Helena Konanz
Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition brought forward by a passionate group of residents in my community who remain deeply concerned that our laws continue to fail to safeguard the victims of intimate partner violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, we need to hear from the chair of the health committee as to why he cancelled tomorrow's meeting. Hundreds of millions of health care dollars remain unaccounted for in the $300‑million PrescribeIT scandal. Why? It is because Liberal MPs keep turning off the cameras at the health committee.”
“These are the national figures, but I would like to take a moment to focus on how these national trends are causing real tension in communities like mine in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.”
“Promises to build quickly and build big to fortify the Canadian economy, through measures like the major projects act, a bill that I voted for, have not come to pass. Canada has neither designated nor started a single major economic project to fast-track a year after we passed that legislation.”
“The Liberal government has overseen the worst rise in food bank use in a generation, surpassing levels during the 2008 financial crisis and the height of COVID-19, and rural Canada is really suffering.”
“She showed that promises to reduce government spending are not reflected in rising personal costs, which will also increase by billions of dollars over the next several years. She showed that the government's revenue forecasts will fall short because of expected weaker wages and slower salary growth in a worsening economy.”
The complete record
Every one of 431 lines we hold for Helena Konanz, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“There is no other country where my colleagues and I would rather live, work or start a business than in Canada. I know that. However, Parliament should not be a place where we sugar-coat uncomfortable facts or try to drive reality away with rhetoric. As a former small business owner, I was horrified to see the CFIB's most recent report. Fifty-five per cent of small business operators would not recommend starting a small business. According to that report, Canada is “in an entrepreneurial drought”. Since 2024, more people have been shutting down small businesses than starting them. We all need to buy more locally, but we also need the economic conditions for local businesses to thrive. Canada is losing economic potential in industries of the future, such as AI, robotics and fintech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the state of our Canadian economy. Let me first state that the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians will never dim. As someone who came to Canada to help build businesses, I know how thriving an economy this country can have. In 2014, newspapers around the world declared that the middle class in Canada had surpassed that of the United States. Fast-forward to today and the median household income in Canada is thousands of dollars less in real dollars than in the United States. Even the poorest American states, like Alabama, now have a higher GDP than our richest provinces. Among Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S., the Liberal government now oversees the highest household debt, the most unaffordable housing and the highest food price inflation in the entire G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is very concerning when a bill such as this one comes forward and there is so much dissent against it, yet government representatives, MPs, are wondering why we are bringing forward concerns. That is definitely why we are here. Again, there have been first nations and Métis governments raising concerns, including the Dakota nation, arguing that a failure to consult violates constitutional duties. Treaty 5 nations object, and some first nations say that the MMF participation in government oversteps jurisdiction. I could keep reading the list, but basically I want to ask this of my fellow MP: What needs to change? It seems as though a lot needs to change. What should we be worrying about when there is so much dissent against the bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are so lucky in the House to have my colleague's expertise. There are a lot of people watching from across the country who may not quite understand, because the bill is very complicated. If he were to choose one thing in the bill that we should be focusing on that concerns him, could he mention what it is and what needs to change before we would be supportive of the bill?”
“Sometimes the career college that happens to be down the street from one's house or nearby is really the only opportunity people have to further their education and then be able to put food on the table for their family. This is not a fun choice. This limits upward mobility and access to opportunity. I discourage this policy.”
“Cutting grants for this particular segment of people who want to be able to further their education would obviously discourage enrolment, reduce the number of graduates and worsen the workforce gaps that we talk about every day in the House. As for affordability, many students rely on these grants to afford career college programs. Many people understand that this is not a choice between going to a public school and going to a career college. It is not a choice. Many people do not have transportation, particularly in rural communities. We do not have a SkyTrain that we can take to a bigger city like Kelowna. We do not have mass transit.”
“We have some of the best institutions in the world, but when people live in smaller communities, rural communities, such as Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, public colleges and universities are quite a drive away and not accessible to everyone. They do not offer some of the very important programs that are needed. I will give an example: dentistry or dental hygienists. Right now, I would like to go see the dentist myself and go see the hygienist, but it is a six- to eight-month wait in all of the dentists' offices in and around where I live. If we go to even more rural communities in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, it will be an even longer wait. That is just one example of what is happening. Career colleges play a key role in rapid workforce training.”
