Bill C-9 Is Now in the Senate. Here Is Everything Else That Happened This Week
And also, the conservative auto pact proposal, NATO 2% claim debunked, conservative justice bills voted on, legislation to keep drug sites away from children, plus visit from residents.
Many residents and faith leaders across Calgary Shepard have reached out to my office over the past several months about Bill C-9, the federal government’s so-called Combatting Hate Act. On Wednesday, March 25th, the bill passed the final stage of debate called third reading and has been sent to the Senate. Given how many of you have followed this closely, I want to give you a clear account of what happened, what Conservatives did to oppose it while seeking amendments, and why so many Canadians of different religions and faiths remain deeply troubled.
Bill C-9 amends the Criminal Code’s hate speech provisions. No one disagrees with the goal of combatting hatred. The problem is what was quietly added through a deal between the federal government and the Bloc Québécois: the removal of a longstanding Criminal Code protection that shielded Canadians who, in good faith, expressed opinions based on a religious text or on a religious subject. Those protections, found in sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code, had been recognized by the Supreme Court as essential to keeping Canada’s hate speech laws constitutional. Removing them means that a person of faith who quotes or explains their sacred text could now be exposed to criminal prosecution, depending on how a police officer, a crown prosecutor and a judge could interpret intent and thoughts.
Conservatives opposed the bill at every stage. MP Andrew Lawton, MP Roman Baber, and MP Larry Brock put forward twenty amendments at the justice committee to restore the religious defence and strengthen the definition of hatred. Nearly all were defeated on straight government-versus-opposition votes. One amendment did pass unanimously. Roman Baber successfully restored the Supreme Court of Canada’s own definition of hatred, requiring it to be of an “intense and extreme nature.” That was the one win.
Public pressure from Canadians and Conservative advocacy forced the government to pause the bill in January while Parliament dealt with bail reform first. It was a temporary victory. In March, the government and the Bloc voted to shut down all remaining justice committee debate and force the bill through. The final votes tell the story: the bill passed with Liberals and the Bloc in favour, and Conservatives, the NDP, and the Greens opposed.
Third Reading vote: Yeas 186 (Liberals 164, Bloc 22). Nays 137 (CPC 131, NDP 5, Green 1).
Before the final vote, Conservatives brought a motion to send the bill back to committee specifically to restore the religious defence. It was defeated. MP Lawton held town halls across Canada drawing thousands of Canadians, and Conservatives filed 21 petitions in Parliament. You can watch MP Lawton’s full speech at third reading here.
The opposition to this bill was not partisan. Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, Sikh, and Christian communities across Canada all raised the same concern: removing the good-faith religious defence would expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for sincerely held beliefs. The police and courts would be left to interpret intent and thoughts when deciding whom to arrest and against whom to lay charges.
The National Council of Canadian Muslims led an open letter signed by more than 350 organizations telling the Prime Minister directly that the final text did not match what had been promised. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the government to keep the religious defence in the Criminal Code. A Coalition for Charter Rights and Freedoms brought a letter signed by 56 organizations spanning Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim, and Christian groups to the justice committee in unified opposition. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association condemned the bill and the process, warning it would likely be used against the very communities it claims to protect. Over 300 stakeholder organizations across Canada representing a majority of Canadians opposed C-9, the process by which it was amended and how it was rammed through the House of Commons where MPs do their work.
The bill now goes to the Senate. I encourage residents with concerns to reach out to Alberta Senators directly, you can find their contact information here. The Senate is mandated to conduct similar reviews as MPs did and there is a possibility that the good faith protection could once again be restored.
The Conservative opposition leader delivered a detailed speech in Parliament this week on the state of Canada’s auto industry and what it will take to save auto worker jobs. The central argument was straightforward: the United States is not just our biggest customer for vehicles; it is essentially our only customer. Canada sells roughly 95 times more automobiles to the American market than to the rest of the world combined. That number does not leave a lot of room for talk about finding alternative markets.
