Garnett Genuis
Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“It is getting increasingly harder for young people to find their first job, and for young families to afford their first home and be able to afford to take those critical steps forward in life.”
“I look forward to talking to people and listening to them over the summer. I would encourage colleagues from all parts of the country to also listen to, respect and try to understand the concerns Albertans have.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. Indeed, I would welcome him, and all members of this House from all parties, to come to Alberta this summer. Let me know. I would be happy to host. Members could spend some time talking to people in our province to understand some of their concerns.”
“This plan includes vital reforms to parental leave to make it easier for parents who are trying to start a family, maintain a connection to work and earn an income at the same time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes for the summer to all colleagues from all sides. We have fought hard for our constituents, for our convictions and to advance the common good of this country.”
“We have always sought to be productive and constructive by putting forward these good ideas and asking the government to adopt them. Therefore, as we face these ongoing challenges, an affordability crisis and a youth unemployment crisis, will the government take a serious look at what we have put forward, including the Conservative youth…”
The complete record
Every one of 885 lines we hold for Garnett Genuis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 18.
“He helped organize events within the Chinese community with me, calling the policy discriminatory. He pointed out that the Chinese community is particularly disadvantaged by it because the traditional Chinese medicine programs that many rely on are not offered at public institutions. I hope the member for Markham—Unionville will stand by the activism he did. I want to thank him for working with me at that time, and I want to encourage him to stand by what he did and what he said at the time, and to vote for the motion. Finally, I want to highlight the fact that Conservatives proposed policy to actually go in the opposite direction. That is, we proposed policy that student grants should magnify the needs of the labour market, that we should offer relatively more generous grants to students studying for in-demand careers.”
“The only explanation I can think of for the actions of the government is that it comes out of an elitist ivory tower preferencing of certain kinds of professions over others: profession prejudice. As we have tried to challenge this issue, we put forward a motion that actually received unanimous support at the human resources committee to ask the government to reconsider this policy. This was a big step, and I congratulate the Liberal members of the human resources committee for joining with Conservatives and the Bloc to unanimously pass the motion asking the government to reconsider this bad policy. I hope they will stand by the votes they made at committee and vote for the concurrence motion. I also want to recognize that before he crossed the floor, the member for Markham—Unionville was a big part of the effort to challenge this policy.”
“We have really tried to understand why the government is doing this. Why is it cutting off students at vocational institutions from getting student grants? We have not received any clear or credible explanation, except that the minister said at one time that they think public dollars should follow public institutions. I am sorry, but the government is not planning to offer these kinds of programs at public institutions. If there is not going to be a worsening of existing shortages in the skilled trades for certain health care professions and in various other areas, then those grants need to remain in place, and we need to further valorize and affirm the value of these careers.”
“For the government to say to these students, who are trying to get the qualifications to fill in-demand careers, that they are no longer eligible for student grants is completely unfair to them. It is unfair to discriminate in this way. It also has the effect of steering young people toward career paths that do not actually align with the needs of the labour market. The message to young people is that if they study very practical vocational skills, no grants will be available to them, but that if they study a general undergraduate degree, grants are available to them. This message creates an incentive structure that pushes young people who are making these decisions at the margin to consider a career that leads them to access student grants, yes, but may not or does not actually align with the needs of the labour market.”
“The government might not like that, but the way the system works is that private vocational institutions are offering all kinds of skills training that is simply not available in the public system. In some cases, there are programs available in both public institutions and private institutions, but there is not sufficient capacity in the public institutions to address the need, so the difference is made up in private institutions. An example we heard about at committee is dental hygienists. There is a real demand for dental hygienists in this country. It is a good career, an in-demand career and a career that we need to be training Canadian young people for. Some students study at public institutions, but most who take the exam and who go on to pursue this career are coming out of the path of private institutions.”
“I think the important thing to understand is that this debate is not about whether people like the model of private, for-profit; private, not-for-profit; or public institutions at the post-secondary level. It just happens that within our system, there are certain kinds of careers for which the training is available at a certain kind of institution. If someone wants to study philosophy, as I did, they are are not going to find that at a private, for-profit institution. Likely they are going to find it at a university. However, if someone is going to study traditional Chinese medicine or study massage, they are likely not going to find those qualifications available at a university. They are going to have to choose to study at a vocational institution. (1005) That is how our system is structured.”
