Tamara Kronis
Nanaimo—Ladysmith, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent.”
“In Parliament, members and senators have brought forward several health-related bills on rare disease access, forced and coerced sterilization, heart failure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, food allergies, women's health, brain injuries, ADHD, medical assistance in dying, natural health products, living organ donors, supervised consumpt…”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a variety of arguments from this side of the House as to why cutting debate off on this bill is short-sighted, but perhaps one of the most important reasons is because, as my hon. colleague explained, it does not just cut off debate in the House; it also means this bill will never go to committee.”
“The framework would cover training for health care professionals, a national research network and registry, evidence-based national standards, universal neonatal screening, public awareness, blood donation promotion, analysis of a possible tax credit, inclusion in existing disability benefits, and an analysis of whether treatments should…”
“I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been…”
“We support practical steps that help patients and families, especially when those steps are shaped by evidence and by the people most affected. At the same time, Parliament has a duty to get the details right. As we know, health care delivery is provincial.”
The complete record
Every one of 572 lines we hold for Tamara Kronis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“That is why this issue matters to me, because what is buried in the budget is not just a funding change. It is a signal. It says that some forms of education are more worthy of public support than others. It says that the path through a university lecture hall is valued more than the path through a workshop, a training lab or a hands-on program. That is a mistake. There is an old fable many of us learned as children, the story of the lion and the mouse. The lion, powerful and confident, laughs at the mouse for being small and insignificant. What possible value could something so small have? However, later the lion is caught in a net, and it is the mouse, the one dismissed as unimportant, who gnaws through the ropes and sets the lion free. The lesson is simple: Strength takes many forms, and what some dismiss can turn out to be essential.”
“I am proud to be both a goldsmith and a lawyer, a tradesperson and a professional. I have made my living doing each of them at different stages of my career. Some people would be surprised to learn which was a better way to support my family. The stigma is real. When I introduce myself as a lawyer, people react one way. Yes, there are lawyer jokes, but there is also a measure of respect and deference. When I introduce myself as a goldsmith, as a tradesperson, the reaction changes. I do not need to explain it to the tradespeople watching from home. There is less credibility, as if one path were more serious, more worthy and more important. I have lived in both these worlds. Doors closed to me when I crossed from the class of people who shower in the morning to those who shower when they get home from work.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a small passage buried deep in budget 2025. It sits quietly on page 217. There is no headline, no press conference and no public debate, but for many young Canadians and for communities like mine, it matters a great deal, because in that short passage, the government signals its intent to eliminate student grants for students attending private educational institutions. At first glance it might sound technical, even reasonable, to people who believe that everyone should strive for a university degree, but when we take a closer look, it reveals something much bigger. It reveals how the Liberal government values different kinds of work and whom it chooses to support. Frankly, it reveals a blind spot. I know something about that blind spot.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member says he disagrees with the decision and is appealing, but appeals are not do-overs, as the minister should have been told by her lawyers. The “raise it or lose it” principle is a core feature of how our legal system works. One cannot raise a new argument on appeal if one did not raise it at trial. My dad used to refer to this as the “you snooze, you lose” rule. In Cowichan Tribes, the Liberals instructed government lawyers not to argue that fee simple title supersedes all other kinds. Can the minister explain how the government is going to win an appeal with an argument it is not entitled to make?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is secrecy, uncertainty and anxiety. Between the Cowichan Tribes decision and the Musqueam agreement, the Liberals and NDP have managed to throw private property rights into question for thousands of British Columbians. We need a game plan in this country on how we are going to get from where we are today to reconciliation in an affordable, reasonable manner, but the Cowichan Tribes decision is going to take years to wend its way up to the Supreme Court, while Canadians are left wondering whether their homes are truly theirs. I ask the Prime Minister, what is the plan to restore confidence in fee simple home ownership, and when are we going to have genuine resolution and—”
“Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is coming back to the House on a second attempt to do this shows the contributions that Conservatives in opposition can make to the important work we do in this House. I want to thank the government for listening to the things we raised the first time around. I look forward to working with them in committee to make this bill even stronger.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for the generosity in her comments. It means a lot to me when one of my colleagues from Vancouver Island recognizes the value that other members bring to this House. Like the hon. member, I have also looked for examples. The reality is, at the end of the day, suspecting and believing are two different things. The government is creating yet another change that dilutes rights in a way that is unclear, that the courts will have to grapple with, that will add to litigation, that will add to backlogs and that will add to the incredible weighty amount of legal mumbo-jumbo that exists. I hope the government will think very hard about what we are trying to do here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity yesterday in the justice committee to ask questions about this very topic. It is a good example of how the Liberals give with one hand and take away with the other. It is incredibly important to protect children against predation, online and off-line. I hope that the government will see reason and restore the mandatory minimums for child sexual exploitation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. [ English ] The hon. member has pointed out one of the really difficult issues that we are grappling with, with this government, which is that the Liberals talk, saying things that people want to hear. They talk about making changes that need to be made, but somewhere behind the scenes resources are not following the matter and Canadians are not, in fact, getting what they need. That is one of the main reasons that we really need to think about this. We need to work hard to get this right.”