“I know that when my kids decided to go to school, I wanted them to be able to decide for themselves where they were going. As an institution, we are really promoting all types of education so that we have well-rounded communities in Canada. With this policy, students are penalized for choosing hands-on, employment-based education. It is agreed on this side of the House, and I am sure that everybody in the House actually agrees with this, that many of the programs that are essential to moving forward as an autonomous country are only offered in career colleges. Public colleges are great, obviously.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to continue this discussion in the House, a very important discussion for all of Canada, in particular for people living in rural communities. What we are talking about is the Liberal government's changes in budget 2025, which unfairly exclude career college students from federal grants. This obviously undermines affordability and Canada's workforce needs. It also undermines skills training, which everybody in the House is talking about every day, and which we are going to need if we are going to build the housing and the infrastructure that our country needs imminently. What this policy does is create two classes of students, based solely on where they actually study. It should not be up to us in the House to decide who gives a better education or what education anybody should have in the first place.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's discussion on this very important issue. What does she think about the fact that in rural communities like Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay there are hardly any choices for people to further their education? This will further limit the choices that my constituents have.”
“Mr. Speaker, this policy creates two classes of students based solely on where they study. In rural ridings like Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, we do not have many choices for education. Why does my colleague think the Liberals are trying to limit education, especially in small communities?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech really got to the heart of the problem with the policy. In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a mainly rural riding, a career college is one of the only choices for many fields. For some reason, the Liberals have decided to attack rural Canada. There are many people who will not be able to get an education if they cannot afford their college education at a career college. What does my colleague think is the reason the Liberals are so determined to limit what people in small-town Canada are able to do to further their education?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her really interesting speech that hit home. She mentioned this being an attack on rural Canada. Public universities and colleges are not located in small towns, but the private schools, private colleges and career colleges are filling that gap. We want our young people and older people to be able to work and go to school in their communities. For example, there is a lack of dental hygienists. I cannot see a dental hygienist for six to eight months in the interior of B.C. where I live because of a lack of hygienists. Can my colleague explain how this affects rural Canada more than any other place?”
“If this legislation provided a path forward to remove unnecessary taxes, fees and red tape that push up domestic food costs, I have no doubt this House would swiftly support it, but relying on reporting mechanisms is not the guarantee we need to spur real action on food prices. I will continue to follow the debate in this House on Bill C-226 and, should it advance, will look to ensure it is rigorously studied at committee.”
“Lastly, Simon in Castlegar wrote to me saying that breaking down monopolistic entities that have an oversized level of control over the food supply chain might be a better way to reduce the costs. Finding ways to reduce market dominance of the five major grocery chains and spur more competition and smaller-sized operations were also part of the Competition Bureau's report that I mentioned earlier, which the government has still not acted on three years later. As a former small business owner, I always want to see us paving the way for more options for residents to buy healthy, local, affordable food.”
“Norma raises a good point here that, with the costs of groceries certainly impacting young families with many mouths to feed, those on fixed incomes or who live with dietary requirements or limitations on working ability find it equally difficult to ensure an affordable and nutritious meal is something they can put part of a paycheque toward and not a credit card. Dee in Princeton wrote that people should be encouraged to shop at local producers and grow their own food. Having just been to the opening of our farmers' market and to a hunters' fundraiser this past weekend, I could not agree more. Reducing costs for farmers, growers, hunters and anglers to create more local fruits, vegetables, meat and fish is a point raised often on this side of the House and is especially important in rural Canada.”
“All of the Liberal policies I referenced are a necessary added cost to the price on the shelf or in the freezer of the local grocery store. I recently surveyed rural communities across my riding about their experiences with grocery prices. I would like to take an opportunity to bring some of their voices to this debate as well. Norma from Greenwood wrote to me saying that, as a senior with celiac disease, it is ever more expensive for food, and pensions are not keeping pace with the increase in food, gas and power.”