“This policy was on page 217 of the last federal budget. The policy says that students studying at private, for-profit institutions would no longer be eligible for student grants. The policy going forward is to completely cut these students off from student grants, to say that if they do any studies at a university, no matter how job-relevant they are or are not, they can get a student grant, but if someone studies at a vocational institution, they will not have access to student grants. Vocational institutions in this country are generally organized as private, for-profit institutions. It is a distinction that is not based on the labour market relevance of the qualifications. It is a distinction that is based solely on the ideological filter that the government brings, which I think is rooted in professional prejudice.”
“Conservatives have been challenging this idea of profession prejudice, highlighting the fact that all work has dignity, that the dignity of the work comes from the human dignity of the person who is doing that work, and encouraging young people to look past the elite-driven profession prejudice that sometimes gets in the way of people choosing careers that they would actually like and that actually fit with the needs of the place they are in and of the country as a whole. As we have been making this case, we have been deeply disappointed to see in the last Liberal budget a policy that actually makes matters worse, a policy that I think reflects profession prejudice on the part of the government and that will widen the gap between the jobs that require Canadian young people and the training people are actually receiving.”
“Meanwhile, many young people remain unemployed, so we need policies that zero in on this need to fix training, to train young people for the jobs that exist. One of the problems in this regard has been what we have been calling profession prejudice, the idea that there are certain good jobs in this country, jobs that are in demand and that pay well and provide good opportunities, that are nonetheless scorned by certain elites for kind of prejudicial reasons. There are certain careers that, sadly, for too long, people in elite positions of power have for whatever reason considered less important or less valuable. Paradoxically, some of these are careers where a person can earn much more than in the kinds of careers that are more highly esteemed by elites.”
“Conservatives put forward a plan in the fall that has a number of key points in it: unleashing the economy; addressing the regulatory and taxation barriers that make it harder to start and grow a business in this country; fixing immigration, addressing the significant problems in the immigration system that have grown up under this government; fixing training; and building homes where the jobs are. Today we are putting forward a motion that focuses specifically on the issue of training, because at a time when there is very high youth unemployment, there are also critical shortages in certain occupations. We have not attended enough in the last 10 years to the need to train Canadian young people for the jobs that exist in this country. Businesses struggle to find people who can fill certain skill gaps.”
“Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Wednesday, March 11, be concurred in. I will be sharing my time. We in the opposition have been persistently fighting for the government and for Parliament to confront the metastasizing youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment has continued to grow in this country, and many young people are losing hope that they will be able to get a job that allows them to afford a home and to provide for themselves and their family. We have been working hard to present constructive proposals that would give young people jobs, homes and hope. How do we address the youth unemployment crisis?”
“Mr. Speaker, we released a detailed jobs plan in the fall. The Liberals' approach is clearly failing. Over 100,000 jobs have been lost. They talk about major projects, but they have not approved a single major project. Canadians at home are experiencing the catastrophic impact of Liberal policies. The Liberals promised a trade win. They have not delivered it. The industrial carbon tax remains in place. Objectively, we are shedding jobs at rates not seen in a generation. Will the Liberals stop patting themselves on the back and actually recognize the challenges Canadians are facing?”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope it was worth it. Under the Liberal Prime Minister , Canada is losing jobs at speeds not seen in a generation. Over 100,000 full-time jobs were lost in one month alone, and close to 50,000 youth jobs were lost. In the G7, we have the only shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment, the highest household debt and the highest food inflation. The Liberal rhetoric simply does not match the reality. Why can the Liberals not recognize the problems that their policies are causing and adopt the Conservatives' jobs plan?”
“When it comes to the budget, the Liberals' budget cut off vocational colleges from student grants completely. Why in the world are they continuing to attack training and undermine job growth in this country?”
“Mr. Speaker, as a response to the question that was asked, that was breathtakingly absurd. Is the government not aware of the job numbers? We had a four-minute response that pretends to ignore the existence of the massive drop in full-time employment. Over 100,000 full-time jobs were lost in the last month alone, yet the parliamentary secretary wants us to believe that we are about to have never had it so good and that we are poised to do all these things, which I would very much like to see happen, but the government has not approved a single major project. It continues to support job-killing measures across the board. There are some things we cannot control, but there are some things that we can. Blaming a war in the Middle East that started after these job numbers were recorded is clearly absurd.”