Auto production in Canada has been cut nearly in half since 2015. The layoffs have been real: workers at GM in Oshawa, Stellantis in Brampton, GM CAMI in Ingersoll, and Paccar in Sainte-Thérèse have all felt it. The ongoing tariff dispute has cost an estimated $2 billion in tariffs on Canadian autos alone. Those are the jobs and livelihoods at stake.
A point worth noting: even Canada’s Japanese automakers depend on U.S. market access. Toyota and Honda account for roughly three-quarters of vehicles produced in Canada. The Japanese ambassador has said plainly that the continued investment here depends on unfettered access to the American market. If a tariff on autos and parts remains as the federal government now concedes then a permanent tariff wall with the United States does not just threaten the Detroit automakers, it threatens the whole sector and all the jobs that come with it. Therefore, to accept the tariffs as inevitable means a managed decline of the auto sector and eventually all of the jobs with it. That’s accepting defeat when Mexico is negotiating hard to retain access, find workarounds and is further ahead on USMCA renegotiations then Canada according to media reports.
Conservatives put forward a parliamentary motion calling on the government to support a tariff-free auto pact modelled on the original 1965 Canada-U.S. arrangement. It would remove GST on all Canadian-made vehicles, implement a production-for-import rule dollar for dollar, maintain the existing 75% North American content rules, and ban vehicle software connected to China or Russia. Parliament voted on March 24th. It was defeated 194 to 136, with Conservative MPs voted in favour and the Liberal, Bloc, and NDP MPs voted against it. With the auto sector shedding jobs, exports down more than half, and U.S. tariffs still in place, three parties voted down a plan supported by many union locals and by industry experts that would restore tariff-free access to our largest market. Residents can draw their own conclusions.
The Prime Minister announced this week that Canada has reached the NATO 2% defence spending target. Media have quickly lauded this as an achievement, but a closer look at the numbers shows its all in how and what is added to reach that 2%. A written question filed in Parliament, Q-359, forced the federal government to show its math. The response confirms that over $10 billion counted toward the 2% target in 2024-25 comes not from new military investment but from reclassified spending across other departments: $5.7 billion in Veterans Affairs pension payments to retired personnel, $1.3 billion in Coast Guard activities, $826 million in Shared Services IT support, and $442 million in Treasury Board employee benefits. None of that puts a new piece of equipment in a soldier’s hands or adds a single soldier, sailor or aviator to the Canadian Armed Forces. It is existing spending, repackaged and counted toward a NATO headline number.
What makes it worse is what happened on the other side of the ledger. Defence ministers let more than $10 billion in already-budgeted defence spending lapse last year, money Parliament had approved for the military that was simply never spent. The federal government is simultaneously inflating the NATO number with reclassified pension and infrastructure spending while failing to spend the actual defence dollars already on the books. That is not a plan to build a stronger military. It is a plan to manage a press release.
The capability gaps remain. Canada still has not recommitted itself to the F-35s despite 16 F-35As expected for delivery this year and a down payment on 14 more; it has not selected a submarine replacement for the Victoria class along with a training program for submariners; it has no air defence system chosen for a battlefield increasingly dominated by drones, and has not budgeted to replace worn-out tanks or artillery. Those decisions are the real measure of whether Canada is building a stronger military. This 2% announcement does not answer any of them.
MP Dan Mazier, the Conservative Shadow Minister for Health, introduced Bill C-272 in Parliament this week. The bill is straightforward: it would ban federally-approved supervised drug consumption sites from operating within 500 metres of schools, daycares, and playgrounds.
The need for the bill became clear when Mazier questioned the health minister at committee about how many approved sites are currently located near schools and daycares. The minister could not answer because her own department does not collect that information. The federal government has been approving these sites without tracking who is next door. That is not a minor oversight. It is a basic failure of due diligence. According to Health Canada’s own data, fentanyl is the most commonly used drug at federally-approved consumption sites, accounting for nearly half of all visits.
