes together to support those most in need. For the 17th year in a row, I am proud to partner with 'Twas the Bite Before Christmas and my annual holiday turkey drive. Over these years, working together, we have raised more than $1.2 million to support food banks in Mississauga.

     We are once again raising money to provide turkey dinners for families throughout this holiday season. I am grateful for the generous support of my neighbours and volunteers, and I appreciate the continued spirit of giving. The 'Twas the Bite Before Christmas campaign and the holiday turkey drive go a long way toward fighting despair and feeding hope.

     I wish everyone peace, joy and good health.

    Mr. Speaker, the civil war in Sudan has been devastating, and Canadians have been shocked to learn that weapons made in this country have been used in the conflict by the RSF, the same organization responsible for genocide. This is not the first time a diversion has put weapons in the hands of genocidal actors. Canadian-made weapons have also been used by Russia against Ukraine.

    At a time when our allies are rearming, there is no excuse for allowing Canadian weapons to go to hostile regimes and militias responsible for genocide. The world must work to end the devastating war in Sudan, in particular by stopping the flow of arms to the combatants. The Prime Minister's trip to the U.A.E. could have focused more on that and less on advancing Brookfield's corporate interests.

    The Liberals are doubling down on a foreign policy of personal selfishness, autocrat idealization and administrative incompetence, instead of on one that upholds our values and our security interests. The people of Sudan deserve freedom, democracy and civilian administration. They have shown a will to fight for these things themselves. It should not be much to ask for Canada to stop arming their oppressors.

     Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, I have helped develop processes to deal with aboriginal rights and title honourably on the part of the Crown and first nations, respectively. It took years of trial and error, but it is what enabled projects like LNG Canada to be approved and bring peace to the forests in B.C.

    Today, the Liberal government is disregarding and frustrating what was already a good process that met the needs of first nations and non-first nations alike. Offering to do consultations by Zoom is demeaning to first nations. The idea that the Liberal government will start consultations once an application is made is an insult. It ignores all the best practices already laid out in other projects. Consultations should have started eight months ago.

    The flip-flopping of statements to first nations is not honourable. The messaging to first nations from the Liberal government changes every day and is confusing to Canadians, who deserve leadership in the face of U.S. tariffs.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to flag some disconcerting data regarding HIV/AIDS with my colleagues. The goal of ending AIDS as an epidemic globally by 2030 has gone off track. In poor nations, it is now increasing, partly due to U.S. funding cuts.

    What is alarming is the 35% rise in new cases in Canada this year, especially in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and among first nations. This is the result of poor tracking, cuts in funding for prevention and treatment, and the myth that HIV is no longer a problem.

    Antiretroviral therapy combined with pre-exposure prophylaxis is a successful, made-in-Canada solution, but we need to move it forward. It was tried in B.C. with no new cases for decades. We need to introduce it now in provincial formularies and in the national pharmacare program. We will see an end to the AIDS epidemic by 2030 if we do that.

    Mr. Speaker, the cold weather is returning, and lights are starting to sprout again in the trees. It can mean only one thing: The holiday season is back. Also back for its 25th year is the media food drive's traditional street corner collection day. This marks 25 years of generous support for families who need a little help to have a merry Christmas.

    On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I encourage everyone who is able to help to give generously, by donating either food items or some money. Media personalities are out accepting donations all across Quebec today, but for anyone who is not able to go and meet them in person, donations can be made online until December 31.

    Thank you to the media for a quarter century of support. Thank you to all Quebeckers who participate. Thank you to our Bloc Québécois riding teams who have taken part in this initiative in many regions of the province.

    I closing, I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy holiday season.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to Corine Beltrami, president of Événements citoyens, who put her heart into organizing the seventh edition of the event Terrebonne en portrait.

    This magical and deeply compassionate event focuses on families that are struggling with various challenges. Through the hard work of more than 71 volunteers, countless photographers and costumed characters, a makeup artist and designer, and, of course, the Star Fairy, Santa Claus and his elf, 61 families had an amazing experience and left with portraits imbued with magic and community.

    I want to congratulate Ms. Beltrami and her dedicated team on the tremendous success of this seventh edition of the event Terrebonne en portrait. Their generosity and creativity shine a light on the community and remind us of the power of sharing.