“We proposed these constructive solutions, and the Liberals have failed to adopt them. In fact, in many ways, they are moving in the opposite direction. Given the Liberals' catastrophic failures on this file, why will they not adopt the constructive ideas we have put forward?”
“He said to compare our performance to that of the U.S. Well, okay, their unemployment rate is 4.4%, and our unemployment rate is more than two full percentage points higher, so we have substantially higher unemployment in Canada. The critical point to make about our engagement on this issue of jobs is that last fall, Conservatives put forward our Conservative youth jobs plan, with specific policies to unleash our economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are. It emphasized the need for a stronger economy, how failures of immigration have exacerbated competition for entry-level jobs, how there are mismatches in our training system that need to be remedied, and how we need to support labour mobility to help people take opportunities in areas of lower unemployment.”
“We heard a myriad of excuses from across the way for these terrible job numbers. We heard the minister for AI say that it was because of the war in Iran. Maybe he got that answer from AI, but the fact of the matter is that these job numbers come from a period that was before the war in Iran even started. Putting aside the absurdity of that speculation, it is chronologically impossible. We had another minister say that this is all because of the trade war, yet we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Prime Minister promised a deal by last summer. He has not delivered on that. Moreover, Canada has a more acute unemployment crisis than many other countries, and it is particularly acute for young people. We had different excuses from different ministers. The Prime Minister actually said that these numbers were not so bad.”
“Some of the news coverage of these terrible job numbers was to say what a surprise it was, apparently, that we lost over 100,000 full-time jobs in a month. I can tell members that I was not surprised, because in the year I have been in this role as the shadow minister for employment for our caucus, I have been speaking with young people, employers, training institutions and other organizations. I can say that there is deep, abiding concern about the employment situation and about the policies of government that relate to it. There may have been surprise in some quarters about the fact that we lost over 100,000 full-time jobs last month, but this was not a surprise to me or, I think, to many people who have been talking to Canadians and hearing about these issues closely.”
“Mr. Speaker, the latest job numbers show that jobs are, figuratively, falling off a cliff, with 108,000 full-time jobs lost in one month and 47,000, almost 50,000, youth jobs lost in the same period. Under this Prime Minister , we are losing jobs at speeds not seen in a generation, and that is quite literally true. Outside of the COVID period, the last time we had a single drop in jobs in one month comparable to this was way back during the great recession. We are now a year into this Prime Minister 's tenure in office and have had well over 10 years of Liberal government. We continually hear these promises about how good things are about to get, yet job numbers are falling off a cliff.”
“Mr. Speaker, there may have been a problem with the translation when he was reading the previous quote, so I wonder if he could read it again to make sure that all members heard it in both official languages.”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives share our condolences as well. On the issue of jobs, 108,000 full-time jobs and almost 50,000 youth jobs were lost in one month alone. The Liberal Prime Minister is responsible for generational deficits and generational job losses. Development is blocked, and not a single major project is approved. This fall, I announced the Conservative jobs plan: unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. After a year of failure, why will the Liberals not simply adopt the plan that we have already put forward?”