“(1115) Families in my riding understand that global events like COVID, tariffs or the wars in Ukraine, Iran and Iraq can affect food prices, but they see less of the government agricultural red tape, the domestic plastic packaging rules or the domestic fuel standards tax. These are all choices of the government that add unnecessary costs, cent by cent, to a family's grocery bills. Is the Liberal government willing to make it clear how its own policies raise the price of Canadian-made food? Considering this is the Liberal government that championed carbon taxes for years while ignoring the impact on families, I have my doubts. Working to undo these unnecessary taxes, fees and red tape would enable this Parliament to act in ways that let families actually see savings.”
“It is important to note that very few of those recommendations have been enacted, either by the former industry minister who requested that report or by the present industry minister who succeeded him. There is also the fact that the federal government lacks jurisdiction over grocery pricing, which is ultimately the provinces' territory. There is nothing here in this legislation that lends an understanding of how that gap would be bridged. Ultimately, though, if these challenges could be overcome, I would ask how transparent the Liberal government is willing to be about the added costs to grocery pricing.”
“The framework would need to be delivered within 18 months, and it would be followed by an effectiveness report after five years. I believe the member's intention with this system is to create greater transparency in pricing for consumers, which I appreciate, of course, but the creation of a government report is not the enactment of a report or its recommendations. Ultimately, while the minister 's office would be asked to create a report outlining standards, there would be no enforcement mechanism. We have seen in multiple files departmental reports whose recommendations were not followed through by ministers. As just one example, the federal Competition Bureau studied grocery sector concentration and pricing practices three years ago and made several recommendations to improve competition and consumer options.”
“I think all parliamentarians would welcome legislation to tackle grocery prices, but we have to ensure that it actually actually works to stabilize the price of the essentials that all families rely on. Any bill before us should be judged not by its intentions, but by whether it will, in fact, allow families to create an affordable budget to fill the fridge. For those watching at home, this legislation, if enacted, would create the following regulations. It would require the Minister of Industry , in consultation with the provinces, to create a national framework on grocery pricing and unit price display, emphasizing accuracy, usability and accessibility of unit pricing, transparency on price increases and consumer education on unit pricing.”
“The member is bringing forward legislation related to a subject that, no doubt, is raised in his riding as much as it is in mine: grocery prices. Typical for a Liberal bill, this is not going to get the member where he would like to be, which is lowering grocery prices. Grocery prices are one of the biggest topics in my riding. Wherever I go in my region of the country, whether it is Hedley, Naramata, Oliver, Rock Creek, Greenwood, Rossland or Penticton, I hear the same story: “I can't believe how big my grocery bill is.” When I talk with colleagues here in Ottawa, the same story emerges. Whenever someone picks up a carton of milk, a package of beef or a bag of carrots, they cannot believe the sticker price.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-226 , which has been brought forward to this House by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells . Before I begin my speech, I would like to quickly congratulate two of my local hockey teams. The first is the Penticton Vees, which will be advancing to the next round of playoffs in its first year of the WHL. The second is the Princeton Posse, which is currently playing in the championship series and truly defines how small towns make for big hockey. Returning to the legislation at hand, I would like to congratulate the member on bringing forward this legislation. It is an opportunity that not every parliamentarian has so early on in the House. I know, because I am currently working on my own legislation, so I understand the challenge in bringing a bill to fruition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the aisle, who I know cares deeply about this crisis. We all want the same thing. We want to end this crisis or at least make a move towards ending it. Canadians are living the consequences. B.C. is living the consequences of the model of decriminalization that did not work. Hopefully no other province is asked to go through what we have had to go through. The Liberals say this is about helping people, yet when someone is ready for treatment, they are told to wait months or even years. That is not compassion. We now have Canadian evidence showing that when access to these sites is removed, more people actually seek treatment. Why will the government not prioritize recovery instead of defending policies that keep people trapped in addiction?”