“If we are not careful, if we do not take the time to examine all the possible angles and unintended consequences of this bill, we risk finding that the balance has shifted against us, not all at once but gradually, in ways that were easy to justify at every stage along the way, but which nonetheless unduly upset the delicate balance between privacy and speedy enforcement. I look forward to continuing the debate and discussion on this important topic.”
“We need to ensure that in trying to solve the problem we are not quietly creating others, because once these powers are granted they are very difficult to take back. That is why we have to get this right, not just for today but for the future, so Canadians can feel both safe and free, not one at the expense of the other. When the camel first asked, it did not ask to take over the whole tent. It did not demand. It asked politely. It asked for something small, something temporary, just enough to take the edge off the cold. That is what makes the lesson here so powerful. The traveller did not make a bad decision out of carelessness, but out of compassion and reasonableness. He thought he was in control of the situation, but step by step, decision by decision, the situation changed until he no longer was.”
“It does not address repeat violent offenders. It does not address gaps in bail or sentencing. It does not solve the broader crisis we are seeing in communities across the country. Therefore, we need to be careful not to overstate what this bill would achieve. Our discussion and our debate today should not be about choosing between safety and freedom. Canadians deserve both. They deserve laws that allow the police to do their job effectively and they deserve to know their rights are protected at the same time. That is the balance we are trying to strike. The current iteration of Bill C-22 is a step in that direction, but is not there yet. We need clearer accountability. We need stronger safeguards.”
“Even if this bill does not explicitly create one, we need to be absolutely certain that it does not create independent pathways that could be abused. Again, secrecy and oversight are an issue. This bill would rely somewhat on secret ministerial orders and delayed notice. In some cases, individuals may not know their data was accessed for years, if at all. Oversight that happens after the fact is simply not enough. If we are expanding powers, the safeguards must be strong, independent and timely. Canadians need to know that there are real checks in place, not just internal reviews behind closed doors. Finally, we need to be honest about the broader picture. This bill addresses some challenges in digital investigations, but it does not address many of the issues Canadians are most concerned about when it comes to crime and public safety.”
“If we are going to impact privacy rights, then we must do it in a targeted, proportionate and justified way that we can explain to the public. Otherwise, we risk casting a wider net than intended, creating all kinds of concerns and worries in our society. I want to move on to system vulnerability. This bill would require service providers to build and maintain systems that allow for lawful access. The intention is understandable, but we have to be realistic about the risks. Creating access mechanisms can create vulnerabilities. We have seen cases in other jurisdictions where systems built for lawful access were later exploited by hackers. Canadians have a simple expectation. They do not want back doors into their private communications.”
“In serious investigations, especially those involving children or violent crime, data can disappear quickly. In some cases, it is gone within 30 days. That makes it harder to hold offenders accountable. Yes, Parliament absolutely needs to address that, but the solution cannot be to collect and retain large amounts of data on everyone, regardless of suspicion, indefinitely. (1045) This bill would allow for the retention of metadata, including information that can reveal locations and patterns of life in some cases when combined with other information but nonetheless in a way that has a lot of people worried. We need to be asking basic but critical questions about this: Who is holding that data, where is it stored, how long is it kept and why do we need to apply this broadly instead of targeting serious offences?”