“Mr. Speaker, 108,000 full-time jobs were lost in the last month alone. We are losing jobs at speeds not seen in a generation. We have the only shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment, the highest household debt and the highest food inflation in the G7. The Minister of AI blamed job numbers on the war in Iran. The Prime Minister says that they are not so bad. People have had enough Liberal excuses. They want more Canadian jobs. Will the Liberals finally get out of the way so Canadians can get back to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is such a nonsense question that is objectively false. The member just said the religious defence has been protected. It has not been protected. This circular “for greater certainty” clause that says that something is not a hate crime if it is not a hate crime means nothing. Moreover, the fact that it does not reassure me is not the point. It has not reassured any individual or group who had concerns initially. The Rabbinical Council of Toronto is not reassured. The 350 Muslim organizations are not reassured. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is not reassured. There is not a single organization that has said everything is fine now as a result of this nonsense “for greater certainty” clause. The Liberals should actually listen to faith communities if that is what they care about.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always like questions from my Conservative colleagues. I do want to point out the general absence of Liberals from this conversation. I invite them to ask me questions to offer some explanation for why they introduced this provision to remove the religious defence. They have been keen to tell us what it would not do, but they have not offered any explanation of why they chose to propose the removal of this point. To my colleague's point, I am reluctant to be too definitive in ascribing motives to other people. I suspect there are many people with good intentions, some with less good intentions, but looking at the reality over the last 10 years, we can see a big increase in hate crimes. I think the government should look in the mirror a little and ask what it could do differently to bring Canadians together.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear that the issue is not whether or not a person can foment hate. I do not think there are any religious communities in this country that want to foment hate. The issue is who gets to decide what is and is not acceptable speech, because I do not trust the minister of heritage to decide what clergy in my church can and cannot say. I believe these communities should be free to have their own conversations and their own debates. By all means, people should debate religious ideas. They should be free to criticize and disagree with religious ideas, as religious people sometimes do among ourselves, but the government should not be telling imams, rabbis and pastors what they can and cannot believe in the context of reading and sharing religious texts.”
“The government is so out of touch with the realities of these communities and with the problems it claims to solve, and the members have been so dishonest in today's debate, but we stand with all faith communities across this country in opposing this terrible bill.”
“Maybe if the Liberals are concerned about hate crimes, one natural step would be to be clear and precise in condemning acts of violence against faith communities. Maybe the government needs to reflect on how it has not effectively engaged with faith communities and listened to their proposed solutions, because when it comes forward with a bill that it says is going to address hate crimes against religious communities and every single religious community is against it, maybe we have a problem. Maybe it should listen to and engage with faith leaders when it is proposing legislation that is supposed to address hate crimes against faith communities.”
“We are better off not violating charter rights than violating them and then forcing individuals to go through this extensive process. Finally, members of the government have, quite rightly, pointed out that there has been a massive spike in hate crimes in this country. In the last 10 years, while Liberals have been in power, there has been a significant increase in hate crimes, in particular targeting faith communities. Let us talk about the causes of that. One possible cause might be that the principal secretary of the previous Liberal prime minister, Gerald Butts, tweeted, at a time when churches were being spray-painted and burned, that these actions were “understandable”. In fact, the government at no point condemned these attacks on churches, and still has not.”
“The Toronto rabbinical council, various Christian organizations, and a broad range of faith leaders have highlighted their ongoing concerns, and I trust them. I listen to them to speak on behalf of their communities. Liberals have said not to worry, because religious freedom is protected in the charter. We know that just because something is protected in the charter, that does not mean the government cannot move against it. It simply means there is a remedy in case the government does. Yes, in a case where the government violates someone's charter rights, that individual can raise the money required, take the issue through the various levels of court and maybe, hopefully, get a remedy at the end of that long process. In the meantime, they are constrained. There is a chilling effect, and they must go through this extensive process.”
“The committee should be able to hear from witnesses on the removal of the religious defence, and it is not being allowed to. Liberals have falsely claimed today that they have made changes and compromises to accommodate the concerns of religious communities. They have suggested that it is just Conservatives who have been recalcitrant in our opposition. The facts objectively show that all of the religious organizations and individuals who had concerns when the removal of the religious defence was initially proposed continue to have those concerns, in spite of the false claim that the government has somehow fixed the problem or clarified the language. Over 350 Muslim organizations signed the joint letter.”
“In the process, the Liberals have said that we should shut down debate because we have discussed this enough. They think we have discussed this enough. The religious exemption was not even studied at committee. No witnesses were called on the religious exemption at committee at all. Some members of the House have said, “Well, yes, but informally, members brought it up in discussion at other points in the committee.” That is true, but there were no witnesses who were called, invited to testify or heard from on the issue of the religious exemption. It was merely something that the Bloc member brought up from time to time. This is something that has had no study at committee. To suggest that enough debate has occurred on the religious defence, when it has not even been studied at committee, is truly outrageous.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-9 , in particular Liberal efforts to shut down debate on Bill C-9, to prevent any further debate at committee, in particular to shut down consideration of a Liberal-Bloc proposal to remove the religious defence. If successfully passed, this bill would allow the prosecution of individuals under so-called hate speech if they read religious texts in what the government deems to be the wrong way and the wrong situation. Those provisions, combined with the words of the heritage minister , who has said that reading from certain books of the Bible should be considered hate speech, have caused great alarm and the unanimous opposition, or close to unanimous opposition, of faith leaders across this country.”