The consequences of that failure have been real. In 2023, a daycare in Ottawa’s Sandy Hill neighbourhood was forced to shut down after drug use around a nearby federally-approved site made the area unsafe for children. In May 2025, Ottawa’s Police Chief wrote directly to the health minister asking her to move supervised injection sites away from schools and daycares. She ignored the request, approved the site’s renewal, and refused at committee to rule out approving more sites next to children spaces.
The science is also shifting. A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Addiction examined what happened when an overdose prevention site in Red Deer, Alberta closed. It found no statistically significant increase in deaths or emergency department visits after the closure. What it did find was a meaningful increase in users connecting to addiction treatment, the kind of outcome a consumption site alone does not produce. Provincial governments have taken note, with several announcing closures of sites that appear to be enabling drug use rather than reducing it. Bill C-272 asks the federal government to do something narrower and less controversial: at minimum, stop approving sites next to spaces commonly used by children.
This week was busy for private members’ business in Parliament. Four Conservative bills came to a vote, each addressing a different dimension of public safety and justice. All four were defeated, with the government and other parties voting against each one. I voted in favour of all four laws. Here is a brief rundown.
Bill C-246 — Ending Sentence Reductions for Sexual Predators. Introduced by Rachael Thomas, MP for Lethbridge, this bill would have required courts to impose consecutive sentences, not concurrent, on individuals convicted of multiple sexual offences. Under the current system, a predator who commits several assaults can have those sentences run simultaneously, effectively receiving one penalty for multiple crimes. Bill C-246 would have ended that. Since 2015, sexual assaults are up nearly 75% and offences against children up 120%. The bill was defeated.
Bill C-220 — One Law for All. Introduced by Michelle Rempel Garner, Shadow Minister for Immigration, this bill would have amended the Criminal Code to prohibit judges from considering a convicted offender’s immigration status, or that of their family members, when issuing a sentence. The bill followed a Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to sentencing discounts for non-citizens. Several documented cases were cited: a permanent resident who received a conditional sentence after trying to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old; a drug smuggler who received half the sentence the judge said his crimes warranted, in part due to immigration status. The bill was defeated.
Bill C-243 — “Brian’s Law”: Parole Hearing Reform. Introduced by Kerry Diotte, MP for Edmonton Griesbach, this bill would have ended the current practice of allowing convicted murderers to apply for parole annually after their first hearing. Under the bill, subsequent applications would have been permitted only at five-year intervals. The intent was to reduce the trauma inflicted on victims’ families, who currently must endure the process year after year. The bill had the backing of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Toronto Police Association, the Calgary Police Association, and Teamsters Canada, among others. It was defeated.
Bill C- 242 — The Jail Not Bail Act. This bill would have repealed the government’s “principle of restraint” in bail decisions and replaced it with a directive that public safety be the primary consideration. It would have introduced reverse onus bail conditions for a defined list of serious offences, including firearms, sexual offences, home invasion, human trafficking, and robbery, and prevented anyone convicted of a major offence in the last decade from receiving bail on a new major charge while already on bail. Since 2015, violent crime is up nearly 55%, homicides up nearly 30%, sexual assaults up over 75%, and gun crime up 130%. The bill had support from police associations and victims’ rights groups. It was defeated.
This week I had the pleasure of touring the Siemens family from Calgary Shepard around Parliament. It is always one of the better parts of this job, walking residents through the building, sharing the history of the place, and seeing it through the eyes of people who do not spend every working day here. There is something grounding about it. Parliament belongs to Canadians, and moments like that are a good reminder of that fact.
If you are planning a trip to Ottawa, I would encourage you to reach out to my office. I am happy to arrange a tour when Parliament is sitting and my schedule allows. It is a chance to see the building up close, ask questions, and get a sense of how things actually work here beyond what makes the news. Residents from Calgary Shepard are always welcome.
You can contact my office at tom.kmiec@parl.gc.ca to arrange a visit.