“Right now, those answers are not as clear as they should be. This bill would lower the threshold in key areas from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. That may sound like a small change in the legalese, but it is not. It is a real shift that would make it easier for the state to access personal information earlier in an investigation and it needs to be studied carefully to ensure that it is absolutely necessary and minimally impairing of rights. When we combine lower thresholds with broader powers, we have to be very careful and ask whether we are gradually moving that camel further and further into the tent. I want to move to data retention. This is something a number of speakers have touched on and it is something I have received a lot of correspondence about from members of my community.”
“To start, I want to talk about accountability. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that our agencies do not systematically track the challenges they face with lawful access. Let us think about that. We are being asked to expand powers in an area where we do not even have consistent data on what is not working today. Where in this bill, then, is the requirement to track those challenges and report them clearly to Parliament? If we do not measure the problem, how can we claim to solve it? We also need to engage with the trust that Canadians have put in us. They are not legal experts. Most Canadians are not reading every clause of this bill, but they still want to feel safe. They want to know who can access their information, under what conditions and with what limits.”
“Modernization should not come and need not come at the cost of accountability, and it cannot come at the cost of the freedoms that Canadians expect us to protect. We have been here before in this parliamentary session. The government tried to legislate for lawful access earlier in this session when Bill C-2 was introduced as a sweeping solution. It was broad, it was rushed and it raised serious concerns across the board. The fact that we are now debating Bill C-22 is, in itself, an acknowledgement that the first attempt missed the mark. This bill is an improvement in many respects. It narrows certain provisions. It introduces some safeguards. However, improvements do not mean that we have it right. There are still real concerns that we need to work through in committee as this bill wends its way through Parliament.”
“That is the caution we should keep in mind as we debate Bill C-22 , because this bill is about expanding the powers of the state into the digital lives of Canadians. While each individual step may seem reasonable on its own, we have to ask ourselves where the path we are taking leads. There is no disagreement in this House about the goal. We all want law enforcement to have the tools they need to go after child predators, organized crime, human traffickers and terrorists. We all recognize that criminals are using modern technology to hide their activities and that the law must keep pace. Conservatives are always open to modernizing the law. The question before us today is not whether to modernize. The question is whether Bill C-22 gets the balance right.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is an old story about a traveller in the desert. Night had fallen and the air had turned bitterly cold. The traveller had just enough space and warmth in the tent to get through the night, but then a camel approached and asked if it could put its nose inside just to stay warm. The traveller agreed. It seemed harmless. However, then the camel asked to bring in its head and then its shoulders, and before long, the entire camel was inside the tent, leaving the traveller out in the cold. It is a simple story, but it carries an important lesson: When we allow something small without thinking through where it could lead, we can often end up somewhere very different from where we intended.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this excellent question. [ English ] It is a difficult thing to see someone we have spoken to and shared lots of good conversations and ideas with decide they are no longer on our team. That said, it is one of the fundamental issues in our democracy today. We are living in a world where people are trying to create a distance that does not always exist. We have a lot in common. We need to work together. We need to have every seat in this House matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, because it highlights where we are heading and what we still need to do. Bill C-25 addresses the issue of the longest ballot in a number of ways. However, the truth is that it does not matter how many spots are on a ballot or how short it is if the people who are casting their vote do not have confidence that the House will respect their choice and enable the member they elect to serve from any seat in the House and provide for their riding in all circumstances. That is where I think we have work to do. I look forward to working with the government to restore that confidence in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I knock on doors and I talk to people in my community, there is a sentiment that generally gets all the heads nodding. It is the idea that Ottawa feels very far away right now from those out on the west coast on Vancouver Island. We feel disconnected in a lot of ways from the black box that happens in Ottawa. There was a point made in committee this morning, which was the idea that civic resilience is something that bridges the distance between the people and government. There is a lesson that comes out of this and I would urge the government, I would urge the House, to make room for those voices and to spend more time explaining to Canadians what we are doing in this place and why. I think that, along with the changes being proposed in Bill C-25 , would go a long way to gaining support.”
“I implore the Prime Minister to recognize these two simple principles: embrace the value of the opposition, especially in this moment, and answer the questions we ask in question period. Stop trying to enchant the brooms and the buckets and be a government that makes space for all Canadians, regardless of the colour of their party banner. If we do that, the best ideas will rise to the top and we will be able to move this country forward. We need the government to work with us to strengthen Bill C-25 in committee. If the government does that, then Bill C-25 might help restore Canadians' faith in our system. It might help bring down the temperature and rebuild trust. However, if it does not, we should not be surprised if the brooms and the buckets keep multiplying and the water keeps rising until the floods are upon us.”