    Mr. Speaker, eight months ago the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge him by their experience at the grocery store. Today's food price report confirms that groceries keep getting more expensive. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the weekly grocery bill was $159. Today it has more than doubled to $338, over $17,000 a year, and next year families will pay an additional $1,000, which will be the largest increase ever recorded.

    For rural Canadians, these costs hit especially hard. Many travel farther to shop and have fewer options. Farmers are struggling with soaring input costs, higher debt, and policies that make it more expensive to grow and transport food. Instead of cutting spending and axing hidden taxes that drive up prices, the government keeps raising them.

    Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, especially around Christmas. It is time to lower costs and make food more affordable again, especially for people in our rural communities.

     Mr. Speaker, our new government has taken immediate action to improve public safety, to stop crime and to hold criminals responsible. We have added much stricter penalties for gun crime, gang crime and violent crime. We are strengthening bail to ensure that criminals are not released from jail. We are strengthening anti-hate laws to protect vulnerable populations from targeted harassment. We are protecting women from violence and exploitation. We are giving police the modern tools they need to infiltrate criminal networks, to investigate, and to stop crimes before they happen.

    This was done in close collaboration with police chiefs, frontline officers, legal experts, community partners and victims' organizations to prevent crime, to hold criminals responsible and to keep our communities safe. However, progress on these important public safety measures is being delayed by partisan Conservative obstruction. Public safety is not a partisan issue. Canadians deserve action, not political stunts, so let us work together to keep Canadians safe.

     Mr. Speaker, it is always a good day to be Brookfield under the Liberal government. Why is that? Canadians for Tax Fairness called Brookfield Canada's “runaway leader” in tax avoidance, and estimated it has skipped out on paying $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes. It is clear that when the Prime Minister was running Brookfield, he would rather dodge its tax bill than contribute to Canada.

    Canadians deserve one set of rules for everyone; instead we get special carve-outs for Brookfield and for the Prime Minister. The Conflict of Interest Act is clear that a public office holder must not involve themselves in any matter where they could benefit, yet a Brookfield executive told the committee the Prime Minister's ethics screen is basically an open window.

    This is all while Canadians are facing record-high food prices just in time for Christmas dinner. Young Canadians are told to make more sacrifices, yet the Prime Minister is doubling our deficit.

    When will the Prime Minister stop acting like a greasy banker who puts his own personal interest in Brookfield ahead of everyday Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today, during my maternity leave, to mark the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.

    I stand here holding my daughter, Matina, in my arms. As I look at her, I think about the future I want for her.

    I am talking about a future where every woman and every girl can love, can dream and can walk alone freely without fear, a future where existence itself is never a risk.

    On the status of women committee, we heard about the changes needed to the justice system. We heard from countless witnesses about the urgent need for prevention, awareness and better support for women. We must strengthen protection for victims and survivors and ensure that there are real consequences for abusers and for perpetrators of violence.

    I will continue to prioritize these issues, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in government to make our country safer for women and girls.

    Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians' grocery bills look less like a Christmas list and more like Clark Griswold's electricity bill.

    The Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the costs at the grocery store. Well, eight months later we are feeling even more uncertainty and facing even higher grocery bills. Today's food price report shows that grocery prices are still climbing, and it is only getting worse. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the average weekly grocery bill for a family was $159. Today it has doubled, totalling over $17,500 each year. Now Canadians are being warned to brace for another $1,000 next year just to feed their family.

    Instead of gifting Canadians a Griswold-style Christmas bonus full of empty promises and hollow announcements, the Prime Minister should give Canadians real relief this holiday season by removing unjustified hidden taxes on food and ensuring that moms and dads can feed their families this—

    The hon. member for Winnipeg West.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the progress our government is making in expanding dental care across our country, especially in Manitoba. The Canadian dental care plan now covers nearly six million Canadians. In Manitoba, over 150,000 residents are enrolled, and more than 85,000 have already received care.

    To build on this progress, our federal government is investing over $35 million, through the oral health access fund, in 30 projects nationwide to strengthen training, support outreach and reduce barriers to care. Nearly $6 million will go toward four initiatives at the University of Manitoba, including clinical internships, training modules, support for low-income patients, and stronger ties with local community organizations.

    These initiatives show the power of community collaboration and are helping more Manitobans access the dental care they need, close to home.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have nutritious, affordable, excellent food. Unfortunately, that is not what they are getting after 10 years of Liberal government. Let us look at the current facts. The annual food price report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $17,600 in 2026, an increase of $995. That is double what it was the year the Liberals took power.