“That means the government is not ending addiction but actually feeding into it. Now we have more evidence that calls the Liberal narrative into question. A peer-reviewed Canadian study on the closure of a supervised consumption site in Red Deer found no increase in deaths, no increase in emergency department visits and no increase in opioid-related EMS events after the site closed. In other words, when the site closed, more people actually moved to recovery. That matters because Liberals keep telling Canadians that these sites are the answer, even when the evidence shows that recovery-oriented care delivers better outcomes. Canadians deserve better than this false choice between neglect and normalization. They deserve a government that will invest in treatment, prioritize recovery and restore hope to families who feel abandoned.”
“One of the most troubling realities raised by local health authorities in my riding is what happens when someone is finally ready to seek help. It can take up to two years to get a treatment bed. Imagine someone finding the courage to say, “I need help,” only to be told there is no space, no timely support and no real path forward, but there are more drugs. We also heard serious concerns from witnesses about the Liberal approach to so-called safer supply. The theory is that if government provides cleaner drugs, people will eventually stabilize and then seek treatment. However, the second part of that argument is simply not happening. We do not have the treatment in place. Instead, many of these drugs are diverted, sold and exchanged for substances users actually want.”
“Local governments, first responders and health authorities are left carrying the cost of a federal experiment that never should have been imposed in the first place. We know that when British Columbia sought this decriminalization exemption, no other province followed, not one. No other province came forward to ask to copy this model. That alone should have raised serious questions for the federal government. Instead, the Liberals treated British Columbia like a laboratory experiment. The Liberals say these policies are about compassion. Conservatives believe in compassion too, but compassion means helping people get better. It means treatment. It means recovery. It means giving people a path out of addiction and not trapping them in it.”
“Mr. Speaker, the government promised that its approach to addiction would reduce harm and lead people toward recovery, but the evidence shows that this promise has not been kept. Canadians were told that decriminalization, safer supply and supervised consumption would reduce harm and connect people to treatment. That was the promise. However, the reality on the ground tells a completely different story. At the health committee, witnesses made it clear that overdose rates have not come down in any meaningful way. Communities are still suffering. Families are grieving. First responders are still overwhelmed. In many places, public spaces that should be safe for children and families are now sites of open drug use, chaos and fear. In my riding and across British Columbia, people see this every day.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, the Liberals announced they are adopting a third of our gas relief plan for just a third of the year, but residents in the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay do not just drive for the summer. Our plan would take excise, GST and fuel standard taxes off gas and diesel for the rest of 2026. That would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving $1,200 for a family of four. Will the Liberals end the tax grab and save Canadians 25¢ a litre?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an eloquent speech, but I would like to ask the member, how long does he think it is going to take? How many years is it going to take before he feels we can lose our dependency on fuel? He would like to change things so that we are not dependent on it anymore, and yet it is well known that this could take years. In my riding of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, a lot of people cannot afford electric cars. They need to drive trucks because they work in agriculture or they work in professions where they need a large car, vehicles that are not even available as electric at this point. How many years is it going to take, and how many people are going to have to suffer if we do not take the taxes off fuel?”
“Will the member join me in supporting an all-party, all-regions team Canada approach that could make the case for forestry to the U.S. Congress?”
“Madam Speaker, MOUs will not deliver Canadian natural resources to markets, but pipelines and ports will. However, I want to turn to the forestry sector now. We know that a decade of Liberal ministers negotiating with four presidential administrations has not delivered a softwood lumber agreement, while Prime Minister Harper was able to sign one in mere weeks. New challenges of the second Trump administration therefore demand a new approach. Will the member opposite support my call for a coalition of members of every party representing forestry communities to go to Washington, D.C., together to make the unified case that the tariffs placed on our lumber sector are not only illegal and unjust but also harmful to both our economies?”
“At a time of rising gas prices at home and around the world, we cannot let Canadian energy be left on the shelf. Canadians need relief at the pump, and the world needs Canada. They are banging at our door for our energy. This is why Conservatives call for the immediate introduction and passage of an emergency energy supply plan to accelerate approval of LNG sites through the major project powers and guarantee a maximum six-month approval time for major energy infrastructure projects. We have no time to waste. Middle East energy powers are saying a continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz could see oil prices surging to $150 a barrel and gas prices four times what they were before the conflict. Will the government bring forward and approve our plan to lower costs for Canadians and build energy infrastructure faster?”