“He has gained access to powerful tools, and I will concede that he has harnessed them effectively to achieve the majority government that he insists will make his work easier. He has enchanted a certain demographic, the media and some floor-crossers to wield brooms, fill buckets and carry water. However, there are lessons to be learned from the sorcerer's apprentice to ensure the water does not turn into a flood and to stem the tide of disappointment that Canadians are expressing about behaviour in this place. Any MP who cannot effectively represent their riding from any seat in this House has no business being here. Any government that requires MPs to cross the floor to provide for their ridings is one that undermines the foundations of democracy and should be summarily dispatched at the ballot box.”
“It is not by protecting them from criticism, but by putting them under pressure and seeing what holds. Former Prime Minister Diefenbaker was known for the sentiment that there is no bad seat in the House of Commons. Every seat in this place carries equal responsibility and legitimacy, regardless of whether its member sits in government or opposition. This week, there is a much-needed reminder that MPs are here to put Canada first, not to seek power for themselves. A government that serves only the ridings it holds weakens the country and undermines our collective purpose. It divides Canadians and pits region against region. A system that discourages questioning weakens its ability to correct itself. In Canada today, a new Prime Minister has arrived on the scene much like the sorcerer's apprentice.”
“It is nation building to stress-test policy proposals in order to find gaps, unintended consequences and missed opportunities. That is how policies are strengthened. That is how we avoid costly mistakes. That is how we move our country forward. The moment that we accept the frame that our society is divided into two enemy camps, one virtuous and one irredeemably wrong, our society loses something that is mission-critical. Probing, questioning and challenging are what a healthy democracy depends on. In moments like this, where we need to find and embrace our best ideas, we should be making more room for opposition and questioning, not less. Canada's success depends on every member of this House being able to serve their constituents fully, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. That is how we truly arrive at the best ideas.”
“If we are, as the Prime Minister has said, living through a moment of rupture, vulnerable to the whims of a hostile America, then this is a time when Canada needs its best ideas to rise to the top. That does not happen by accident. It happens when ideas are tested, challenged and improved upon through open and rigorous debate. An environment where opposition questions are treated as obstruction is not one where strong ideas can emerge. It is one where the weak ideas go untested. When questions are discouraged, when those who ask them are mocked in this chamber, when scrutiny is dismissed, we materially increase the risk of getting it wrong. (1330) It is in the national interest to have an opposition that can ask hard questions.”
“Eventually, they go quiet and stop participating altogether. This is not a problem we can regulate away. It is a problem we have to address through how we conduct ourselves as a democracy. In that context, Bill C-25 does some very valuable tinkering around the edges, but it fails to truly meet the moment that we are in. I have spoken to many of these concerned Canadians. The gap between this Parliament and those agnostics is fundamentally one of trust: trust that decision-makers really see their struggles and understand their hopes and dreams, trust that ministers will do their best to serve Canadians and not enrich themselves along the way. Trust that the person they elected is still who they said they were when they were asking for their vote.”
“They notice when our tax dollars flow east, but do not come back to fund our infrastructure, our hospitals and our communities. With the recent floor crossings, a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are asking me why they should bother voting. When people start questioning whether their vote matters, we should all take notice because that is not frustration with a single policy or a single party. It is indicative of something deeper, a feeling that their voice no longer carries weight, that the outcome is predetermined elsewhere, that our democracy is not quite functioning as it should. It may be a minority of voices at this point, but once that feeling takes hold, it is very difficult to reverse. People do not disengage all at once. They disengage step by step. First, they question. Then, they doubt.”
“If we were in the early stages of the sorcerer's apprentice where the brooms were doing their jobs and the buckets were filling as intended, those changes might be enough to restore Canadians' faith in our institutions, but that is not where we are. In the wake of floor crossings and growing regional alienation, there are concerns about fairness in how resources are distributed and a rising sense that decisions are being made behind closed doors for the personal gain of those doing the deciding. For some Canadians, the brooms are everywhere, the buckets are overflowing, and those Canadians are rapidly losing confidence. In British Columbia, people notice when elections are called before our polls have even closed.”