    Will the Prime Minister finally abolish the taxes and inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of food?

    Mr. Speaker, first, industrial carbon pricing does not apply to farmers. The member is talking about imaginary taxes that have no impact on the price of food. However, if the member wants to talk about the report that came out today, I can tell him that it says that climate change will have a major impact on the cost of food.

    I would like to know if the opposition leader is prepared to fight against climate change, because he has no plan. He is fighting against Canada instead of fighting against climate change.

    Mr. Speaker, let us look at weekly grocery bills. According to data from the report released today, in 2015, the year the Liberals took office, the average Canadian family was spending $163 a week on groceries. Next year, it will be double that: $340.

    The cost of government has driven up the cost of groceries. When will the government axe these taxes?

    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about imaginary taxes, yet he consistently votes against the school food program, the Canada child benefit, dental care and pharmacare. These are measures that help people in need in Canada. We are the ones proposing them, and he is the one opposing them.

    Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians deserve affordable, nutritious and delicious food: meat and potatoes on the dinner table every single night.

    However, after a decade of the Liberal government, the cost of groceries has literally doubled. Today the food price report shows that Canadians will spend $17,600 to feed a family of four next year, double what it was when the Liberals took office, and $995 more than the preceding year, after the Prime Minister promised to be judged by the prices at the grocery store.

     Will the Prime Minister reverse his inflationary taxes on food?

     Mr. Speaker, that is another example of the opposition's using a report without actually taking the time to read it.

    In fact, the price of beef, one of the prices that is going up most dramatically, is directly linked to climate change. In fact, the report says challenges persisted for producers throughout the year in western Canada as they experienced a drought and as input costs like feed rose.

    We are focused on how to help Canadians. That is why today I was with the Ontario government, signing the child care agreement that will save families $10,400 a year.

    Mr. Speaker, this is the point in any Liberal term when the Liberals go from making promises to making excuses.

     The Prime Minister promised that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Let us look at those prices on a weekly basis. Today's report gives out data that shows that when the Liberals took office in 2015, it was $163 a week to afford groceries for a family of four. Now it is $340, literally double.

     Liberal taxes for farmers, fertilizers, food processors and packaging have all driven up the cost of food. Will the Liberals reverse their taxes on groceries?

    Mr. Speaker, instead of focusing on imaginary taxes, we are working to control the things we can, which is putting more money in the pockets of Canadians.

     That is how we help Canadians with affordability challenges. We make sure they have the money so they can adjust to whatever happens in the market. One would think Conservatives would understand market pressures. It is clear they do not.

    Today we signed with Ontario an extension of the early learning and child care program. It is $10,400 per family, on average. Does the member know how many weeks of food that is? It is at least 63—

    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

    Mr. Speaker, children cannot eat agreements or photo ops or promises. If any of these costly promises the Liberals were making were actually real, then we would not have seen the number of kids relying on food banks double to 700,000 kids in the last five years. Today, a report from Dalhousie proves that the weekly grocery bill of a family of four has doubled to $340 a week. That is the result.

    Will they finally reverse the Liberal taxes that are driving up food?

    Mr. Speaker, time and time again, the members opposite say no to supporting Canadians. We have a Canada child benefit that supports young families. It is indexed to inflation. It is not taxed. It is something that they voted against.

    Time and time again, we will be there to fight for Canadians. If he wants to talk about imaginary taxes, that is only an imaginary argument. We are doing the real work to support families.

    Mr. Speaker, the industrial carbon tax is not only real; it was in the Prime Minister's own budget that he wants to increase it. It is a tax on the steel that goes into farm equipment, the fertilizer that goes into farm fields, the equipment that goes into food processors. Then there is the tax on food packaging. By banning plastics, they are making food go bad earlier and costing an extra $1 billion, all of which is passed on. Finally, a $78-billion deficit is inflating the cost of everything.

    Instead of doubling the cost of food, why will they not scrap the taxes on groceries?

    Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Leader of the Opposition has not read the report because, in fact, the report predicts that inflation is actually going to stabilize and go down.

    Here is what we are doing on this side. We are putting money in the pockets of Canadians, whether it is through the Canada child benefit, which, by the way, is indexed to inflation and that they voted against, whether it is affordable child care for families with growing children, which is helping them save money for a down payment on a house, which they say is a goal they have but they voted against, or whether it is for school food programs for those families that need an extra hand.