“If the Liberals opposite would like to champion the expansion of Trans Mountain, let it not be forgotten that it was a private project that became so entangled in Liberal regulations they had to buy it and build it with public tax dollars at a significant cost overrun. I voted for the Liberals' major projects bills to see energy projects built faster, but after the Prime Minister 's first year in office, they have not approved a single project. One of Canada's largest oil producers, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, recently announced that it is halting expansion plans in Canada. The company cited the industrial carbon tax and federal regulatory barriers as creating an economic burden for a long-term growth investment in energy products.”
“Let us not forget, it is official government policy to increase fuel costs by 13¢ per litre for gasoline and 16¢ per litre for diesel by 2030. No nation with such abundant resources should have to pay so much more for it. Meanwhile, allies seeking Canadian energy have been poorly served by the Liberal government. Big promises now do not disguise its past failure to deliver. Promises to build a pipeline to Pacific tidewater in the future, which is already delayed, may I add, do not disguise the loss of Coastal Gateway, which would have been completed by now had it not been killed on the Liberals' watch. Strong words of support from Quebec Liberal MPs for our energy products today do not disguise the fact that they were the same ones cheering the death of energy east.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to seek answers on the government's natural resources policies. Residents in my community are watching the war in Iran and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which are blamed for the spike in prices at the pump. Just this week, my daughter shared with me that gas prices for her in Vancouver had reached over two dollars per litre. It is not just the Lower Mainland. The average cost of regular gas across Canada reached $1.73 per litre on Tuesday. This is not the fault of the Liberal government, but what is its responsibility is the decade-long failure to provide consistent continental access to our Canadian alternative to a global market, while raising our gas prices at home through the fuel standard tax.”
“Mr. Speaker, finally, I am presenting a petition in which my constituents express a deep concern about the proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy that would decimate regular recreation fishing opportunities for coho and chinook in British Columbia. Constituents are calling upon the ministry of fisheries and oceans to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of the residents of Sage Mesa, in my riding in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, and other communities across my riding and across Canada, who have been on boil water rationing and boil water regulations for many, many years. Access to safe, affordable and clean drinking water should not continue to be an issue in Canada. Therefore, they are asking for immediate partnerships with the provincial and territorial governments to bring an end to boil water advisories across Canada for the delivery of clean drinking water.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am tabling three petitions today on behalf of constituents from Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. The first petition has 1,600 signatures. Residents are asking for the federal government to partner with the province and provide funding for a secondary route from South Okanagan to Kelowna as an alternate to Highway 97. Highway 97 is the only major route between Penticton and Kelowna and has had repeated closures due to landslides, rock falls, accidents, fires and floods, which have caused serious safety risks for residents and visitors who have no alternative route to take to the hospital, schools and jobs. The federal government previously provided funding in partnership with the province to enhance safety trade routes, and the residents are asking for them to build this secondary route.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the aisle for the question he has asked many times today. I would like to ask the member why the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Centre for Free Expression and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East are against this. Many of the member's constituents are against this, I am sure.”
“Again, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question running through everyone's mind. I wonder what the members on the other side of the aisle are thinking. They must be getting the phone calls I am getting. They must be getting the emails, the written letters and the calls from their local faith leaders who are completely against this because, as I mentioned earlier, they are afraid of what they might say in their next sermon or what they might write in the next column for the newspaper. Parents are afraid of what they might discuss with their children. It is baffling why the Liberals would be pushing this through so quickly, and it is actually shameful.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think this is the question running through the mind of just about every MP of the House, on both sides of the aisle, I am sure, because this is attacking religion, freedom of speech and democracy. Right now, people in our communities are afraid to walk down the street. They are afraid to go shopping. There are elderly people afraid of break-ins at their home. That is what we should be focusing on. Why is the government ramming this through? There is no clear explanation.”