“We have called for stronger protections against foreign interference, including in leadership and nomination contests. The changes in Bill C-25 start to address the concerns that we have raised around foreign money influencing Canadian elections, and we support these changes. There are a few amendments we think would be prudent: Ballot boxes should be securely stored when polling stations are closed, under triple lock and key. The scope of the expanded offence of making false statements about the results of an election could be clearer. The financial penalties proposed in the bill could be higher.”
“Mr. Speaker, the sorcerer's apprentice scene from Fantasia is my mother's favourite. The apprentice arrives, gains access to powerful tools and tries to harness them to make his work easier. He enchants a broom to carry water. At first, it works. The buckets fill and the work is done for him. Then it does not stop. The water keeps pouring. He tries to fix it, but he cannot undo the spell. In panic, he chops the broom in two, only to create more brooms, more buckets and more water. What began as a clever solution quickly becomes something he cannot control and the room begins to flood. I have been thinking about that story as we debate Bill C-25 because there are parts in this bill that respond to the concerns I hear in my communities. Conservatives have long called for measures to deter abuses like the longest ballot campaigns.”
“Mr. Speaker, today's announcement amounts to approximately four cents on the price of diesel. Diesel runs the trucks that deliver food everywhere. Diesel runs just about everything on Canadian farms and helps get food and other goods to communities like mine. Given the magnitude of the windfall that the government is experiencing as a result of the increase in revenues that come from gas taxes under the current circumstances, how can the government justify not giving every single penny of that windfall back to Canadians at this time?”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the things I appreciate about my colleague's speeches is that she always brings things back down to basics in a way that is very relatable. Certainly, the things she spoke about are very relatable to my own riding. The government opposite keeps trying to look to external factors. I wonder if the hon. member would speak to the difference between the impact these higher prices have on the prices that consumers pay compared to the revenues of the government and tie that back to what we are talking about today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am from British Columbia, where homeowners are anxious and builders are hesitating to invest. People are wondering if they are going to be able to renew their mortgages. They are asking about the value of their homes. Liberals and New Democrats told their lawyers not to defend our fee simple property rights. They unleashed uncertainty and chaos when we are already struggling with high costs and economic volatility. What communities want to know is will this Prime Minister end the secrecy and instruct his lawyers to protect the supremacy of private property rights or will Canadians have to keep wondering if their homes are truly theirs.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the west coast we do not just live near the ocean. We live on it. Time on the water is how we connect with friends, clear our heads and put food on the table. It is practically therapy, and we might even catch dinner, but now the Liberals are putting 9,100 jobs and a $1.76-billion industry at risk with proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy. Will this east coast minister show respect for our west coast way of life by committing right now to maintaining priority for public fisheries and certainty of public access to salmon to feed our families?”
“Mr. Speaker, 153,000 student visa cases were flagged for fraud, with less than 3% probed, and 92% of fraudsters were waved through for shots at work permits, residency and asylum. The Auditor General has exposed an immigration system so broken it cannot enforce its own rules. However, instead of fixing it, the Liberals are going to issue even more permits. Even Liberals say the immigration minister has to go. It is well past time to clean house. Why is the Prime Minister still keeping not one, not two, but three failed immigration ministers in his cabinet?”
“On behalf of Iranians in my community, I am calling on the Liberals to table a plan within one week to enforce deportations, crack down on regime financing, coordinate sanctions, get their act together on terrorism threat levels and gaps in national security laws, establish the foreign influence registry and stop approving refugee claims without in-person interviews. We need no more talk. It is time to act.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have always been conflicts abroad. The government's job is to make sure they stay there, because when they do not, Canadians pay the price. We fear a missing Iranian man may have been murdered by Tehran. Three more synagogues were shot at this week and another was vandalized. Meanwhile, IRGC agents continue to live in Canada, hanging out in cafes and going to the gym. Liberals make excuses as to why they cannot deport these terrorists: They can claim asylum; there are no flights; or their privacy must be protected. It is time to protect Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are opposed to Bill C-9 . They are concerned that this broad and overreaching piece of legislation would restrict freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They call upon the government to not restrict debate on it and to withdraw the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberals are allowing foreign conflicts to spill onto our streets, and Canadians are paying the price. An Iranian activist is missing, and it looks more and more like Tehran is involved. Meanwhile, hundreds of IRGC agents live in Canada, hanging out in cafés and going to the gym, yet Canadian officials say they cannot deport these terrorists because they can claim asylum, there are no flights to Iran, and their privacy must be protected. Thoughts and prayers are not going to cut it. Why is the immigration minister still failing to protect Canadians, and why does she still have her job?”