    We are here for Canadians in good times and bad. It is pretty clear where they stand. It is for themselves.

    Mr. Speaker, we thought that the Liberals had finally agreed to repeal the exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to incite hatred under the guise of religion, but today we are learning that nothing could be further from the truth.

    Just as we began debating the Bloc Québécois's amendment to repeal the religious exemption, the Liberals said that they wanted to cancel all meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice until 2026. They are obviously afraid to adopt the Bloc Québécois's amendment. They are obviously capitulating to religious lobbies.

    Will they come to their senses and do away with the religious exemption, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, we are ready to do the work. In fact, we started clause-by-clause consideration last Tuesday, and we will continue to work hard on this file.

    Mr. Speaker, religion should never serve as an excuse to commit crimes, including incitement of hatred. The National Assembly is demanding an end to the religious exemption that allows this abuse. However, the Liberals are still ignoring the will of Quebeckers and bowing to the will of a handful of dogmatic religious leaders. Tolerating this kind of discourse is not respecting freedom of religion or freedom of expression. It is not keeping an open mind toward diversity; it is being cowardly in the face of violence.

    Will the Liberals come to their senses?

    Mr. Speaker, speaking of freedom, I have a question to ask that is very relevant given today's news inside the Bloc Québécois. Their leader in Quebec raised this issue.

    Does he think that Quebec artists lack loyalty to the Quebec nation?

    I want him to answer the question with a yes or no.

    Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Conservatives would side with extremist preachers, since they are the official party of the religious right, but it is appalling to see the Liberals abandon Quebeckers, Canadians, and their fundamental principles. I am talking about principles such as equality before the law when it comes to crime, equality between men and women, the rights of sexual minorities, upholding social peace, and so on. On all of these issues, they are bowing down to the various religious right-wing groups.

    Will they stand up, come to their senses and immediately convene the Standing Committee on Justice so that we can finally abolish the religious exemption defence?

    Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois members want to create a diversion. I would nevertheless like to remind them that we have invested historic sums in culture, not for the sake of artists' loyalty, but rather so that artists can be loyal to themselves and their artistic expression. For the leader of the Bloc Québécois to claim that Canada's investments in culture could neutralize our artists shows what little regard, even contempt, he has for our artists in Quebec.

    My message to them is that neither the leader of the Bloc Québécois nor the leader at their headquarters in Quebec City has the right to judge other Quebeckers on their loyalty to Quebec.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the price of food at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in and the Liberals have failed. Canada's food price guide said Canadians will spend $1,000 more on groceries next year, the highest increase in years. When the Liberals took office, the average weekly food bill was about $160. In a decade, it has more than doubled to $340 a week.

    Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promises to Canadians and increasing taxes on farmers, on food and on fuel?

     Mr. Speaker, we have done more for affordability in six months than that leader and that party have done in 20 years. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We have cut the tax for first-time homebuyers. We have cut the consumer carbon tax. We have automatic federal benefits and the school food program. The list goes on and on, and the Conservatives opposed it all.

     With that leader, it is the same old tired rhetoric again and again. On this side, we are getting things done for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians will have a very different point of view. They know that these food price increases, as is in this report, are a direct result of the Liberals' industrial carbon tax, fuel tax and inflationary spending. The Prime Minister himself said that he should be judged by the price of food. By his own metrics, he has failed. When the Liberals came to office, the annual food budget was about $8,300 a year. In a decade, it has doubled to $17,500 a year.

    Will the Prime Minister get rid of his taxes on food, so Canadians can afford a Christmas dinner?

    Mr. Speaker, that member, that leader and his party need to look in the mirror. The Conservatives have voted against every affordability measure we have brought forth. Let us talk about automatic federal benefits for 5.5 million Canadians, getting benefits to those who need it the most. Did they support it? No, of course they did not support it. They have not supported one affordability measure we have put forth since we have come into government. It is time for them to look in the mirror, get real and support our programs.

     Mr. Speaker, where is the beef? That is what Canadians are asking as food prices keep rising. The Prime Minister told Canadians that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store, yet 86% of Canadians say they are cutting back on meat because they simply cannot afford it. The Liberals' industrial carbon tax and inflationary deficits are driving up the prices Canadians pay at the checkout line.