“They protect the ability to hold beliefs that may not always be popular. Once the state begins to decide which beliefs are acceptable, those freedoms become conditional. They become dependent on the approval of those in power. That is not what Canadians expect, and that is not the direction we should be heading. I will leave my Liberal colleagues with this: If the law already makes violence illegal, if the law already prohibits incitement and calls for genocide, and if experts have confirmed there is no gap that requires this change, then why is the government so determined to remove a safeguard that protects peaceful, good-faith religious expression? More importantly, why is the government choosing to focus on regulating belief instead of fixing the real problems that Canadians are facing in their communities every single day?”
“Police chiefs have raised concerns. Provinces have raised concerns. Municipalities have raised concerns. Canadians have raised concerns. They are seeing repeat offenders released out onto the streets, sometimes within hours, only to reoffend. That is the reality. That is what people are living with. Instead of prioritizing meaningful reform to address this problem, the government is focused on regulating what Canadians can say and what they can believe. This bill would not make Canadians safer from acts of hate. The bill would shift attention away from the real public safety issues and toward the regulation of speech. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are not optional in a free society. They are foundational. They protect the ability to disagree. They protect the ability to question.”
“In a free society, people should not have to second-guess whether expressing their beliefs would lead to legal consequences. They should not have to weigh their words against the risk of prosecution simply for speaking openly about their faith. This is Canada. Even if prosecutions are rare, the fear alone changes behaviours. It silences people. It discourages open discussion. It weakens the very foundation of a pluralistic society, and that is not something we should take lightly. Again, we have to ask what problem this bill would solve. It certainly is not addressing a gap in the law. Instead, it is removing a protection. At the same time, the government is choosing not to focus on the issues Canadians are actually worried about. Across the country, communities are dealing with the consequences of a broken bail system.”
“They are worried that the law is moving in a direction so that they can no longer speak freely without fear of consequences. When we hear that directly from people affected, it becomes very clear that this bill is not as straightforward as the Liberal government claims. That concern has also been echoed by organizations across the country. There are not many pieces of legislation that would unite the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Centre for Free Expression, and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. From left and right, these organizations agree that we should not proceed with Bill C-9 in its current form.”
“They are the ones who would feel the impact of this change, not the people who seek to sow hate. (1705) I have heard these concerns directly from members of my community. Earlier this year, I met with more than 30 local faith leaders, alongside my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South . He is a member of the justice committee and has studied this bill extensively. No one in that meeting was seeking to promote hate. They only brought forward concerns that this bill creates uncertainty around what they are allowed to say, teach and share with their own religious communities. They wanted me to tell this story to all the MPs in Parliament because they are scared that quoting a religious text could be legally misinterpreted.”
“If those laws are not being enforced, then the issue is not the law but enforcement. However, instead of addressing enforcement, the government is choosing to expand its power over speech. That is a very different conversation, because now we are no longer talking about protecting Canadians from harm. We are talking about regulating what Canadians can say and what they can believe. We are not talking about extremists hiding behind religion to justify harm. This is already illegal, and there are no protections for that under current law. We are talking about ordinary Canadians: pastors delivering sermons, rabbis teaching scripture, imams guiding their communities, parents teaching their children values rooted in their faith and traditions, and educators discussing religious texts in classrooms.”
“It is about whether the government should have the authority to decide which beliefs are acceptable and which are not. We often hear the Liberals point to extreme examples to justify this bill. They talk about hate. They talk about violence. They talk about incitement. However, what they do not say is that all of those things are already illegal. There is no protection in Canadian law for violence. There is no protection for incitement. Experts who testified before the committee confirmed this. Legal experts, witnesses and practitioners all made it clear that the current law for hate crimes already addresses the scenarios the government keeps raising. When these examples are used to justify this bill, they are not identifying a gap. They are describing conduct that is already criminal.”
“It exists to ensure that we strike the right balance between protecting people from harm and preserving the freedoms that define us as a democratic society. Bill C-9 would remove that safeguard. That is where the problem begins, because when that protection is removed, uncertainty is introduced into the law. A situation is created where Canadians could face criminal consequences for expressing sincerely held beliefs grounded in their faith, not because they are promoting violence or because they are attacking an individual, but because those beliefs may be interpreted by the state as crossing a line that this Parliament is choosing to make unclear. That should concern every Canadian, regardless of what they believe or if they do not believe in any religion at all.”