“Madam Speaker, within an hour of the Liberal-Bloc amendment to remove the defence of religious freedoms associated with the Criminal Code provisions in section 319, I received a text from a constituent saying how delighted that person was that these changes had passed so that a whole bunch of people could now be thrown in jail. I made this comment at committee. I do not for one second think that enforcement is going to change as a result of this bill being passed. I do think there will be a whole bunch of words thrown around, a whole bunch of allegations made, and it is going to take us years to sort out the legal mess that results from people's opinions about the consequences of changing these provisions in the code.”
“Madam Speaker, the position that law enforcement officers and criminal lawyers have taken is that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code are sufficient to deal with that situation. The government has not put forward any argument to suggest that the changes that would be made by this bill would result in that arrest. In fact, I would be willing to go so far as to predict right now that the day after Bill C-9 is passed, no one would be arrested who could not be arrested today.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member listened to my speech. I have just engaged in detail with the views of the government. I am not saying the government does not have the right to pass any legislation it can get through the House. What I am saying is that it ought to think twice about what it has heard from Canadians about the legislation. I am suggesting that the government ought to consider that it is limiting debate on a conversation that is not finished.”
“Those provisions should be applied consistently and effectively. If real gaps exist, Parliament can address them, but any changes must be carefully drafted and respectful of the charter rights that define our country. What we should not do is expand vague criminal provisions, remove long-standing safeguards for religious expression and then rush the legislation through Parliament by shutting down debate. That approach does not strengthen public confidence in the law. It weakens it, for those who feel threatened. A free society should never push its citizens toward the greengrocer's window where the safest choice is to display the approved message and keep one's real beliefs to oneself, and Parliament should never pass a law that risks creating that pressure in the first place.”
“When government seeks to expand the power of the state to regulate expression while restricting debate about those powers, Parliament should pause, because the danger is not only that the law might punish the wrong people. The deeper danger is that it may change how people speak to each other in the first place. Canada can and must confront hatred, but criminal law must be precise, restrained and grounded in constitutional principles. I return to the very arguments I stood to make in the House in September, in the first act of the discussion on the bill. If we are serious about addressing hatred, I remain convinced and reiterate that the first step is to work with the provinces and municipalities to enforce the laws we already have. The Criminal Code already prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred and the incitement of violence.”
“The government began hearing from Canadians who did not want the sign in the window. Canadians from across the political and religious spectrum were alarmed at the direction the bill has taken. One might have expected the government to reflect and reconsider, but instead it decided to shut down debate on its own bill, just a few minutes ago, which brings us to the third act. We are now debating Bill C-9 under time constraints because the government is determined to pass it quickly, even if that means passing it in a way that restricts our ability to continue to have dialogue about these topics in society. The irony is difficult to miss.”
“The state must not edit the Bible. Our courts have recognized that balance. In the Keegstra decision, the Supreme Court upheld Canada's hate propaganda laws in part because of the safeguards Parliament had included, including the protection for good-faith religious expression that the House now seeks to remove. Parliament has revisited these provisions several times over the decades, as new groups were added to the Criminal Code. Each time, members across party lines concluded that protecting vulnerable communities and protecting freedom of religion must go hand in hand. Removing that safeguard continues to risk upsetting a constitutional balance that has been carefully managed for decades. Then, during the parliamentary break, something interesting happened.”
“It also exists so that dialogue can happen that might cause people to change those views. When the Liberal-Bloc amendment passed, it immediately revealed the danger that many of us had warned about. Within hours, people online were celebrating the change and claiming that individuals could now be prosecuted for expressing traditional religious views. That is not what the law actually says, but the reaction illustrates the chilling effect that the amendment creates. It encourages the belief that the Criminal Code can now be used to silence views that people dislike. (1150) Canada's legal tradition has long recognized the importance of state neutrality in matters of faith. Parliament included the religious defence in the hate propaganda provisions because it understood that criminal law must not be used to police religious doctrine.”