    Why is the Liberal government making it even harder for people to afford food?

    Mr. Speaker, there are no taxes on food.

     Look, food is too expensive. That is a fact, but I have some other facts for the member. One, the number one driver of food cost inflation is climate change, something those Conservatives will never say. Two, industrial carbon pricing applies to goods sold on international markets, and it is not passed on to consumers. Three, industrial carbon systems impact household expenses by 0%.

     Here are some ideas for ways that Conservatives can actually help Canadians: Vote in favour of dental care, vote in favour of national school food programs, vote in favour of affordable housing or vote in favour of $10-a-day child care that we just signed with Ontario. Try to help a Canadian for once.

    Mr. Speaker, that answer was all bun, no patty. The member said nothing of substance to Canadians who cannot afford groceries. Because of Liberal policies, next year a family of four can expect to pay nearly $1,000 more for food. Food prices could rise 6% next year, with meat expected to see the biggest price hike.

     The Liberals are refusing to act to lower food costs. The beef is already gone, so what does that minister think Canadians should cut back on next?

    Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for that member. I have been to his riding and I know the farmers in his riding very well. They know that industrial carbon pricing does not affect the cost of food in Canada. He should spend more time talking to those farmers.

    However, if he wants something to put on his hot dog, here are four things: dental care for Canadians, $10-a-day child care for young kids or a national school food program to feed the kids in his riding. Affordable housing goes great on a hot dog. Put that on your hamburger.

    Again, comments should go through the Chair.

    The hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Canadians are now paying 112% more for food than when the Liberals took office and groceries are consuming a bigger share of every family's budget. Even basic centre-aisle staples, such as coffee and baby formula, are skyrocketing. Canada's food price report confirms that next year, Canadians will pay an extra $1,000 on groceries.

    When will these Liberals finally stop their inflationary spending, scrap the industrial carbon tax and let Canadians afford groceries again?

    Mr. Speaker, instead of repeating the same canned lines, I would ask the member from Newfoundland and Labrador, a Conservative member, to think about what she voted against: $10-a-day child care; food for kids in schools, something that her colleague called garbage; dental care; and the family benefit, which 46,000 families in my riding take advantage of.

     I ask her to start to work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

    Mr. Speaker, a local single mom of three reached out to me today in complete desperation. She is working hard, doing everything right, yet a series of setbacks has pushed her to the brink. She is falling behind on the basics. Now she is trying to figure out how to give her kids Christmas, while food inflation makes the essentials feel out of reach. Families should not have to choose between groceries and giving their children a holiday.

     When will the Prime Minister finally take this seriously and make life affordable for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

    Mr. Speaker, I would say to the mom in the member's riding to please ask her member to vote for child care, dental care and the school nutrition program, where a family of two can save $800 a year, and to support the inflation-indexed Canada child benefit, as 46,000 families need that support, along with housing supports. I could go on and on. These are tangible affordability measures. I will never politicize the struggles of moms in my province.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Under his watch, the weekly grocery bill has doubled and the food price report of 2026 says it will get even worse. Families in my community cannot even afford a healthy meal, not even a modest Italian dish like pasta e fagioli, yet the government keeps stirring the pot with higher spending, the industrial carbon tax and the new fuel tax.

    What is the matter for you?

    Everything is quite all right.

    Questions and comments should go through the Chair. I know it does not pack the same punch, but members should speak through the Chair.

     The hon. Secretary of State for Seniors.

     Mr. Speaker, those Conservatives clearly can talk until the cows come home, but they are all hat and no cattle. When their own platform had nothing in it for food affordability, did they vote to put money in the jeans of Canadians? No. Did they vote for the national school food program? No. Did they vote for old age security? No. Did they vote for the Canada child care benefit? No. Did they vote for the disability benefit? No.

    There we have it.

    Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada is reporting that the “no” side is getting organized. Indeed, the Liberals are wondering how to handle a potential third referendum.

    I have some ideas for them. They can start by not doing the following: betraying Quebeckers by abandoning climate action, threatening a province with pipelines, dismissing all of Quebec's demands in the budget and turning the Quebec Liberal Party into a federal farm team.

    Before they even start coming up with arguments for the “no” side, did the Liberals, these world champions, think that maybe they should stop giving us reasons to vote “yes”?