“I look forward to supporting it and supporting the people in my riding and across the country who rely on natural health products to maintain and manage their health.”
“Of all the problems we face in this country, it is hard to understand why it has been a priority for the Liberals to make life more difficult for people who are trying to take vitamins or trying to access acupuncture but are worried they would not be able to as a result of these changes to student grants. I would ask the government why, with all the problems in this country and all the problems in the world, it chose this attack on responsible, law-abiding citizens who simply are trying to exercise choice and trying to be healthy. That is a question that maybe we will hear an answer from the government on at some point. I look forward to hearing from my colleague, the sponsor of this bill. It is a great bill.”
“In a free multicultural country, we want Canadians to have choice and flexibility and to be able to access the wisdom and experience of other cultures and other traditions. I think there is value in people having the choice and the flexibility to do that without the government proceeding with multiple attacks against these communities, which are always, it seems, buried in budget bills. I commend my colleague for undoing or seeking to undo the damage the Liberals have done in terms of access to natural health products. This bill, Bill C-224 , is a great bill that is trying to undo that damage. We will continue this work as we see more persistent attacks from the Liberals on this community.”
“The government is proposing to cut off student grants to students attending private for-profit institutions, which is where the vast majority of students in Canada studying to become traditional Chinese medicine practitioners go. We have a situation where the government is making changes, buried in a budget bill, that attack access to natural health products. Then we have a case where, again buried in a budget bill, the government is attacking access to training for those who are practising traditional Chinese medicine. This makes it very difficult for people in the Chinese community but also for people outside the Chinese community who benefit from or rely on traditional Chinese medicine to access these kinds of services.”
“We do not need an overly paternalistic government telling people that they must have the same regulation for vitamins and minerals as is applied to pharmaceutical products. (1905) I am strongly in support of this bill. It aligns with choice. It recognizes the realities of the benefits of these products, benefits that many Canadians have seen and understand. Briefly, I want to comment on a related issue, which is access to training for allied health professionals. In the course of my work as the shadow minister for employment, I have been speaking a lot with people in the field of traditional Chinese medicine who are very concerned about a change that was snuck into this year's budget bill.”
“Many Canadians, recognizing the importance of having the vitamins and minerals that we are supposed to have, and recognizing the risks of deficiencies, choose to supplement their diet with theses kinds of natural health products. Applying the levels of regulation that are associated with pharmaceutical interventions just does not make sense. It clearly is a miscategorization, an application of the wrong kind of regulation, and I think this is widely understood and widely appreciated. The changes the government snuck into its omnibus budget bill did not make sense substantively and did not respect the choice of Canadians. Regardless of an individual's particular opinion about a natural health product, we have the means of accessing information about them, and individuals can and do make considered choices about this.”
“One example that gets cited often is vitamin D. We live in a cold country, if anyone had not noticed, which means that people spend relatively less time outside here, living in Canada, than they might have in other places and times, where our ancestors came from. This means that generally we have lower levels of vitamin D, which is a vitamin we can get through exposure to the sun. In fact, I think there was a lot of good data during the COVID period identifying that there were greater risks associated with COVID for people with vitamin D deficiency. I think this was well established and well documented, and I encouraged the government at the time to share and promote this information.”
“In many cases, when we are talking about natural health products, we are talking about vitamins and minerals, which people take to replace what may be deficiencies in their diets. There are certain nutrients, vitamins and minerals that we are designed as human beings to have as part of our diet, but for whatever reason, perhaps it is where we are, what we eat or aspects of what foods we have access to, some people have certain deficiencies in vitamins or minerals, which we seek to make up for through this kind of supplementation. However, in the case especially of vitamins and minerals, we are talking about the very natural effort to restore what had historically been part of our diet as humans, to ensure that we are taking in products that are naturally required for the normal, healthy functioning of the human person.”
“Following that, my colleague from the Red Deer area put forward legislation to reverse the changes. Now, in the new Parliament, there is a bill trying to restore the previous situation with respect to access to natural health products. That is now Bill C-224 . I commend my colleague for this important work to restore the long-standing, well-functioning, pre-existing system for access to and regulation of natural health products and to undo the sneaky Liberal changes that were contained in their massive omnibus budget legislation. At issue here is whether natural health products are subject to the same levels of regulation, administrative burden, etc. that are associated with pharmaceuticals.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the Liberals put forward Bill C-47 , a budget bill that had buried within it provisions that attacked access to natural health products and attacked the natural health product industry. This was not stand-alone legislation. There was no consultation with the people who were affected. It was simply an effort to sneak through legislative changes attacking natural health products, buried in a budget bill. Conservatives opposed that budget. We opposed the fiscal direction the government was taking, and as part of that, of course, we opposed the attack on natural health products. We tried to bring attention to this legislatively sneaky and substantively harmful action by the government of attacking Canadians' access to natural health products.”
“Religious people are concerned because they have read the text of the bill, unlike many members opposite, and they are worried about it.”
“They imposed a values test in association with the Canada summer jobs program. Also, the last report from the Liberal-dominated finance committee on budget consultations called for the removal of charitable status from houses of worship. The Liberal-dominated finance committee called for the stripping of charitable status from religious organizations. Now, members across the way are shocked that many religious people in this country are a little suspicious of the agenda of the Liberal Party of Canada. (1725) When all of these things have happened over the last 10 years, and when the Minister of Heritage gets up and says that people should be prosecuted for reading religious scripture, members across the way are surprised: How come people are suspicious? This is not a conspiracy.”
“It was not just a matter of insubstantial legislative housekeeping. They made a choice to remove this long-standing religious defence. They must have had a reason for doing it. Many faith communities are concerned, and we are concerned, that the reason they decided to do it is the same reason that was said out loud by the Minister of Heritage at committee, namely, their view that the reading of certain passages of scripture would or could or should be deemed hate speech. We are opposed to that. The member who just spoke said that some people are trying to create the impression that Liberals do not respect conscience or religious freedom. My goodness, how could anyone have come to that conclusion? Well, in the last 10 years, they shut down the Office of Religious Freedom.”
“If the Conservative Party could actually control the opinions of all religious organizations at once in this country, I think it is fair to say that we would have won a few more elections. Let us dispense with this nonsense and let us show more respect for faith communities in this country to actually listen to what they are saying. Liberals tell us, “Don't worry, because removing the religious defence doesn't really have any effect. Don't worry; it's not going to have the effect you say it has.” If that is true, then why are they doing it? We hear Liberals make false claims about what removing the religious defence would not do, but we never hear them say what it would actually do. Let us cut through this nonsense and say that if they supported an amendment to remove the religious defence, they must have had some reason for doing that.”
“As a result of that, there has been profound concern expressed by members of all faith communities in this country. Leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community, over 350 Muslim organizations that put out a letter today, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Christian organizations across the denominational spectrum have all expressed profound concerns. The Liberals are trying to claim that all of these different faith groups have been captured by the Conservative Party information machine. What nonsense. These religious organizations can speak for themselves. They can lead based on the concerns they have and the concerns of their own community.”
“I think what has alarmed so many people is not just those provisions, but those provisions in combination with the words of the Minister of Heritage at committee. When he served as chair of the justice committee, he spoke explicitly about how reading certain passages of the Bible would necessarily be seen as hateful and could not be interpreted as being in good faith. Those were the words of the then chair of the justice committee, who was promptly promoted by the Prime Minister to, imagine that, being our Minister of Heritage. There is, as a result of these provisions and the comments of that minister, profound concern that what the Minister of Heritage talked about would actually come to pass, namely that people would be prosecuted for hate speech simply for reading scripture.”
“Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate today on Bill C-9 , I have to call out the profound dishonesty of so much of the argumentation that we have heard from the government. We see many of their speeches relying on personal attacks, ignoring the substance of the legislation, not engaging with what is actually in the bill, and trying to make it all about claims about their motivations and false imputations of motives on the other side. Let us talk about the actual substance of the provisions. Bill C-9 includes a variety of provisions, but most controversially, it includes the removal of the religious defence, which means that a person could be prosecuted for a good-faith reading of a religious text or making a religious argument.”